th 7/louisiana avenue interchange deminim section 4(f ... · city of st. louis park, hennepin...

TH 7/ Louisiana Avenue Interchange Environmental Assessment &

DeMinimis Section 4(f) Evaluation

City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota

May 2011

brogers

Rectangle

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and

DE MINIMIS SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

Trunk Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project S.P. No. 163-010-038 and 2706-226

Federal Project Number Not Available At This Time

City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota Section 17, Township 117N, Range 21W

Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332 and Minn. Statute 1160 by the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and the

Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of St. Louis Park for

Reconstruction of the at-grade Trunk Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue intersection into a grade-separated interchange.

Contacts: FHWA City of St. Louis Park Mn/DOT Tim Anderson Mike Rardin April Crockett Project Engineer Director of Public Work Area Engineer 380 Jackson St. 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. 1500 W Co. Rd. B2 Galtier Plaza, Suite 500 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Roseville, MN 55113 Saint Paul, MN 55101 952.924.2552 651.234.7727 651.291.6114

Reconlnlended for Approval by:

3-~'- IIJ1~~.fl~ City or St. Loui.s Park, Director of Public Works Date

// 16 '" e . . /h I -- v?I ,-/ - {, -1/

hvDistrict Engineer Date

Mn/~T hief Envir ental Officer Date

~.

~ og-==-- K£/2<J11FHWA - Project Development Engineer Date

To request this document in an alternative format, call Bruce Lattu at 651-366-4718 or 1-800657-3774 (Greater Minnesota)/ 711 or 1-800627-3529 (Minnesota Relay). You may also send an

e-mail tobruce./[email protected] (Please request at least one week in advance).

S.P. #163-010-038 and 2706-226 Trunk Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project March 2011 Page i

mailto:tobruce./[email protected]

S.P. #163-010-038 and 2706-226 Trunk Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project May 2011 Page ii

Figure 1 – State/County Location Map

City of St. Louis Park Hennepin County, Minnesota

S.P. #163-010-038 and 2706-226 Trunk Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project May 2011 Page iii

Figure 2 – Project Study Area Map

Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Intersection St. Louis Park, Minnesota

S.P. #163-010-038 and 2706-226 Trunk Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project May 2011 Page iv

Figure 3 – USGS Project Study Area Map

S.P. #163-010-038 and 2706-226 Trunk Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project May 2011 Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. REPORT PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................. 1 II. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................................... 2

A. PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 2 B. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................. 2 C. NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................................................................. 2

1. Needs ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Additional Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 9

III. ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................................... 12 A. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................... 12 B. NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................................... 13 C. BUILD ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION ...................................................... 13 D. CONCEPT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION (PHASE I) .................... 14

1. Initial Concept Development ................................................................................................................ 14 2. Fatal Flaw Screening ............................................................................................................................ 16 3. Alternatives Considered, But Rejected ................................................................................................. 17

E. ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION (PHASE II) ................................ 21 1. Evaluation of Retained Project Alternatives (Phase II) ........................................................................ 22

Traffic Forecasts ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Traffic Operation .................................................................................................................................................... 23 Impact Assessment and Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................. 23 Review of Development/Redevelopment Opportunities ...................................................................................... 24 Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................................................................... 25 F. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................................. 25 G. BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 27

IV. PROJECT COST, FUNDING & SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................ 28 A. PROJECT COST AND FUNDING ............................................................................................................ 28 B. ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................... 28

V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................................................................... 29 A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET .............................................................................. 29

Project Title: ............................................................................................................................................................ 29 Proposer: .................................................................................................................................................................. 29 RGU: ........................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Reason for EAW Preparation: ............................................................................................................................... 29 Project Location: ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 Description: ............................................................................................................................................................. 30 Project Magnitude Data ......................................................................................................................................... 32 Permits and approvals required. ........................................................................................................................... 32 Land Use. ................................................................................................................................................................. 33 Cover Types. ............................................................................................................................................................ 38 Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. .......................................................................................... 38 Physical Impacts on Water Resources. ................................................................................................................. 40 Water Use. ............................................................................................................................................................... 44 Water-related land use management districts. ..................................................................................................... 45 Water Surface Use. ................................................................................................................................................. 46 Erosion and Sedimentation. ................................................................................................................................... 47 Water Quality – Surface Water Runoff. ............................................................................................................... 48 Water Quality – Wastewater. ................................................................................................................................ 50

S.P. #163-010-038 and 2706-226 Trunk Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project May 2011 Page vi

Geologic hazards and soil conditions. .................................................................................................................... 50 Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks. ............................................................................................... 52 Traffic. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Vehicle-Related Air Emissions. .............................................................................................................................. 59 Stationary Source Air Emissions. .......................................................................................................................... 67 Odors Noise and Dust. ............................................................................................................................................ 67 Nearby Resources. ................................................................................................................................................... 85 Visual Impacts. ........................................................................................................................................................ 86 Compatibility with Plans and Land Use Regulations. ......................................................................................... 86 Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services. .................................................................................................... 87 Cumulative Impacts. ............................................................................................................................................... 87 Other Potential Environmental Impacts. .............................................................................................................. 94 Summary of Issues. ................................................................................................................................................. 94 RGU CERTIFICATION. ....................................................................................................................................... 96 B. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ....................... 97

1. Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966 .................................................................................... 97 2. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 ................................................... 97 3. Right-of-Way and Relocation .............................................................................................................. 97 4. Social Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 98 5. Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicycles ........................................................................... 99 6. Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................................... 99 7. Section 404 Permit ............................................................................................................................. 101 8. Other Effects....................................................................................................................................... 101

VI. Public/Agency Involvement ................................................................................................................................... 102 A. PUBLIC AND AGENCY OUTREACH .................................................................................................. 102

1. Public Meetings .................................................................................................................................. 102 2. Business/Land Owner Meetings ......................................................................................................... 103 3. Project Management Team (PMT) ..................................................................................................... 103 4. Project Newsletters & Mailings ......................................................................................................... 103 5. Project Web Page ............................................................................................................................... 103 6. Summary of Early Coordination Comments ...................................................................................... 103

B. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARING .................................................................... 104 C. REPORT DISTRIBUTION ...................................................................................................................... 104 D. PROCESS BEYOND THE HEARING .................................................................................................... 104

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – State/County Location Map ....................................................................................................... ii Figure 2 - Project Study Area Map ............................................................................................................ iii Figure 3 – USGS Project Location Map .................................................................................................... iv Figure 4 – Metro District High Crash Cost Intersections and Highway Sections .......................................4 Figure 5 – Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................6 Figure 6 – Metro TSP – Mobility Deficiency Ranking: Existing ................................................................7 Figure 7 – TH 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange – Preliminary Layout ....................................................26 Figure 8 – Preferred Alternative – Potential Impacts ................................................................................31 Figure 9 – Noise Receptor and Barrier Locations .....................................................................................71

S.P. #163-010-038 and 2706-226 Trunk Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project May 2011 Page vii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Current and Forecasted Average Daily Traffic .......................................................................................... 5 Table 2 – Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Concept Alternative Evaluation Matrix .............................. 18 Table 3 – Alternative 11 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................ 21 Table 4 – Agency Approvals and Permits ............................................................................................................... 32 Table 5 - Potentially Contaminated Sites ................................................................................................................. 35 Table 6 – Wetland Characteristics And Impacts ...................................................................................................... 42 Table 7 – Existing Traffic Conditions Analysis – Synchro/SimTraffic Results ...................................................... 54 Table 8 – 2031 No Build Conditions Analysis – Synchro/SimTraffic Results ........................................................ 55 Table 9 – 2031 Preferred Alternative Conditions Analysis – VISSIM Results ....................................................... 55 Table 10 – Crash Summary for Study Area Intersections ........................................................................................ 57 Table 11 – Minnesota State Noise Standards ........................................................................................................... 69 Table 12 – FHWA NAC (Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level in Decibels (dBA)) ................................................... 70 Table 13 – Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................................................... 72 Table 14 – Vehicle Mix ........................................................................................................................................... 73 Table 15 – Existing and Forecast Daytime Noise Levels ........................................................................................ 75 Table 16 – Existing and Forecast Nighttime Noise Levels ...................................................................................... 76 Table 17 – Barrier Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: 20-foot Barriers .......................................................................... 79 Table 18 - Barrier Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: 15-foot Barriers ........................................................................... 80 Table 19 - Barrier Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: 10-foot Barriers ........................................................................... 81 Table 20 - Project Wide Barrier Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ................................................................................. 84 Table 21 – 2000 U.S. Census Data – Households and Population ........................................................................ 100

LIST OF APPENDICIES Appendix A Conceptual Alternatives Appendix B Mn/DOT and MNDNR Letters – Threatened & Endangered Species Review Appendix C Project Area Flood Insurance Rate Maps Appendix D Mn/DOT Cultural Resources Unit Review Letter Appendix E Louisiana Oaks Park - De Minimis Section 4(f) Evaluation

S.P. #163-010-038 and 2706-226 Trunk Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project May 2011 Page 1

I. REPORT PURPOSE This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides background information including:

• Need for the proposed project • Alternatives considered • Environmental impacts and mitigation • 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 document 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 Rules 4410.1300 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 City of St. Louis Park is the proposer and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this project. The City obtained federal funding in 2007 to improve the operation of the existing intersection. Since the City received the funding, they will take the lead, working in cooperation with the Mn/DOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Preparation of an EAW is considered voluntary since the project does not meet or exceed any thresholds under Minnesota Rules 4410.4300.

This document is made available for public review and comment in accordance with the requirements of 23 CFR 771.119 (d) and Minnesota Rules 4410.1500 through 4410.1600.


II. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED A. PROJECT BACKGROUND

The proposed project is located in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, an urbanized first-tier suburb in the western Twin Cities metropolitan area. Highway 7 is a principal arterial that connects a number of employment centers and commercial nodes to residential developments within the cities of St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, Hopkins, and Minneapolis. It serves an important role in connecting the western Twin Cities metropolitan area to jobs in downtown Minneapolis and along the corridor. In the project area, Highway 7 is a four-lane divided highway. Louisiana Avenue is also a four-lane roadway that intersects Highway 7; that is currently controlled with a traffic signal system.

In 2007, the City of St. Louis Park applied for and was awarded $7.63 million in Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding for the construction of a grade-separated interchange at the intersection of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. The City, in cooperation with Mn/DOT, initiated a scoping study to determine the preferred design configuration for the new interchange as well as the associated local roadway improvements needed in the study area.

The project area contains a mix of land uses including low- and high-density residential, commercial, corporate/office, manufacturing, and open space. Just east of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection, a new grade separated interchange has been constructed at the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue intersection. A future Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) station is planned along the east side of Louisiana Avenue, which will be located just south of the project area. St. Louis Park has several redevelopment plans along the transit corridor and surrounding the future station.

B. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The primary purpose of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project is to address deteriorating safety and operational conditions at the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue intersection. These deficient conditions are resulting in numerous crashes and causing high levels of congestion. In conjunction with the proposed project, there are also opportunities to improve pedestrian and bicycle movements across Highway 7 that are anticipated to increase with the construction and operation of a future LRT Station along Louisiana Avenue. In addition, the transportation improvements will help foster economic development in the area.

C. NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION As listed above, the need for the project is centered on the following:


• Improve Vehicle Safety

• Maintain Mobility

In addition, the following were identified as opportunities to consider in the development and evaluation of alternatives.

• Improve Pedestrian/Bicycle Movements

• Foster Economic Development

• Improve Response Time for Emergency Vehicles

1. Needs Improve Vehicle Safety

For the five-year period 2004-2008, the total number of crashes at the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection was 79 crashes, including 20 injury crashes. Other reported crashes in the project area included 21 crashes at the Louisiana/West Lake Street intersection, 25 crashes at the Louisiana Avenue/Walker Street intersection. Currently, Highway 7 has two right-in/right-out access points within close proximity of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection. The presence of these access points creates conflicts between slower turning/merging traffic and higher speed through traffic. The crash and severity rates at the existing signalized intersection is 0.93 and 1.20 crashes/MEV (million entering vehicles), respectively. This is higher than the metro area average crash and severity rates of 0.7 and 1.0 crashes/MEV, respectively, for similar intersections. The high number of turning movement conflicts, speed along Highway 7, and the signalized intersection control are all contributing elements to the crashes being more severe and injurious, resulting in higher crash cost expense. The intersection of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue has consistently ranked high on Mn/DOT’s Top 200 Highest Crash-Cost Intersections on Trunk Highways. Interim improvements to signal timing in 2005 appear to have helped reduce rear end crashes moving the ranking from 23rd in 2005, to 144th in 2007. Figure 4 depicts the Mn/DOT Metro District High Crash Cost Intersections and Highway Sections.

For additional information regarding the safety analysis that was performed for this project, the reader is referred to EAW Question 21 of this document.


Figure 4 – Metro District High Crash Cost Intersection and Highway Sections


With the future addition of the Southwest LRT line and station, traffic volumes along Louisiana Avenue at Highway 7 are expected to increase. The increased volumes may require longer amounts of green time on the traffic signal, which would further disrupt traffic flow along Highway 7, increasing the possibilities for collisions.

Maintain Mobility

Existing Traffic Volumes

Louisiana Avenue serves as a vital north-south corridor through the City, carrying 11,000 to 13,000 vehicles per day at this location (See Figure 5). In addition, Highway 7 carries approximately 35,000 vehicles per day through this intersection. The close configuration of Walker Street on the north and West Lake Street on the south to Highway 7 and the heavy traffic generated by businesses near the intersection add to existing congestion levels. Furthermore, the Mn/DOT Metro District 2008-2030 Transportation System Plan (TSP) qualitatively ranked this segment of Highway 7 as a “High Deficiency” for existing mobility (see Figure 6). The Mn/DOT Metro District 20-year Highway Investment Plan (2009-2028) provides a guide for future capital investments on the state trunk highway system. The existing conditions peak hour traffic operations show that the all intersection approaches experience over 75 seconds of delay per vehicle during the AM peak hour and the southbound approach experiences the longest delay with 107 seconds of delay during the AM peak. The PM peak hour experiences slightly longer delays with all approaches experiencing more the 81 seconds of delay per vehicle with the northbound approach experiencing the longest delay with 110 seconds of delay. These levels of delay adversely affect mobility for local and regional trips and are considered unacceptable by the travelling public and commercial shippers (trucks).

Table 1 – Current and Forecasted Average Daily Traffic

Location Existing ADT (2008/2009)

Forecast ADT (2031)

Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue 35,000 40,000

Louisiana Ave. North of Highway 7 11,500 13,700

Louisiana Ave. South of Highway 7 13,100 20,900


Figure 5 – Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes


Figure 6 – Metro TSP – Mobility Deficiency Ranking: Existing


Future Traffic Volumes

Long-term traffic demands are relevant to the purpose and need for any transportation improvement project. The forecast year appropriate for this project is 2031. Traffic forecasts for the study area were based largely on the use of the most recent Twin Cities Regional Model (TCRM) released by the Metropolitan Council. The components of the TCRM utilize the four step modeling process, which includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment. A sub-area model was developed for the study area using transportation analysis zone (TAZ) information that includes socio-economic data for specific areas within the study area.

The TCRM model also accounts for the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority proposed Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) corridor, which includes plans to extend a new transit line through the rapidly growing southwest metro area, including the City of St. Louis Park. The forecast results include the transition of some trips to the new LRT stations in the City.

A Synchro/SimTraffic model was built to determine the average delay per vehicle and the related level of service (LOS) at the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection and for each intersection approach. LOS is a measure of delay and operating conditions defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) using a grading scale ranging from A to F. LOS results are based on average delay (in seconds) per vehicle. At a LOS A (less than 10 seconds of delay) and LOS B (10-20 sec. delay) on a roadway indicate conditions when traffic demand is well below capacity and travel is rather unimpeded. At a LOS C (20-35 sec. delay), the average speed noticeably decreases and slower traffic and turning traffic quickly cause congestion. Through LOS D (35-55 sec. delay), traffic volumes approach a roadway’s functional capacity, stoppage and delays begin to occur, the average speed is substantially lower, and passing becomes more difficult. At LOS E (55-80 sec. delay), traffic demand exceeds capacity, drivers begin to choose other routes and times to travel, and any disturbance to the traffic flow, such as a turning vehicle, promptly drops this condition to a LOS F. At LOS F (greater than 80 sec. delay), traffic demand far exceeds capacity, heavy congestion is prevalent, long periods of stop and go conditions occur, and travel time is severely degraded.

The analysis of 2031 No-Build traffic volumes under the current intersection design yielded intersection LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour. Traffic signal timing was


optimized; however, the eastbound and westbound Highway 7 approaches still experienced over 100 seconds delay per vehicle during the AM peak hour, which results in an unacceptable LOS for affected drivers. The southbound Louisiana Avenue approach was at LOS F during the AM peak. During the PM peak hour, the westbound and eastbound approaches experienced over 70 seconds delay per vehicle. The eastbound and westbound approach operated at LOS E during the PM peak hour.

The existing operation of the intersection during peak periods is approaching capacity despite recent traffic signal timing improvements. The traffic volumes along Highway 7 require a substantial portion of the traffic signal green time resulting in the Louisiana Avenue approaches to Highway 7 experiencing delays that exceed acceptable levels. As traffic volumes increase at the intersection, the traffic signal and existing lanes will not provide sufficient capacity and the intersection operations will fail based on analysis of design year (or future) conditions.

For additional information regarding the traffic operations analysis that was performed for this project, the reader is referred to EAW Question 21 of this document.

2. Additional Considerations Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Movements

The Louisiana Avenue corridor serves as a link for non-motorized traffic (pedestrians/bicyclist) between employment nodes, low- and high-density residential developments, and community facilities (schools and parks) located on both the north and south sides of Highway 7. Pedestrian and bicycle movements within the corridor are currently difficult due to high traffic volumes and the distance to cross Highway 7. The existing conditions include a sidewalk and trail along Louisiana Avenue, the existing at-grade intersection, with the traffic control signal, includes painted cross walks, pedestrian push-buttons, and crossing indicator lights. While there is currently not an identified safety concern, the City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for improved pedestrian/bicycle access at this intersection. Furthermore, the future Southwest LRT line and station on Louisiana Avenue is likely to draw pedestrians/bicyclists from surrounding neighborhoods, which will increase the need for a safe crossing across Highway 7.


Foster Economic Growth

Investments in transportation related improvements result in several types of economic effects. Benefits include travel time savings, increased travel service benefits, increased competitiveness for area businesses, and construction related impacts, such as increased employment and income for the region.

The City of St. Louis Park has identified numerous opportunities for new development and/or redevelopment in and around the project area. The likelihood for these opportunities coming to fruition in part relies on the implementation of improvements to the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection. Any additional income brought into the corridor by an increase in resident employment will result in increased activity in existing area businesses. New and/or enhanced businesses will also generate additional tax revenue to the benefit of the City of St. Louis Park.

The magnitude of economic growth will be influenced by increased traffic demand and changes in travel time. As previously stated, the forecasted traffic volumes will exceed the capacity of the intersection if no improvements are made to the existing infrastructure. The traffic operations at the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection will continue to deteriorate and in turn result in increased costs of doing business within the project area.

The Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, which is located just southeast of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection, has undergone several expansions and more are planned in the future. The Hospital’s recent and anticipated expansions will create jobs in the healthcare industry, identified by most economists as a wealth-creating employment sector. Transportation improvements in the area, including the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection, will assist the hospital in its growth plans and future job creation.

The Metropolitan Council 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP), the region’s long-range transportation investment plan, includes the planning and implementation of the Southwest Transitway. The 2030 TPP is not a fiscally-constrained plan and its purpose is to guide development of the region’s transportation system to the year 2030 and to provide for an integrated multimodal transportation system that advances regional land use and growth management goals. In addition, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority has funded a series of station area planning studies for the future Southwest LRT corridor, including the Louisiana Transitway Station. As part of the planning activities, the


land uses surrounding this station are planned as a healthcare destination due to its proximity to Methodist Hospital. The City believes an opportunity exists to develop additional healthcare services within the area. The following statement is taken from the St. Louis Park Updated Comprehensive Plan:

“The Louisiana Station Area is envisioned for development intensification as an employment center that capitalizes on its convenient transit access and proximity to Methodist Hospital, a major employer. Building upon its current mix of industrial, medical, and commercial land uses, this area is guided for a broader mix of land uses, particularly the development of business park uses with higher jobs per acre nearest to the transit station.”

Improve Response Time For Emergency Vehicles

The Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital and related care facilities are located immediately southeast of the interchange study area. Therefore, the level of service for the primary care facility and emergency vehicle access to the emergency room facilities is an important local and regional need.

The existing at-grade signalized intersections at Highway 7/Walker Street, Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue, and Highway 7/West Lake Street are currently operating near capacity, which during peak hour conditions has created challenges for emergency vehicles travelling through the intersection and project area. The traffic forecasts and operations analysis indicate that these challenges will become more predominate and extend for longer period of the day as the intersection is shown to operate at unacceptable levels in the future. It is possible that emergency response times could be lengthened due to congestion at these intersections, especially during peak traffic periods.


III. ALTERNATIVES A. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The following project goals and objectives have been prepared as part of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project and are intended to reflect the vision of what the project should accomplish. These action and policy statements respond to the study issues identified through input from the Project Management Team (PMT) and in review of environmental, traffic and land use data collected through field observations, GIS datasets, aerial photographs, and agency documents. The project goals and objectives played an important role in defining and evaluating the range of improvement alternatives that are discussed later in this section.

• Goal 1: Identify alternatives to address the primary project Purpose and Need, i.e., improve the safety and mobility of vehicular traffic, with consideration given to also improving the safety and mobility of non-vehicular traffic.

- Objective: Develop and analyze existing (2007) and forecast (2031) traffic conditions to determine alternatives for creating efficient travel through the study area on both local and regional routes.

- Objective: Develop alternatives that accommodate safe and efficient pedestrian/bicycle facilities.

• Goal 2: Identify alternatives that will minimize impacts to existing developments and enhance opportunities for future development/redevelopment.

- Objective: Evaluate each alternative with respect to potential right-of-way and access impacts to existing and future development areas.

- Objective: Evaluate each alternative on the consistency with the City’s Future Land Use Plan.

• Goal 3: Identify an environmentally sensitive transportation system improvement that solves the identified purpose and needs.

- Objective: Inventory environmentally sensitive features and identify potential impacts associated with each alternative.

- Objective: Identify strategies for avoiding and minimizing impacts to natural resources.

• Goal 4: Identify alternatives to improve response time and route access for emergency vehicles.


- Objective: Evaluate each alternative with respect to potential for improved emergency response time and route access.

• Goal 5: Create an Open and Transparent Planning and Design Process.

- Objective: Follow a study process that allows opportunities for public review and comment throughout the project development process.

- Objective: Identify the key issues early in the process so that the best solution can be developed that balances local needs with regional needs.

• Goal 6: Create a Fiscally Responsible Solution.

- Objective: Prioritize the proposed improvements and create a useful implementation schedule/plan.

- Objective: Recommendations must be fiscally reasonable.

B. NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No-Build Alternate would involve no improvements being made to the existing Highway 7 and Louisiana at-grade intersection. The No-Build Alternate does not preclude ongoing maintenance work. The No-Build Alternate provides the basis of comparison, or benchmark, for the Build Alternative and includes the impacts associated with doing nothing.

The No-Build Alternative was not identified as the preferred alternative because it fails to address the project purpose and need or satisfied the project goals and objectives listed in Section III.A.

C. BUILD ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION A two-phase process was implemented by the City and Mn/DOT in order to develop and evaluate the full range of project alternatives and provide technical recommendations used to identify the preferred alternative.

• The first phase involved a preliminary scoping process and the development of ten conceptual design alternatives. The evaluation process reviewed the feasibility of the concept alternatives at a fairly high level to determine if there were any “fatal flaws” associated with the alternative. This phase is further described in Section III.C.

• The second phase involved a detailed evaluation of the alternatives not eliminated through the first phase. This involved a planning level examination of the alternatives in which items such as traffic operations, construction cost, right-of-way impacts, natural resources, and other items were considered and compared. During


this second phase, there was considerable interaction between the Project Management Team (PMT), the public, and resource agencies in which minor variations and refinements to the alternatives were made and analyzed. Information gathered through resource agency reviews and coordination was used throughout the alternatives development and evaluation process. Agency coordination included Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and Hennepin Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA). A Mn/DOT value-engineering (VE) study was also conducted in Phase II. The tasks completed as part of Phase II are further described in Section III.D.

The screening process ultimately resulted in the identification of a preferred alternative that will be further reviewed in this EA/EAW document.

D. CONCEPT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION (PHASE I) This section describes the full range of alternatives considered during the initial phase of the alternative development process. The City of St. Louis Park and its project partners identified and evaluated ten concept designs, seven grade-separated interchange designs and three at-grade intersection designs.

1. Initial Concept Development The PMT started the Phase I conceptual design process with various on and off ramp alignments and intersection configurations. A brief description of the ten conceptual alternatives is provided below. In the cases of the grade-separated interchange designs, Highway 7 goes over Louisiana Avenue due to shallow groundwater concerns. Appendix A provides a graphical representation of the ten conceptual alternatives.

• Preliminary Concept Alternative 1 (Original Concept) – This concept provides button hook ramps in all four quadrants with roundabouts at the intersections with Walker and Lake Streets. The intersections of Walker and Lake Streets with Louisiana Avenue are signalized.

• Preliminary Concept Alternative 2 (Six Roundabouts) – This concept is essentially the same as Concept 1 only the signals on Louisiana Avenue are replaced with roundabouts.

• Preliminary Concept Alternative 3 (Button Hook Ramps with Loops) – This concept provides direct access from Louisiana Avenue to westbound and eastbound Highway 7 with ramps.


Access to Louisiana Avenue from Highway 7 is via button hook ramps located in the northeast and southwest quadrants.

• Preliminary Concept Alternative 4 (Button Hook Ramps with Roundabouts) – This concept provides access to Highway 7 via button hook ramps located in the northeast and southwest quadrants. All entering and exiting traffic is directed through roundabouts at intersections with local streets that then connect to Louisiana Avenue.

• Preliminary Concept Alternative 5 (Single Point Diamond) – This concept provides access to/from Highway 7 via directional ramps. The four ramp terminals are controlled by a single traffic signal underneath Highway 7. The local intersections at Walker and Lake Street would be improved to handle additional lanes required by the single point design.

• Preliminary Concept Alternative 6 (Tight Diamond) – This concept provides access to and from Highway 7 with a tight diamond interchange design. The entrance and exit ramp intersections at Louisiana Avenue are signalized. The number of lanes required on Louisiana Avenue increase from Option 5 due to close spacing of the four consecutive intersections. Overall, this concept is very similar to Concept 5, with a slight advantage due to improved pedestrian and bicycle operation.

• Preliminary Concept Alternative 7 (Roundabout Diamond) – Similar to Concept 6 except the ramp terminals are now controlled with roundabouts instead of traffic signals. The result is four closely spaced, multi-lane roundabouts on Louisiana Avenue.

• Preliminary Concept Alternative 8 (Quadrant Roadway) – This concept is a quadrant roadway alternative, where all left turns are removed from the primary intersection and moved to a secondary intersection, that is developed.

• Preliminary Concept Alternative 9 (At-Grade Roundabout) – This concept is an at-grade roundabout at Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue. All access to and from Highway 7 is through a roundabout. Local street intersections at Walker and Lake could go through a roundabout or signal.


• Preliminary Concept Alternative 10 (At-Grade Six-Leg Roundabout) – This concept involves having Highway 7, Louisiana Avenue, and Lake Street would all intersect at a six-legged roundabout. The Walker Street intersection would also be a roundabout.

As noted above, a two-phase approach was used to facilitate the evaluation of the ten concept alternatives. The first phase involved a qualitative “fatal flaw” review of the conceptual alternatives.

2. Fatal Flaw Screening A fatal flaw analysis identifies alternatives that may be removed from consideration early in the evaluation process by identifying easily determined deficiencies which cannot be overcome through project design or other mitigation efforts. The fatal flaw screening for this project was based on feedback received through public outreach efforts, input from the PMT, and a generalized planning-level feasibility assessment that focused on constructability issues.

The following measures were used to evaluate how well each concept alternative achieved the project purpose and need and satisfied the project goals and objectives.

• Traffic Operations/Mobility • Sensitivity to Traffic Forecast • Safety • Transit Friendliness (compatibility with the proposed

Southwest LRT line and transit station at Louisiana Avenue) • Environmental Impacts • Right of Way/Property Impacts • Aesthetics • Fiscally Responsible (Estimated Cost) • Ongoing Maintenance • Construction Staging and Complexity • Compatibility with Wooddale Interchange • Driver Expectancy • Accommodate and Enhance Pedestrian/Bicycle Movements • Local Access

These measures were considered the minimum criteria that needed to be met for an alternative to move forward for additional evaluation. Furthermore, based on previous studies, any work in the project area will likely encounter contaminated subsurface soils,


high groundwater, and organic underlying soils, all of which have the potential to make construction more complicated and costly. These factors have also been considered in the evaluation of concept alternatives. The No-Build Alternate was not evaluated since this alternative would involve no changes to the existing condition and would not satisfy the project purpose and need nor satisfy the project goals and objectives.

The PMT reviewed each of the conceptual design alternatives in a matrix of key considerations combined with a preliminary traffic operations analysis using 2031 forecast peak hour traffic. An evaluation matrix was populated considering each evaluation criteria for each alternative by placing a positive (+), negative (-) or neutral (0) response as it related to the criteria. The completed evaluation matrix is included in Table 2.

The purpose of the evaluation and screening process was to compare the conceptual alternatives under consideration with regards to the stated purpose and need and project goals and objectives (as identified in Sections IIIA).

3. Alternatives Considered, But Rejected Based on the rationale and evaluation presented in the previous section, the following conceptual alternatives were screened from further consideration and their respective fatal flaws are identified below. Concept Alternatives 4 and 6 were retained for consideration and are further discussed in Section III.D.

• Concept Alternative 1 (Original Concept) – This concept alternative substantially impacts existing developments and right-of-way because the improvements will affect all four quadrants. An apartment complex in the northwest quadrant would essentially be located inside the interchange. The raised median on Walker Street in front of the apartments would limit access to only right-in/right-out movements. A new commercial building in the southeast quadrant would likely require relocation. The traffic signals along Louisiana Avenue do not maximize safety and operations. Overall, this concept alternative does not provide a substantial benefit over other alternatives being considered.


Table 2 – Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Concept Alternative Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Criteria Concept 1 Original Concept

Concept 2 6 Roundabouts

Concept 3 Button Hook Ramps with

Loops

Concept 4 Button Hook Ramps with Roundabouts

Concept 5 Single Point

Diamond

Concept 6 Tight Diamond

Concept 7 Roundabout

Diamond

Concept 8 Quadrant Roadway

Concept 9 At Grade

Roundabout

Concept 10 At Grade 6-leg

Roundabout

Traffic Operations/Mobility • Highway 7 • Louisiana Avenue • Compatibility with Wooddale Interchange • Sensitivity to Traffic Forecast

0 + + + - + 0 - - -

Safety • Driver Expectancy • Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendliness

- +

- 0

- -

- 0

+ -

+ +

0 0

- -

- -

- -

Environmental Impacts • Water Resources/Drainage • Floodplain Impacts • Soil Conditions (Geotech/Contamination)

+ -

+/-

+ -

+/-

- -

-/-

+ +

0/-

- -

-/-

- -

-/-

- -

-/-

+ +

+/-

+ 0 +

+ - +

Right-of-Way/Property Impacts • Proximity to Housing • Visual Impacts • Noise • Access • Preserves Open Land for Development

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

+

+

+

Aesthetics 0 + 0 + 0 0 + - + +

Estimated Cost (mil) $18.5 $17.4 $20.1 $16.8 $20.3 $20.9 $18.3 $8.2 $4.2 $4.4

Ongoing Maintenance 0 0 - 0 - - 0 0 0 0

Construction Staging and Complexity 0 0 - + - - - + + -

Other Comments

Transit stops on roundabouts?

Likely no right in/right outs at

Lake Street

Perpetuates signals on Highway 7

Not Grade Separated

Not Grade Separated

Conclusion: Retain or Dismiss Dismiss Dismiss Dismiss Retain Dismiss Retain Dismiss Dismiss Dismiss Dismiss


• Concept Alternative 2 (Six Roundabouts) – This concept operates slightly better than Concept Alternative 1 due to decreases in delay at the Louisiana roundabouts. Right-of-way impacts are considered high. This concept also impacts the new commercial building in the southeast quadrant. Furthermore, impacts occur in all four quadrants of the intersection, which is considered a negative affect regarding the ability to preserve open land for future development. Overall, this concept alternative does not provide a substantial benefit over other build alternatives being considered.

• Concept Alternative 3 (Button Hook Ramps with Loops) – The overall traffic operations are positive. However, the traffic forecast numbers do not support the need for the extra infrastructure (loop ramps), which results in a relatively high construction cost. This concept alternative was rated low for pedestrian/bicycle friendliness due to a higher number of roadway crossings and higher operating speeds within the interchange. This concept alternative was rated low for fostering economic development because it would substantially limit new development of vacant lands adjacent to the interchange. Overall, this alternative does not provide a substantial benefit over other build alternatives being considered.

• Concept Alternative 5 (Single Point Diamond) – This concept alternative has the second highest construction cost due to the size of bridge structure and amount of retaining walls needed. Left turn stacking distance not long enough due to the close proximity of the local streets (Walker St. and Lake St.). The driver expectancy was rated positively due to standard exit/entrance ramps. This concept alternative was rated low for pedestrian/bicycle friendliness due to a higher number of lanes that would need to be crossed, including dual left turning lanes in each quadrant. The environmental impacts rated low due to amount of embankment and retaining walls. Right-of-way concerns were identified in the northwest quadrant due to the proximity of an apartment complex. Maintenance and operations and construction staging and complexity rated negatively.

• Concept Alternative 7 (Roundabout Diamond) – The overall traffic operations are neutral due to unconventional intersection control (four consecutive roundabouts). The driver expectancy and pedestrian and bicycle friendliness are rated neutral. The


environmental impacts are negative due to embankment and number of walls. Right-of-way impacts are thought to be negative, primarily in the northwest southeast quadrants. A new commercial building located in the southeast quadrant would likely require relocation. Maintenance and operations were given a neutral rating, while construction staging was rated low. Overall, this concept alternative does not provide a substantial benefit over other build alternatives being considered.

• Concept Alternative 8 (Quadrant Roadway) – This concept alternative has a relatively low construction cost. The potential environmental impacts are relatively positive under this concept and right-of-way impacts are low since improvements are limited to one quadrant. This concept does not eliminate the signal from Highway 7 and actually adds a second signal. Pedestrian/bicycle movements would still be required to cross Highway 7 at an at-grade intersection. Based on these factors, this concept alternative does not satisfy all project goals including maintaining mobility, improving safety, and enhancing pedestrian/bicycle movements.

• Concept Alternative 9 (At-Grade Roundabout) – The environmental impacts of this concept are relatively positive and the right-of-way impacts are minimal. Maintenance, traffic operations, construction staging, and complexity were given a negative rating. The driver expectancy was rated negatively. Pedestrian/bicycle safety was a substantial concern because this concept alternative would require these movements to cross six lanes of traffic along Highway 7 (three entry lanes on many approaches) at a free flowing roundabout intersection. Traffic operation on Highway 7 would be adversely affected due to speeds approaching and in roundabout would need to be slow to ensure safe operations.

• Concept Alternative 10 (At-Grade Six-Leg Roundabout) –The environmental and right-of-way impacts associated with this concept alternative are relatively positive. Maintenance was rated neutral, while traffic operations, safety, construction staging and complexity are were rated negative. For the same reason as stated under Concept 9, the driver expectancy and pedestrian/bicycle friendliness under this concept were also rated negatively. The overall traffic operations are negative due to the slower speeds approaching and in the roundabout that would be required to accommodate safe operations of the large (six-legged, multi-lane) roundabout.


Based on the results of the fatal flaw screening as well as the input from the public and all involved stakeholders, the above presented alternatives have been dismissed from further consideration. A total of two build alternatives, and the No-Build Alternative, were carried forward for a more detailed evaluation (Phase II) to compare the potential impacts to the natural and built environments as well as the affect on traffic operations.

E. ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION (PHASE II) Given the results of the concept development and evaluation process (Phase I), the following alternatives were retained for a more detailed design and evaluation process.

• No-Build Alternative 1 – As described in Section III.A.

• Alternative 4 (Button Hook Ramps with Roundabouts) – As described in Section III.C.1.

• Alternative 6 (Tight Diamond) – As described in Section III.C.1.

A new/modified alternative was introduced as a result of a Value Engineering Study conducted by Mn/DOT. This alternative was a hybrid of Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 (see Appendix A). The new/modified alternative, herein referred to as Alternative 11, consists of a modified tight diamond configuration with roundabouts (see Appendix A and Figure 7 on page 26). The southern roundabout not only serves as the ramp terminal intersection, but also has legs entering the roundabout for West Lake Street. This configuration allows for the removal of one intersection within the project area. Alternative 11 was assessed under the same fatal flaw screening criteria listed in Table 2 (found within Section III.D.2).

Table 3 – Alternative 11 Screening Criteria

Evaluation Criteria Concept 11

Modified Tight Diamond With Roundabouts Along Louisiana Ave.

Traffic Operations/Mobility • Highway 7 • Louisiana Avenue • Compatibility with Wooddale

Interchange • Sensitivity to Traffic Forecast

+

Safety • Driver Expectancy • Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendliness

+ 0


Evaluation Criteria Concept 11

Modified Tight Diamond With Roundabouts Along Louisiana Ave.

Environmental Impacts • Water Resources/Drainage • Floodplain Impacts • Soil Conditions

(Geotech/Contamination)

+ +

0/-

Right-of-Way/Property Impacts • Proximity to Housing • Visual Impacts • Noise • Access • Preserves Open Land for

Development

0 + 0 + +

Aesthetics + Estimated Cost (mil) $16.0

Ongoing Maintenance 0 Construction Staging and Complexity 0

This alternative was presented at a public open house meeting as well as a City Council workshop. Based on the fatal flaw screening and public input, Alternative 11 was also retained for further consideration.

All three build alternatives consist of a interchange design.

1. Evaluation of Retained Project Alternatives (Phase II) A technical evaluation of the three build alternatives retained from the previous phase was performed by the PMT. The No-Build Alternative was not evaluated since this alternative would involve no changes to the existing condition and would not satisfy the project purpose and need.

The evaluation compared the potential impacts to the natural and built environments as well as the affect on traffic operations of the alternatives. Overall, the technical evaluation included:

• An assessment of traffic operations for the three alternatives using the 20 year traffic forecasts;

• Conducting a more detailed assessment of storm water management opportunities/strategies, potential wetland impacts, and other social/community effects;


• Conducting a detailed review of development/redevelopment opportunities based on the interchange configuration of the two alternatives; and

• Preparing updated cost estimates.

Traffic Forecasts Forecasts were prepared for the forecast year 2031 Build traffic conditions. The forecasts on links with count data were adjusted based on Chapter 9 of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 365, “Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning”. Individual link traffic forecasts for 2030 AM peak hour, PM peak hour and average daily traffic (ADT) were adjusted based on existing count data and the 2005 model output.

Annual growth rates were prepared based on the growth between the base model 2005 and the forecast model output. These annual growth rates were applied to the existing daily traffic levels for forecast 2031 No Build and 2031 Build daily traffic levels. Figure 5 (located on page 7) depicts the existing, 2031 No Build, and 2031 Build daily traffic levels for roadways in the study area. Also, as part of this assessment, forecast 2031 turning movements were prepared for each alternative.

Traffic Operation The construction of a grade separated interchange at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue creates free flow conditions along Highway 7 and substantially improves traffic operations along the highway. A comparison of the traffic operations along Louisiana Avenue and other local roadways shows slightly better operations under Alternative 4 as compared to Alternative 6 primarily due to the presence of roundabout intersection control (Alternative 2) as compared to the stop control and signalized intersection control.

Impact Assessment and Cost Estimate An assessment of storm water management opportunities, impacts on wetlands, potentially contaminated sites, impacts on public recreational/parkland areas and right-of-way needs was conducted to provide a comparison of how the alternatives ranked within the same criterion.

An assessment of impervious surface before and after construction for each alternative was conducted. The area of existing impervious surface within the project area is approximately 15.29 acres. This included impervious surfaces such as roads, sidewalks, and driveways. Alternatives 4, 6, and 11 propose to create 14.84 acres, 17.6 acres, and 14.19 acres of impervious surface, respectively.


When compared to the existing area of impacted impervious surface it is found that Alternatives 6 results in an increase while Alternatives 4 and 11 would have a slight decrease in the amount of impervious surface. As a result, Alternative 6 would require a slightly larger area for treating storm water runoff as compared to Alternatives 4 and 11.

The three alternatives would result in similar impacts to wetlands and potentially contaminated sites. The construction of a roundabout intersection at Walker Street and Louisiana Avenue (Alternatives 4 and 11) create minor impacts on Louisiana Oaks Park that result from the need to move the existing trial slightly northwest. The traditional signalized intersection at Walker Street/Louisiana Avenue under Alternative 6 would not result in any impacts to the city-owned park property.

The primary difference in the alternatives is the amount of new right-of-way needed to accommodate the proposed interchange improvements. Alternative 4 (button hook ramps with roundabouts) would require more land acquisition than Alternative 6 (tight diamond configuration) and Alternative 11 (tight diamond with roundabouts), primarily due to the roundabout intersections in the northeast and southwest quadrants of the interchange. Alternative 4 would also require the acquisition of a complete commercial property. While Alternatives 6 and 11 create right of way impacts, the tight diamond configuration of each of these alternatives utilize the existing right of way to the greatest extent possible.

Review of Development/Redevelopment Opportunities As part of the further evaluation of Alternatives 4, 6, and 11, the City of St. Louis Park’s Community Development staff reviewed the potential opportunities for new development and/or redevelopment in the study area. Since much of the area is currently developed the review focused on opportunities in the northeast and southwest quadrants of the intersection. A number of parcels were reviewed in these two quadrants with respect to their ability to provide new building areas. It was determined that given the existing environmental features (e.g. wetlands) and needed storm water treatment areas that the three interchange configurations would provide similar opportunities for new development/redevelopment and that no individual alternative provided a substantial benefit over the others. However, the City concluded that the design of Alternative 11 better serves existing developments and complimented the community character that was envisioned as part of the City’s redevelopment vision for the area and that Alternative


11 provided more opportunities for aesthetic improvements as compared to Alternatives 4 and 6.

Cost Estimates The estimated construction costs for Alternative 4, Alternative 6, and Alternative 11 are $16.5 million, $20.9 million, and $15.4 million, respectively. These costs do not include potential right-of-way costs. The City of St. Louis Park Public Works staff noted the long-term operations costs of maintaining traffic signals at Walker Street, Lake Street West, and the two ramp terminal intersections would be much greater than the roundabout intersections proposed under Alternatives 4 and 11. Furthermore, the proposed improvements under Alternative 11 would be primarily contained within existing public owned right-of-way and would require less land acquisition than Alternative 4.

F. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE After reviewing the technical evaluations, assessments, and input from the public and agency representatives that occurred as part of the multi phase screening process, Alternative 11 (Tight Diamond with Roundabouts) was identified as the preferred alternative. As a result, Alternative 11, along with the No-Build Alternative will be further reviewed in this EA/EAW.

Figure 7 on the following page depicts the improvements associated with the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative consists of roadway construction and operations including the removal of topsoil within the proposed project’s construction limits, excavating material from under new roadway areas, and placing and compacting material for new roadways, and embankments. Material excavated during construction of the project may be reused for aggregate or embankment purposes where appropriate and will be in accordance with best management practices (BMPs) established in Mn/DOT’s Standard Specifications for Construction. Construction of the Highway 7 Bridge over Louisiana Avenue will involve raising the Highway 7 roadway (profile), placing embankments, driving pile, constructing abutments and piers, installing bridge girders, and constructing the concrete deck. BMPs will be used to control construction-related sedimentation, and turf areas will be re-established. Signing will be installed, in accordance with the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices guidelines, to provide direction to motorists.

The project will include pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with reconfiguration of local roads (West Lake Street, Walker Street) to enhance access, safety, and traffic flow for the Highway 7 corridor and Louisiana Avenue. The improvements are also expected to perpetuate bus routes along these transportation corridors.


Figure 7 – Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange – Preliminary Layout


The preferred alternative includes not only the new interchange at the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection but also the addition of three roundabouts for traffic control at the intersections. The interchange project also includes closing the existing right-in/right-out access points to Highway 7 at West Lake Street and Hampshire Avenue.

The preferred alternative will result in the implementation of an infrastructure solution in the form of continuity, capacity, and safety to a transportation problem and provides a much needed upgrade to the regional transportation system.

G. BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS A benefit/cost analysis (B/C analysis) was completed for the proposed project in March 2011. The purpose of a B/C analysis is to bring all of the direct effects of a transportation investment into a common measure (dollars), and to allow for the fact that benefits accrue over a long period of time while costs are incurred primarily in the initial years of the project. The primary elements that can be monetized for transportation projects are travel time, changes in vehicle operating costs, changes in crashes, and remaining capital value. Projects are considered cost effective if the B/C ratio is greater than 1.0. The B/C Analysis can provide an indication of the economic desirability of an alternative, but results must be weighted by decision-makers along with the assessment of other effects and impacts. The B/C Analysis that was completed for this project evaluated the difference in transportation user costs against the No-Build Alternative and indicated that the Preferred Build Alternative would result in a B/C ratio of 8.37. Details are provided in the B/C Memorandum, which is available for review by contacting the Mn/DOT contact listed on the signature page of this EA.


IV. PROJECT COST, FUNDING & SCHEDULE A. PROJECT COST AND FUNDING

The estimated construction cost of the proposed project, which does not include right-of-way acquisition or engineering costs, is $15.4 million ($2010).

The Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project is funded through the Federal Surface Transportation Program, state funds, and local matching funds. The Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project is listed in the current 2011-2014 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The anticipated funding sources for the proposed project are as follows:

Federal (Surface Transportation Program) Funds: $7,630,000

State Funds (Safety/Capacity, Cooperative Agreement) $1,594,000

Other Funding (Local): $6,176,000

Estimated Total Cost: $15,400,000

B. ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE As reflected in the project schedule, the timing for construction of the proposed improvements is yet to be finalized and will be dependent upon the availability of funding.

The project will be completed according to the following schedule.

Environmental Assessment May 2011 Findings of Fact and Conclusion/FONSI June 2011 Right-of Way Acquisition June 2011-January 2012 Construction Letting As early as January 2012


V. 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 4410.4300. Federal environmental regulations not addressed in the EAW are addressed in separate sub-sections which follow the EAW.

A. 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: Trunk Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project

2. Proposer: City of St. Louis Park 3. RGU: Mn/DOT Contact Person Jim Olson Contact Person April Crockett And Title Engineering Project Manager and Title Area Engineer Address 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard Address 1500 County Road B2 St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2290 Roseville, MN 55113 Phone 952.924.2552 Phone 651.234.7727 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

4. Reason for EAW Preparation: EIS

Scoping

Mandatory EAW

Citizen Petition

RGU Discretion

Proposer Volunteered

X

If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and name:

5.

Project Location: County Hennepin City/Twp St. Louis Park Section 17 Township 117N Range 21W


Tables, Figures, and Appendices attached to the EAW: • County map showing the general location of the project (see Figures 1 and 2); • United States Geological Survey (USGS) Location Map (see Figure 3); • Site plan showing all significant project and natural features (see Figure 8).

6.

Description: a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.

The proposed improvement includes the reconstruction of an at-grade intersection to a grade separated interchange at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. The preferred interchange configuration includes a tight diamond configuration with roundabouts. The southern roundabout will include legs that will serve West Lake Street. The project is located in the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota.

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.

Section III.F earlier in the document, contains a complete description of the proposed action. Section IV.B lists the anticipated project schedule. Also, see Figure 8 for illustrations of the preferred alternative.

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.

Section II, earlier in the document, provides a complete description of the project’s purpose and need.

The project will be carried out by the City of St. Louis Park and Mn/DOT. 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 No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. No response required.

e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.

21

23

3

22

2

24

25

26

27

28

16

5

7

8

11

9

10

13

4

14

15

17

29

30

31

16 18

19

20

1:44:17 P

M1/

26/2011

nbla

nchard

S:\

PT\

S\

Stlo

u\10

6311\

Envir

on

me

ntal\

DG

N fig

ures\10

6311-P

H1.dgn

EA

LA

YO

UT

FIGURE

8Potential Impacts

Preferred Alternative -

Prop

osed So

uthwest

LRT Line

High SchoolSt. Louis Park

ParkLouisiana Oaks

Walker St.

W. La

ke St.

W. Lake St.

Walker St.

Frontage Rd.

T.H. 7

T.H. 7

Louisia

na A

ve.

Republic A

ve.

Monitor St

0.96 ac. ImpactedWETLAND 2



No ImpactWETLAND 5

No ImpactWETLAND 3

PROPOSED ROADWAY

PROPOSED SHOULDER, PAVED

PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY

LEGEND

PROPOSED BRIDGE

PROPOSED SIDEWALK

PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER, RAISED MEDIANS

DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY

PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT

PROPOSED TEMPORARY EASEMENT

ROUNDABOUT APRON

ROUNDABOUT GREEN SPACE

EXISTING MNDOT RIGHT OF WAY

PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN

Environmental Risk Level

#

#

WETLAND IMPACTS

PROPOSED IMPACT LIMITS

APPX. EXISTING R/ W & PARCEL BOUNDARIES

MEDIUM

HIGH1/26/2011

0

feetscale

100 250

Walker Pond

Lake St. Pond


7. Project Magnitude Data Total Project Area (acres) Approx. 40 acres or Length (miles) 0.68 miles on Highway 7 and

0.35 on Louisiana Avenue Number of Residential Units: Unattached N/A Attached Maximum units per building N/A Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Building Area (gross floor space): Total square feet N/A Indicate area of specific uses (in square feet): Office N/A Manufacturing N/A Retail N/A Other Industrial N/A Warehouse N/A Institutional N/A Light Industrial N/A Agricultural N/A Other Commercial (specify) N/A Building height N/A If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings N/A

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 reviews, and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure.

Table 4 – Agency Approvals and Permits

Unit of Government Type of Application/Permit Status

Federal Agency

Federal Highway Administration Environmental Assessment Approval Completed

EIS Need Decision To be requested

De Minimis Section 4(f) Determination Pending

Section 106 Determination Complete

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit – Letter of Permission

To be requested

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act Section 7 Determination

Complete

State Agency

Mn/DOT Environmental Assessment Approval Completed

Environmental Assessment Worksheet Approval

Completed

EIS Need Decision To be requested

Study Report To be requested

Geometric Layout Approval To be requested

Construction Plan Approval To be requested


Unit of Government Type of Application/Permit Status

Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act To be requested

State Historic Preservation Office Section 106 Consultation Complete

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

State Endangered Species Review Completed

Water Appropriations Permit To be requested

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – Construction Storm Water Phase II Permit

To be requested

401 Water Quality Certification To be requested

Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Conservation Act To be requested

Local Agency

City of St. Louis Park Municipal Consent To be requested

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District

Storm Water Management and Erosion Control Permit

To be requested

Funding

Section IV.A. presented earlier in the document, contains a description of the anticipated project funding.

9. 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

The land use within the project area is a mix of residential, commercial, light industrial, parks, and schools, which is in accordance with zoning in the area. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses in that it will improve traffic flow and safety by eliminating the existing at-grade intersection, which will benefit area residents and businesses.

Environmental Hazards

The presence of potentially-contaminated properties (defined as properties where soil and/or groundwater contain pollutants, contaminants, or hazardous wastes) is a concern in the development of road projects. Liabilities are associated with ownership of such properties, their cleanup costs, and various safety concerns, especially where encountered by personnel with unsuspected wastes or


contaminated soil or groundwater is possible. Contaminated materials encountered during roadway construction projects must be properly handled and treated in accordance with state and federal regulations. Improper handling of contaminated materials can worsen their impact on the environment. Contaminated materials also cause adverse impacts on roadway projects by increasing construction costs and causing construction delays, which also can increase general project costs.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) has been completed for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project. The ESA included a review of historical records and an environmental database search, which identified several sites with possible soil and/or groundwater contamination within the study area. Table 5 and Figure 8 present the potentially contaminated sites and the level of risk for encountering contaminants. The following definitions of “low,” “medium” and “high” environmental risk are standard categories utilized by Mn/DOT to rank sites within the project corridor.

• Low Environmental Risk – Hazardous and/or petroleum substances are known or inferred to have been, or are being used, stored or generated on these sites; however, there appear to be “good housekeeping” practices conducted on the site. Good housekeeping practices are defined as proper handling and/or storage of hazardous or petroleum substances. There is also no record or evidence of spills, releases, surface contamination and/or subsurface contamination at the site. These sites are potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs).

• Medium Environmental Risk – Hazardous substances are known or inferred to have been, or are being used, stored, or generated on these sites, and there appears to be “poor housekeeping” practices conducted at the site. Poor housekeeping practices are defined as improper handling and/or storage of hazardous or petroleum substances. All properties that have underground storage tanks (USTs) or above ground storage tanks (ASTs), leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites that have received closure from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and vehicle repair and maintenance facilities are also considered medium environmental risks. These sites are likely a REC.

• High Environmental Risk – These are sites where hazardous and/or petroleum substances are known or inferred to have been, or are being used, stored, or generated, and there is a record or evidence that a spill, release, surface contamination and/or subsurface contamination has occurred. These sites include all active Voluntary Investigative and Cleanup (VIC), Minnesota Environmental Response & Liability Act (MERLA), active LUST sites and all active and inactive dump sites. These sites are considered to be RECs.


Table 5 - Potentially Contaminated Sites

Site ID Parcel Address Risk

Classification Environmental Concerns

1 Northwest of Walker St. and Louisiana Ave. High

Former Reilly Tar Site, SWL, Brownfield, CERCLIS, FED IC/EC, OTHER, STATE, RCRA VGN, SGN

2 7201 Walker St. High Brownfield, VIC, INSTCONTROL, RCRA, SGN

3 7455 Highway 7 High Former Machine Shop, Brownfield, Restrictive Covenant, VIC

4 3300/3320 Louisiana Ave. High Former Reilly Tar Site, VIC

5 3500 Louisiana Ave. High Former Reilly Tar Site, Brownfield, LUST, VIC, Spill

6 3320 Republic Ave. High Former Reilly Tar Site, VIC, RCRA VGN, UST, LUST

7 3333 Republic Ave. High Former Machine Shop

8 3340 Republic Ave. High Former Reilly Tar Site, VIC, Brownfield

9 3340 Gorham/3355 Republic Ave. High Former Machine Shop, Brownfield,

VIC, Vapor Intrusion

10 3356 Gorham Ave. High Former Machine Shop, Spill, Vapor Intrusion

11 3361 Republic Ave. High Brownfield, VIC, RCRA VGN, Vapor Intrusion

12 3400 Republic Ave. High VIC

13 7020 Walker St. High UST, RCRA VGN, Vapor Intrusion

14 3381 Gorham Ave. High Brownfield, VIC, Vapor Intrusion

15 6728 Walker St. High VIC, Vapor Intrusion

16 6714 Walker St. High Former Machine Shop, VIC, UST, RCRA SGN

17 7000 West Lake St. High Current and Historical Fuel Station, LUST, Spill, UST

18 6900 Walker St. High Spill, Vapor Intrusion

19 7001 West Lake St. High Historical Fuel Station, LUST, RCRA VGN, Vapor Intrusion

20 6516 Walker St. High Brownfield, VIC, Vapor Intrusion

21 7300 West Lake St. Medium RCRA LGN of Chromium


Site ID Parcel Address Risk

Classification Environmental Concerns

22 7421 Highway 7 High NFRAP, VIC

23 7317 West Lake St. Medium UST, RCRA SGN

24 7201 West Lake St. High Brownfield, LUST, VIC, RCRA SGN

25 3750 Louisiana Ave. S. High Brownfield, VIC

26 3745 Louisiana Ave. S. High Brownfield, Deed Notice, Restrictive Covenant, VIC,UST,RCRA VGN/SGN

27 7020 West Lake St. High Brownfield, VIC

28 7102/7104 West Lake St. High VIC, RCRA VGN

29 7003 West Lake St. High FED IC/EC, EPA Brownfield, LUST, Spill, VIC, UST, RCRA VGN

30 3645 Hampshire Ave. High NPL, Brownfield, CERCLIS, FED IC/EC, DPLP, VIC, Spill, RCRA VGN, UST

31 6601 Highway 7 High Transformer Station, Spill, ERNS, USTNotes: Underground Storage Tank (UST), Leaking UST (LUST), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

Very Small Quantity Generator (VGN), No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP), Solid Waste Landfill (SWL), Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), Federal Institutional Controls and Engineering Controls (FED IC/EC), Small Quantity Generators (SGN), Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC), State De-listed Permanent List of Priorities (DPLP), Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS).

The properties listed above largely relate to extensive impacts from the Former Reilly Tar/Republic Creosoting Superfund site. The intersection of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue is located directly adjacent to and is impacted by the Former Reilly Tar site. The plant site (the former Republic Creosoting Works) is generally located to the north and west of the intersection of Louisiana Avenue and Walker Street. It is well documented that impacts extend beyond the property boundaries of the Superfund site and impact the intersection of Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7 and surrounding properties. The City is a responsible party for the site and has completed remediation and redevelopment work under the Superfund program.

The site is a former coal tar distillation facility and wood preserving plant. The site’s primary production was creosote and also treated railroad ties, timbers, poles, piling, and heavy duty products. The chemical compounds associated with on-site processes are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), phenolics and pentachlorophenol (PCP). The release of PAHs are linked to the coal distillation process, waste disposal practices, and materials stored on-site. Wastes containing coal tar and its distillation by-products were discharged over the ground surface


into a network of ditches that emptied into a peat bog south of the site. There is an approximately 1,000 acre contaminated groundwater plume associated with this site with impacts to multiple aquifers including the shallow drift aquifer. Groundwater is documented to flow southeast across the project corridor. Surrounding properties have entered into the MPCA programs for impacts from the Former Reilly Tar site and comprise many of the sites on the list above.

In addition to impacts from the Former Reilly Tar Superfund site additional sites of concern within the project area include the following:

• The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has also completed a vapor monitoring investigation in the area and found chlorinated solvents in soil vapor collected in the residential neighborhood northeast of the Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7 intersection. Petroleum was also detected in the soil vapor and groundwater. The source of these impacts has not been identified.

• Former National Lead Industries (a.k.a. Taracorp/Golden Auto) is located adjacent to the eastern most portion of the project. National Lead was a metal refining and refabricating site listed for contamination of sulfates, dissolved solids, lead, battery fragments, lead-bearing debris and slag. The source of on-site contamination was the discharge of liquid waste through the process sewers which ran to the municipal sewer system from lead smelting. Groundwater and off-site soil may be contaminated. Contaminants of concern include lead, arsenic, cadmium and petroleum. Large amounts of lead slag from the plant’s early operations were buried in a part of the site later occupied by Golden Auto Parts. The site has been delisted from the National Priority List (NPL) and the State Permanent List of Priorities (PLP) and deleted from the CERCLA database.

• Former Cardinal IG is a MPCA Brownfield and Voluntary Investigation Celan-up site. In addition to impacts from the Former Reilly Tar site, this site is also impacted with calcium hydroxide. Calcium hydroxide was produced as a by-product of acetylene gas manufacturing. Calcium hydroxide impacted soils were/are present on the west side of the site, adjacent to Louisiana Avenue.

The complexity of environmental hazards within the project area has extensive implications for the construction of the intersection. In order to obtain additional information regarding the impacts the project will encounter, a Phase II investigation will be completed. The work plan for the Phase II investigation is currently in progress. The Phase II investigation will help to better define the impacts that will be encountered during construction. The findings of the Phase II investigation will be considered in the final design and construction methods for the intersection. If hazardous materials are encountered, St. Louis Park will properly handle and treat the material in accordance with applicable state and


federal regulations. The City will work with the MPCA to obtain the appropriate approvals and liability assurances for the City and Mn/DOT.

Demolition of Structures

Prior to construction, a demolition survey, hazardous materials survey, and asbestos/lead-based paint survey will be conducted for any and all structures to be removed/demolished.

Dewatering

As discussed in the Environmental Hazards section, groundwater within the project area is significantly impacted PAHs, chlorinated VOCs, and petroleum. Continued groundwater monitoring and containment is on-going related to the Former Reilly Tar Superfund site. Additional groundwater concerns for the area include chlorinated solvents that have impacted the nearby municipal well for the City of Edina. Groundwater is shallow in the project area (roughly ten feet below ground surface) so it should be assumed that some dewatering may take place during construction. The Phase II investigation results along with documented information will be taken into consideration for the feasibility analysis of and the permitting and treatment requirements for dewatering to take place on the project.

10. Cover Types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the cover types before and after development: Before After Before After

Types 1-8 wetlands 1.94 0.85 Impervious Surfaces 22.7 22.86 Wooded/forest 1.14 0.78 Other (WQ Ponds) 0 1.40 Brush/grassland 14.4 14.29 Cropland 0 0 Total Project (acres) 40.18 40.18

If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why:

The cover type areas represent a slightly larger project area that encompasses the infrastructure improvements. The acreage estimates reflect preliminary design plans for the proposed project elements depicted in Figure 8. The “Before” and “After” area totals listed above are preliminary estimates based on existing land cover data and preliminary design files and are subject to change through more detailed design and construction.

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.


The project area contains no designated fisheries resources, but some fish are likely present in Oak Pond and South Oak Pond, which are two Public Waters located just outside the project study area. Wildlife resources are present, but are minimal and limited to small areas due to fragmentation of habitat. Some of the wooded areas provide habitat for squirrels rabbits and songbirds. The two public waters would provide habitat for turtles and amphibians, but the isolation limits their quality.

No designated fish or wildlife habitats, state or federal wildlife management areas, refuges, or preserves, properties acquired through the LAWCON, or hunting preserves were identified in the project area.

The project area is comprised of suburbanized land uses such as commercial/light industrial and residential developments. Wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources are limited in the project area due to the disturbed habitats. The characteristics of wildlife habitats are urban in nature including green spaces such as vacant lands, landscaped surfaces, planted vegetation, parklands, and residential parcels. Wildlife common within the area include small mammals, birds, and insects. The number and type of birds within the project area varies considerably from season to season.

Impacts to wetland habitats will be mitigated through the wetland permitting and mitigation process. Habitat is a wetland function and a value variable that is accounted for in the wetland replacement process through both the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and federal Clean Water Act wetland permitting/mitigation processes.

After construction, areas temporarily affected as a result of grading and staging activities would be revegetated with native species to minimize impacts to wildlife habitat. Additionally, BMPs will be used during construction of the project that will ensure impacts are minimized and avoided.

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species

For the FHWA, Mn/DOT’s Office of Environmental Services was contacted regarding the potential for Section 7 impacts to species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act on behalf of FHWA. It was determined that there are no federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate species or listed critical habitat within the project area (refer to Appendix B, e-mail dated July 23, 2010).


b. Are any state (endangered or threatened) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? Yes No

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. ERDB 20100715

Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.

Available information regarding reported occurrences of rare, threatened, and endangered (RT&E) species or critical habitats in proximity to the proposed alignment was obtained from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) National Heritage Program for state-listed species. The database search covered an area within one mile of the alignment. Based on this review, the MNDNR replied there are no known occurrences of a rare species or natural community in the study area.

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? Yes No If yes, identify water resource affected. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory (PWI) number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI. On August 3, 2010, wetland delineations were completed for all wetlands within the project limits. Figure 8 depicts the delineated wetland boundaries within the project study area.

Wetland Delineation, Assessment, and Classification Data was gathered and reviewed prior to the initiation of jurisdictional wetland delineations to identify the potential wetland habitats in the area. Data sources included the following:

• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)

• Hennepin County Soil Survey

• Recent and Historic Aerial Photographs

• MNDNR Protected Waters Inventory (PWI)

• U.S. Geological Service Quadrangle Maps

The wetland delineations followed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidance document Identifying Wetlands of the United States (1987), also known as the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual. The Midwest Regional Supplement was used to refine the wetland criteria. The three parameters of soils, vegetation, and hydrology were confirmed for each delineated wetland and recorded on


USACE Routine Onsite Determination (RODM) datasheets. The delineated wetland boundaries that occurred within the project limits were flagged and surveyed with a Trimble GeoXH Global Positioning System (GPS).

Each delineated wetland was typed and classified in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) publications, Circular 39 Wetlands of the United States, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et. al., USFWS/OBS 79/31) and Eggers, S.D. and Reed, D.M. 1997, Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Historic aerial photographs were also reviewed to determine if the wetlands were historic or recently created.

Additional data gathered on each delineated wetland included the identification of any inlet and outlet features and hydrological connectivity indicators. Topographic setting, when possible, was also determined in accordance with the settings described in the WCA. Important wetland functions and values were also recorded when observed. Land uses adjacent to and surrounding each delineated wetland were also described. Each delineated wetland and/or storm water pond was assigned a unique identification number.

Results Four wetlands were delineated within the project site as shown in Figure 8 and described in Table 6. An additional storm water treatment pond was also mapped, and has been included as Storm Water Pond 5.

• Wetland 1: Type 2 (PEMB) – Fresh Wet Meadow

Wetland 1 is located in the northeast quadrant, and is a depressional area that receives untreated road runoff. The wetland is periodically inundated during storm events, but appears to have persistent saturation to allow wet meadow habitat to be present. Vegetation in the wetland is composed of annual ragweed (Ambrosia artemissifolia), prairie cord grass (Spartina pectinata), reed canary grass (Panicum virgatum), and big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii). Pockets of sedges are present near the inlets and outlets where hydrology is more consistent.

• Wetland 2: Type 3 (PEMC) – Shallow Marsh

Wetland 2 is currently functioning as a storm water pond, and is located south of the apartment building in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. The pond has multiple inlets, and is dominated by cattails (Typha latifolia), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and a variety of sedges and forbs. Although currently functioning as a storm water pond, the area was an emergent marsh until approximately 2000, when it is less apparent, but clearly excavated for treatment when the apartment building was constructed. Because the area was historically present, this basin retains the regulatory wetland protection.


Table 6 – Wetland Characteristics And Impacts

Wetland ID

Circular 39/Cowardin

Plant Comm. Type1

NWI Code

Dominant Vegetation Setting and Inlet/Outlet MNDNR

PWI Wetland

Size Wetland

Impact Area Percent Basin

Impacted

1 Type 2 / PEMB

N/A Grasses, sedges Two inlets on north side,

and outlets south to Wetland 4

No 0.33 ac. 0.33 100% Fresh Wet Meadow

2 Type 3 / PEMC

N/A Cattails,

loosestrife, sedges

Former wetland currently functioning as storm

water treatment pond. Multiple inlets

No 0.96 ac. 0.09 9.4% Shallow Marsh

3 Type 3 / PEMC

PEMC and PUBGx

Cattails, sedges, loosestrife Depression, inlets present

Yes, excavated portion on south side

7.35 ac. 0.00 0.00% Shallow Marsh

4 Type 2 / PEMB

N/A Grasses, sedges, forbs

Depression, Inlets from wetland 1 on north side No 0.67 ac. 0.67 100%

Fresh Wet Meadow

Storm Water

Pond ID2

5 Type 3 / PEMC

PEMC Cattails Storm Water Treatment Pond No 0.13 ac. 0.00 0.00%

Shallow Marsh

Total 1.09 acres

1 Plant communities are those described in Eggers and Reed, 1997. 2. Storm water pond 5 was historically wetland, but was filled and excavated partially to provide treatment functions. It is therefore not classified as wetland, although it meets the criteria for wetlands following the 1987 manual.


• Wetland 3: Type 3 (PEMC) – Shallow Marsh

Wetland 3 is a large cattail marsh, with shallow open water due to excavation on the south side, and a transition to sedge meadow on the north side. Vegetation is dominated by cattails, purple loosestrife, and several sedge species. The southern portion with open water has been identified as a Public Water (27-661W). Runoff from adjacent streets and parking lots flow into the wetland. This wetland is not within the project area, but is near enough to be included with the delineation.

• Wetland 4: Type 2 (PEMB) – Fresh Wet Meadow

Wetland 4 is a depression wetland in the southeast quadrant of the interchange which receives surface water runoff from adjacent streets and from Wetland 1. The wetland has a small area of cattails, but is generally dominated by native grasses and forbs. A large patch of dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum) is present in the north central portion of the site. A site inspection in 2008 indicated an abundance of reed canary grass, but this no longer is dominant.

• Storm Water Pond 5: Type 3 (PEMC) – Shallow Marsh

Storm Water Pond 5 is a small storm water pond in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. This pond is dominated by cattails and was excavated in 2006 as part of the grading of that portion of the project. The land use for this location prior to the 1970s was wetland, which was subsequently filled, and then excavated for the creation of the pond. The current pond bottom is fill material, not wetland soil; therefore this pond would not be regulated as wetland under the Wetland Conservation Act. This pond is not proposed to be impacted.

Wetland Jurisdiction Four wetlands and one storm water pond were delineated within the project site, several of which extend beyond the site boundary. These wetlands are subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act as administered by the USACE, as they can be connected through infrastructure to Minnehaha Creek. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), which is administered by the Mn/DOT, would also regulate all of the wetlands. No MNDNR Public Waters will be impacted, but several are within a half mile of the project. The MNDNR will be a participant in regulatory review, but no permits will be required.

Wetland Sequencing – Avoidance and Impact Minimization Avoidance measures have been considered in the conceptual and preliminary design phases of the project and were the basis for the placement of structures and facilities during the concept planning. None of the alternatives considered would succeed in complete avoidance of wetlands, primarily due to the presence of Wetlands 1, 2, and 4 immediately adjacent to the toe of slope of the existing


roadways. Due to shallow groundwater concerns, the project alternatives requiring grade separation and raising Highway 7 would have extensive impacts to Wetlands 1, 2, 4, and 5. The proposed at grade alternative will have extensive impacts to wetlands 1 and 4, but avoids or reduces impacts to Wetlands 2, and 4. Additional minimization has been achieved by alignment shifts and increased sideslopes outside the roadway clear zone.

The wetland impacts are expected to be refined and reduced as further avoidance and minimization is implemented. These detailed wetland impact minimization measures will be completed with the final design plans for the project and will be described in the wetland permit application in accordance with USACE, WCA, and for the transportation project elements, Mn/DOT guidance and requirements for sequencing.

Wetland Impacts Preliminary wetland impacts have been estimated to be 1.09 as shown in Table 7. Impacts will occur nearly exclusively to areas of Wet Meadow habitat.

Wetland Permitting & Mitigation The latest USACE draft St. Paul District Compensatory Mitigation Policy for Minnesota (USACE, January 2009) will be followed to implement wetland mitigation for the project and to maintain consistency with the WCA wetland replacement requirements. The project is located in the Bank Service Area 7, but is located within the seven-county metropolitan area, and is regulated as a public transportation project.

The minimum wetland replacement ratio will be 2:1, assuming that mitigation is done from a wetland bank located within the seven county metropolitan area, and uses wetland credit of the same type of wetland impacted. It is assumed that a Mn/DOT wetland bank will be utilized. As wetland impacts are estimated to be 1.09 acres, a total of 2.18 acres of wetland credit would need to be withdrawn.

A Wetland Mitigation Plan will be prepared and submitted with the wetland permit application. The Plan will include detailed design plans and data, the administrative procedures, and will address the need for wetland replacement. The Mitigation Plan will be submitted with the wetland permit application at Mn/DOT for WCA approval, USACE for permit approval, and MNDNR for review.

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 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. The project does not require any creation, connection, or change to public water supply; therefore, no wells in or near the project area will be used as water sources. No permanent wells will be installed for any of the proposed project improvements; therefore, no permanent appropriation of water is anticipated.

Due to the location of the Reilly Tar superfund site numerous monitoring wells are located within the project corridor. A review of wells listed in the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) County Well Index (CWI) was conducted. Twenty-three abandoned/monitoring/domestic wells are confirmed by location description to be within the project corridor. Eight abandoned/monitoring/domestic wells are described in the same location as the project corridor, but are not mapped. There is not adequate information to confirm the exact locations of these wells or determine if they are located within the project corridor. The proposed right-of-way and/or construction limits of the proposed improvements may require the abandonment of existing wells. All wells will be abandoned and sealed in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Regulations.

Dewatering during excavation will likely be necessary during construction of the proposed improvements. If it is determined dewatering is required and dewatering exceeds 10,000 gallons/day or 1 million gallons/year, a water appropriation permit application will be completed and submitted to the MNDNR for approval prior to any dewatering activities taking place.

14. Water-related land use management districts. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district?

Yes No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. The proposed project will not involve any state or federal (potential) wild & scenic river, state canoe and boating river, or the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). However, the project does fall within a designated floodplain district of Minnehaha Creek.

Floodplain District Minnesota Statutes 103F.101 to 103F.155 requires agencies carrying out proposed projects, to provide leadership and action to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impacts of floods on human safety. Supporting references for this floodplain assessment include the USGS Quadrangle Maps, aerial photographs, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the project area.


National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the City of St. Louis Park (Community-Panel #27053C0353E and #270053C0361E, September, 4, 2004), were examined for this project. The proposed improvements encroach upon a designated flood hazard area. The current project area designated floodplain area is depicted in figures found in Appendix C. The encroachments occur on areas designated Zone X and Zone AH with the lowest known flood elevation of 891.0 feet.

The MNDNR in conjunction with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has developed an XP-SWMM model to more accurately determine the base flood elevations along Minnehaha Creek. The XP-SWMM is currently undergoing the final review by the MNDNR and FEMA is anticipated to adopt the updated base flood elevations by the spring of 2011. In discussions with MNDNR and MCWD staff, the revised 100-year floodplain elevation for the project area is 887.4 feet. At this elevation, no areas of the project would result in floodplain fill impacts. However, until FEMA adopts the new flood elevations for Minnehaha Creek, the project is required to provide compensatory storage for any fill impacts below the base flood elevation of 891 feet.

Mitigation and Floodplain Permitting The new interchange and associated roadway improvements will not cause restrictions to the Minnehaha Creek channel. The MCWD requires that any fill volume placed below the designated floodplain elevation must be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 1:1.

The proposed project improvements will result in the addition of approximately 2.23 acre-feet of fill below the current 100-year floodplain elevation of 891.0 feet. To offset this fill volume, the proposed Walker Pond (storm water pond), located in the northeast quadrant of the interchange, will provide compensatory storage in the immediate project area for this fill volume. The Walker Pond will create approximately 2.35 acre-feet of additional storage capacity below the 100-year floodplain elevation.

No Practicable Alternative Finding Several interchange concept alternatives were considered and evaluated, but all had similar impacts on the floodplain within the project area. No location alternatives were considered due to the present location of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. The proposed roadway improvements were selected because they satisfy the project purpose and need objectives of improving safety and maintaining mobility along these vital transportation corridors.

15. Water Surface Use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body?

Yes No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses.

No response required.


16. Erosion and Sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be

Moved: 23.7 Acres: 218,000 cubic yards. 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 area inside the construction limits of the project (shown on Figure 8) is approximately 23.7 acres. The amount of soil to be moved is estimated at 162,000 cubic yards of cut and 56,000 cubic yards of fill. These quantities are estimates based on preliminary design and are subject to change as final design progresses.

The topography of the project area is relatively flat, sloping to the south on the south side of Highway 7 and sloping towards Louisiana Avenue from the west and east on the north side of Highway 7. Highway 7 slopes moderately uphill to the west and east away from the intersection. Soil types that may be encountered during construction are identified in Question 19 of this EAW. According to the soil classifications and descriptions the soils in the project area are not expected to exceed 12 percent, which according to the EAW Guidelines (Minnesota EQB, 2000) is considered a steep slope. Slopes within the project area are not expected to exceed a 1:4 ratio for the side slopes and 1:3 for the ditch back slopes. Soils that are not prone to erosion will be used when constructing side slopes. Furthermore, BMPs will also be employed during construction to limit erosion and sedimentation that would potentially result from constructing steep slopes.

Erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented to protect all drainage areas leading to water resources. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Storm Water Phase II Permit (NPDES general permit MN# R100001) will be required for this project, which will have to be obtained from the MPCA to ensure that potential damage from erosion and sedimentation will not impact water quality adversely. This permit has both temporary directives used primarily during construction, as well as permanent requirements, which the project must meet. Below is a summary of the requirements and techniques that may be used for this project. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is required as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, would be prepared outlining the practices to be used for this project to prevent impacts to the quality of the receiving waters. The SWPPP would be incorporated and made part of the construction documents.

• Uses of horizontal slope grading, construction phasing, and other techniques designed to reduce erosion.

• Implementation of temporary controls to protect exposed soil areas, such as wood chip cover, seeding and mulching, silt fences, and stabilization of steep slopes.


• Prior to any connection of a pipe or outfall structure to a water of the state, temporary energy dissipation method to control the outfall water must be implemented.

• Sediment control BMPs will be in place on all down gradient perimeters before up gradient construction disturbance begins.

• There will be minimization of vehicle soil tracking onto paved surfaces by limiting construction equipment use on paved roads.

• Temporary sedimentation basins must be provided prior to any runoff leaving the construction sites.

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.

Quality of Runoff

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 roadway runoff. Other common pollutants are total suspended solids (TSS) and chloride. TSS and chloride are introduced into roadway 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 grass side slopes and ditches and sedimentation ponds.

The preferred alternative will create 14.19 acres of impervious surface. The existing impervious area being removed as a result of the proposed project is 14.03 acres. Overall the project will create less than 7,000 square feet (0.16 acres) of new impervious surface.

Roadway Design

In accordance with the requirements of the NPDES permit, the roadway design will include storm water treatment BMPs that will be designed and built to comply with the NPDES Construction Storm water permit and other local requirements.

The proposed project was analyzed using computer aided design software HydroCAD and XP-SWMM. The design rainfall events used within each of these models are based on the NRCS method, 24-hour rainfall event with Type II


distribution. The total depth of rainfall used for each critical duration storm event is as follows: 2-Year (2.8 in), 10-Year (4.2 in), and 100-Year (6.0 in).

Storm water ponds and infiltration areas have been considered with the roadway and intersection improvements. Provided below is a summary of the critical storm water design components.

• The project shall provide treatment for storm water generated within the project limits to NURP standards.

• The proposed discharge rates for the 100-year storm event may not exceed the existing 10-year release rate.

To meet the storm water design requirements two storm water basins are proposed, Walker Pond, located in the northeast quadrant, and West Lake Pond, located in the southeast quadrant (see Figure 8). The basins were designed to provide adequate storage volume, rate control and treatment to meet the City of Saint Louis Park’s own storm water management rules. The ponds will intercept site runoff and remove pollutants and sediment prior to discharging from publicly owned right-of-way.

The City of St. Louis Park will continue to coordinate efforts with the resource agencies (e.g. MNDNR, MPCA, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) to ensure water quality and surface water drainage concerns are addressed in the final design of the proposed improvements.

Quantity of Runoff

The volume of runoff is expected to increase as a result of the slight increase in impervious area. The proposed storm water basins were designed to accommodate peak discharge rates for the 100-year storm event as well as provide rate control to reduce the proposed 100-year discharge rate so it does not exceed the existing conditions 10-year peak discharge rate.

HydroCAD models were developed for the existing and proposed conditions to analyze the overall peak discharge rates generated from the project corridor. The existing and proposed condition models take into account the existing and proposed storm water ponds and wetlands located within the project area.

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.

The downstream receiving water bodies include several wetland basins located adjacent to the project area as well as the ultimate receiving water Minnehaha Creek. Most of the wetlands that will be impacted are connected to each other via


ditches, culverts or hydric soils and ultimately discharge into Minnehaha Creek. Most wetlands and drainage ditches will be buffered from direct discharge from the roadway by vegetated side slopes and grassed roadside ditches that will promote filtration. The ultimate receiving water, Minnehaha Creek, is impaired for Fish Bioassessments, Chlorides, and Fecal Coliform. As required by the NPDES Permit, additional permanent and temporary Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized during construction. A SWPPP will be prepared as part of the project and will detail the permanent and temporary BMPs which will be implemented in accordance with the NPDES Permit for discharges to an impaired water.

18. Water Quality – Wastewater. a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial

wastewater produced or treated at the site.

No sanitary, municipal, or industrial wastewater will be produced or treated on site.

b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, 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.

Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems.

Not applicable.

19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions. a. Approximate depth (in feet) to Groundwater 4 minimum; >5 feet Average. Bedrock: 50 feet minimum; 100 feet Average. Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water 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.


Geology

According to the Minnesota Geological Survey – Geologic Atlas for Hennepin County, Minnesota (MGS, 89), the uppermost bedrock geology along the corridor is identified as the Platteville and Glenwood Formations. The Platteville Formation is defined as fine-grained dolostone and limestone underlain by the green, sandy shale of the Glenwood Formation. The depth to bedrock from the ground surface ranges from 50 to 100-feet below ground surface (bgs). The surficial geology of the corridor is identified as Des Moines Lobe and Grantsburg Sublobe deposits and peat.

No geologic site hazards to groundwater are known to occur within the corridor. Sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, and karst features are not located within the project area.

Hydrogeology

According to the Minnesota Geological Survey – Geologic Atlas for Hennepin County, Minnesota (MGS, 1989), the water table is encountered at around 890 feet above mean sea level. This is confirmed by data from wells located within the corridor in which the static water level is between 4- and 68-feet bgs. Due to the local topography, shallow groundwater flow direction appears to be south toward Meadowbrook Lake, however according to a Vapor Intrusion Study (EPA, 2008), groundwater is flowing southeast across the project corridor.

b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil texture and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.

Soil information for the project area was obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Website1. There are six primary types of soils found in the project area as listed and described below. Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through protective and mitigation measures as described in the water quality section of this document.

• L30A (Medo soils, depressional, 0 to 1 percent slopes), 10% of project area

• L55C (Urban land-Malardi complex, 8 to 18 percent slopes), 10% of project area

• U1A (Urban land-Udorthents, wet substratum, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes), 55% of project area

1 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ accessed March 2011.


• U2A (Udorthents, wet substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes), 15% of project area

• U3B Udorthents (cut and fill land), 0 to 6 percent slopes, 0.0%

• U4A Urban land-Udipsamments (cut and fill land) complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, 10% of project area

According to the USDA/NRCS soils data collected for the project, the majority of the study area consists of Urban Land-Udorthents and Udipsamments. Urban Land soils include areas so altered or obstructed by urban works or structures that identification of soils is not feasible. The urban land portion comprises over 75 percent of the soils. These soils have moderate to high infiltration rates. Furthermore, according to the Geologic Atlas for Hennepin County, the project area is located in an area categorized has having a “very high” sensitivity of groundwater systems to pollution. As indicated earlier under EAW Question 9, high levels of soil and groundwater contamination currently exist in the study area that originated from past land uses. The proposed project involves limited use of contaminants (primarily fuel for construction activities) and thus there is limited potential for additional soil and/or groundwater contamination. If a spill should occur, the State Duty Officer will be contacted and immediate steps will be taken to contain the spill to eliminate/minimize the potential for groundwater impacts. A spill contingency plan will be developed by the project contractor prior to construction activities.

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. Wastes generated by the proposed project will include demolition debris due to the demolition of existing infrastructure.

Petroleum products will be used to fuel construction equipment, but will be contained in proper storage tanks. A project staging plan will be developed during the final design phase that will identify equipment and material (petroleum products) storage areas. A spill contingency plan will be developed by the project contractor prior to construction activities. If a spill does occur, the State Duty Officer will be contacted.


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.

Materials anticipated to be present on-site are those normally associated with the operation/maintenance of construction equipment including petroleum products such as gasoline and other engine fluids. No other toxic or hazardous materials are anticipated to be present during construction, and none will be present following 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 aboveground or underground storage tanks are planned for permanent use in conjunction with this project. Temporary storage tanks for petroleum products are likely to be located in the project area for the purpose of refueling construction equipment. Appropriate measures would be taken during construction to avoid spills that could contaminate groundwater or surface water in the project area. In the event a leak or spill occurs during construction, appropriate action to remedy the situation would be taken immediately in accordance with MPCA guidelines and regulations.

21. Traffic. Parking spaces added: N/A Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): N/A

Estimated average daily traffic generated: N/A Estimated maximum peak hour traffic

generated (if known) and its timing: N/A

Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system.

This project will not generate traffic. The project is proposed to address traffic mobility needs based on forecast future traffic growth. The existing and forecast traffic volumes are shown on Figure 5 on page 6. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from Mn/DOT’s Traffic Flow Maps. Louisiana Avenue serves as a vital north-south corridor through the City and currently serves 11,000 to 13,000 vehicles per day at this location. In addition, Highway 7 carries approximately 35,000 vehicles per day through this intersection.

Traffic forecasts were developed for both the no-build and build conditions for the year 2031. The traffic forecasts were based largely on the use of the most recent Twins Cities Regional Model (TCRM) released by the Metropolitan Council in 2006. The components of the TCRM utilize the four step modeling


Left Thru Right Total Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOSLouisiana Ave at Walker Street (Signal) NB 19 296 79 394 5.8 A 3.3 A 3.1 A 3.4 A

SB 127 361 29 517 9.9 A 4.0 A 2.0 A 4.2 A 8.0 AEB 34 80 119 233 37.1 D 34.8 C 5.9 A 19.9 BWB 18 24 13 55 32.7 C 10.3 B 3.0 A 13.0 B

Louisiana Ave at TH 7 (Signal) NB 96 182 111 389 75.3 E 79.8 E 4.5 A 56.5 ESB 243 203 52 498 107.9 F 71.8 E 3.0 A 80.9 F 45.4 DEB 155 361 306 822 79.2 E 38.8 D 16.4 B 38.1 DWB 307 871 571 1,749 92.7 F 21.7 C 8.7 A 38.4 D

Louisiana Ave at W. Lake Street (Signal) NB 42 316 14 372 11.5 B 4.7 A 3.3 A 5.3 ASB 22 633 161 816 7.1 A 5.1 A 4.8 A 5.1 A 8.1 AEB 51 26 18 95 42.8 D 38.9 D 5.6 A 34.1 CWB 4 31 22 57 36.4 D 34.4 C 11.6 B 27.1 C

Louisiana Ave at Walker Street (Signal) NB 104 532 87 723 9.3 A 5.3 A 5.0 A 5.8 ASB 22 439 57 518 13.0 B 6.0 A 4.2 A 6.1 A 9.7 AEB 53 78 55 186 35.3 D 28.0 C 4.3 A 22.5 CWB 41 50 21 112 35.7 D 19.6 B 4.6 A 21.7 C

Louisiana Ave at TH 7 (Signal) NB 297 304 235 836 110.1 F 106.7 F 18.2 B 84.6 FSB 206 190 139 535 84.7 F 74.0 E 8.2 A 61.4 E 48.5 DEB 279 1363 153 1,795 81.8 F 27.7 C 11.6 B 34.6 CWB 124 1248 140 1,512 107.1 F 37.4 D 10.5 B 40.5 D

Louisiana Ave at W. Lake Street (Signal) NB 30 662 73 765 10.1 B 11.2 B 9.0 A 10.9 BSB 22 409 36 467 8.9 A 4.4 A 3.5 A 4.5 A 12.2 BEB 79 40 33 152 45.9 D 42.3 D 5.9 A 35.4 DWB 12 21 56 89 33.8 C 29.4 C 17.6 B 23.0 C

PM

Pea

k Ho

ur

ApproachDemand Volumes

(Veh/Hour)Delay

(S/Veh)

Time Period

LOSIntersection

AM P

eak

Hour

LOS

LOS By Intersection

Delay (s/veh) LOS By Approach

Left Thru Right Delay(S/Veh)

process, which includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and traffic assignment. A sub-area model was developed for the study area using updated county traffic analysis zone (TAZ) data for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue study area.

Traffic Operations Analysis

Traffic operations analysis was conducted for the study intersections to determine the level of service (LOS), delay, and queuing information during the AM and PM peak hour for the existing conditions, 2031 no-build traffic condition, and the 2031 preferred alternative condition.

LOS is a quantitative rating system used to describe the efficiency of traffic operations at an intersection. Six LOS are defined, designated by letters A through F. LOS A represents the best operating conditions (no congestion) and LOS F represents the worst operating conditions (severe congestion).

The traffic operations analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic software for stop sign control and signalized intersections. Traffic modeling software packages RODEL and VISSIM were used for the roundabout traffic operations analysis. Tables 7 through 9 further show the results of the existing and forecast traffic operations analysis for the existing at-grade intersection and the proposed conditions under the preferred alternative.

Table 7– Existing Traffic Conditions Analysis – Synchro/SimTraffic Results


Left Thru Right Total Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOSLouisiana Ave at Walker Street (Signal) NB 20 380 90 490 7.9 A 6.3 A 5.3 A 6.2 A

SB 20 410 20 450 14.1 B 8.0 A 3.8 A 8.1 A 11.5 BEB 30 70 180 280 32.7 C 29.7 C 6.3 A 15.1 BWB 120 50 10 180 36.5 D 13.2 B 5.0 A 23.5 C

Louisiana Ave at TH 7 (Signal) NB 140 250 150 540 70.8 E 65.5 E 7.0 A 51.3 DSB 350 280 80 710 110.1 F 66.2 E 3.6 A 81.0 F 122.6 FEB 140 1510 300 1,950 164.8 F 179.4 F 148.1 F 173.7 FWB 340 930 110 1,380 310.6 F 38.9 D 7.1 A 101.4 F

Louisiana Ave at W. Lake Street (Signal) NB 30 450 10 490 17.3 B 3.4 A 1.8 A 4.1 ASB 60 650 210 920 6.0 A 3.5 A 3.4 A 3.6 A 11.5 BEB 70 30 30 130 79.1 E 84.6 F 6.6 A 62.7 EWB 20 20 30 70 85.7 F 82.8 F 37.1 D 63.7 E

Louisiana Ave at Walker Street (Signal) NB 140 570 130 840 13.3 B 8.0 A 7.5 A 8.8 ASB 30 490 70 590 15.4 B 10.0 B 7.4 A 10.0 B 11.9 BEB 60 50 110 220 30.0 C 25.5 C 5.1 A 16.8 BWB 110 30 20 160 31.8 C 33.8 C 6.6 A 28.7 C

Louisiana Ave at TH 7 (Signal) NB 250 360 280 890 67.0 E 63.0 E 11.9 B 47.7 DSB 260 320 130 710 75.1 E 62.0 E 6.2 A 56.5 E 68.6 EEB 330 1450 220 2,000 214.2 F 55.3 E 23.1 C 77.4 EWB 150 1410 150 1,710 86.1 F 78.6 E 25.5 C 74.4 E

Louisiana Ave at W. Lake Street (Signal) NB 20 680 100 800 9.3 A 9.0 A 6.7 A 8.7 ASB 90 520 90 700 11.6 B 4.3 A 3.7 A 5.2 A 15.6 BEB 130 20 20 170 65.9 E 59.0 E 6.7 A 59.0 EWB 40 20 70 130 62.1 E 63.3 E 39.5 D 50.2 D

Time Period

LOS

Intersection

AM P

eak

Hou

r

LOS

LOS By Intersection

Delay (s/veh) LOS By Approach

Left Thru Right Delay(S/Veh)

Delay(S/Veh)

PM P

eak

Hour

ApproachDemand Volumes

(Veh/Hour)

Left Thru Right1 Right2 Total Left Thru Right1 Right2 Delay(S/Veh) LOS Delay

(S/Veh) LOS

NB Louisiana 30 430 100 560 1 1 1 0.8 ASB Louisiana 20 410 20 450 2 1 2 1.4 AEB Walker St 40 50 210 300 4 4 4 4.2 A 1.9 AWB Walker St 220 50 10 280 3 3 2 2.6 ANB Louisiana 180 450 0 630 0 0 0 0.2 ASB Louisiana 0 740 100 840 0 4 4 3.6 A 3.2 AWB TH 7 320 0 100 420 7 0 7 7.1 ANB Louisiana 50 415 20 105 590 6 5 6 5 5.1 ASB Louisiana 95 440 135 390 1,060 2 1 1 2 1.7 AEB TH 7 170 45 220 65 500 9 23 23 25 18.5 C 7.1 AEB W Lake St 35 50 20 25 130 19 16 17 17 17.2 CWB W Lake St 20 30 30 20 100 8 8 9 8 8.1 ANB Louisiana 150 680 120 950 2 1 1 1.2 ASB Louisiana 20 540 50 610 2 2 2 2 AEB Walker St 70 40 130 240 4 4 5 4.3 A 2.4 AWB Walker St 210 40 20 270 6 6 7 5.9 ANB Louisiana 320 780 0 1,100 1 0 0 0.3 ASB Louisiana 0 690 190 880 0 3 4 3.3 A 5.3 AWB TH 7 160 0 160 320 27 0 28 27.5 DNB Louisiana 20 570 150 240 980 11 12 14 14 12.7 BSB Louisiana 35 430 65 320 850 2 1 1 2 1.3 AEB TH 7 390 15 170 25 600 7 6 8 8 7.5 A 10.6 BEB W Lake St 95 20 20 45 180 17 18 18 18 17.7 CWB W Lake St 55 20 40 35 150 57 51 58 58 56.9 F

Note: 2nd Right movement at South Ramp roundabout is the ramp to EB TH 7. With the exception of the EB TH 7 approach, which the rights are SB Louisiana and WB West Lake.

PM P

eak

Hou

r

Louisiana Ave/W. Lake St/TH 7 South RampsFrontage Rd

Louisiana Ave at Walker St

Louisiana Ave at TH 7 North Ramps

Delay(S/Veh)

Approach

Demand Volumes(Veh/Hr)

LOS ByApproach

LOS ByIntersection

Louisiana Ave at TH 7 North Ramps

Louisiana Ave/W. Lake St/TH 7 South RampsFrontage Rd

Time Period

Louisiana Ave at Walker St

AM

Pea

k H

our

Intersection

Table 8 – 2031 No Build Conditions Analysis – Synchro/SimTraffic Results

Table 9 – 2031 Preferred Alternative Conditions Analysis – VISSIM Results


Existing Conditions Analysis

For the existing conditions analysis, the model network includes the existing intersection geometrics and the existing peak hour traffic conditions. All three intersections operate at an overall LOS of D or better for both the AM and PM peak hour. The highest approach delay occurs at Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue during the PM peak hour; the northbound approach operates at a LOS F with 84.6 seconds of delay per vehicle.

2031 No Build Conditions Analysis

For the 2031 No Build conditions analysis, the model network includes the existing intersection geometrics and the forecast 2031 No Build peak hour traffic conditions. The intersection of Walker Street/Louisiana Avenue operates at an overall LOS B for both the AM and PM peak hour condition. In the forecast year, the West Lake Street/Louisiana Avenue intersection operates at a LOS B for both the AM PM conditions. The intersection of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue operates at an overall LOS F and LOS E for the 2031 condition for the AM peak and PM peak, respectively.

2031 Preferred Alternative Conditions Analysis

As part of the analysis for the preferred alternative, the model network included base assumptions for geometric conditions (e.g. number of lanes) and the forecast 2031 build peak hour traffic conditions. The preferred alternative was evaluated with roundabout control at the Walker Street/Louisiana Avenue intersection, the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue north ramp terminal intersection, and the south ramp terminal (Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue) and the West Lake Street intersection.

All intersections operate at an overall LOS of A for the 2031 AM peak hour condition and LOS C or better for the PM peak hour condition. Tables 7 through 9 show the detailed operations for the three intersections under the preferred alternative condition.

Safety Assessment

Crash data for the 3-existing study intersections for the period of January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2009 were obtained from Mn/DOT. The type and severity of the crashes were reviewed for the Walker Street/Louisiana Avenue intersection, the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection and the Lake Street/Louisiana Avenue intersection. Crash and severity rates were calculated for each intersection and this crash information is summarized in Table 10.


Table 10 – Crash Summary for Study Area Intersections

Intersection

Crashes (1/1/04 to 12/31/08) 5-year Crash Rate Metro District Average Rates*

Fatal Personal Injury

Property Damage

Only Total

Crash Rate

(crashes/MEV)

Severity Rate

(severity index/MEV)

Crash Rate

(crashes/MEV)

Severity Rate

(severity index/MEV)

Walker St/Louisiana Ave 0 9 16 25 0.97 1.44 0.5 0.8

Hwy 7/Louisiana Ave 0 20 59 79 0.93 1.20 0.7 1.0

W Lake St/Louisiana Ave 0 4 17 21 0.79 0.94 0.5 0.8

The actual crash rates and severity rates determined for the study area intersections were compared to the Mn/DOT Metro District average rates. The intersection crash rate used for comparison purposes for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection rate was a signalized, high volume (>15K ADT) and high speed (>=45 mph) intersection. While Walker Street/Louisiana Avenue and West Lake Street/Louisiana Avenue crash rates were for a signalized, low volume (<15k ADT) and low speed (<45 mph) intersection. The Metro District rates are based on crash data for the period for 2006-2008. As indicated in Table 9, all three study area intersections had crash rates and severity rates greater than the Mn/DOT Metro District average rates.

The proposed interchange project includes not only the new tight diamond interchange at the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue intersection, but also includes roundabout intersections at ramp terminal and frontage road intersections. Furthermore, the interchange project includes closing existing right-in/right-out access points to Highway 7 at West Lake Street and Hampshire Avenue. The proximity of the West Lake Street and Hampshire Avenue right-in/right-out intersections along Highway 7 and the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection are not consistent with Mn/DOT’s access spacing guidelines for this section of Highway 7, which calls for at least ¼-mile spacing between secondary intersections. As traffic volumes increase and intersection operations become more congested, the instances of rear end crashes typically increase. Further, drivers who become frustrated with waiting for long periods at a traffic signal, may engage in more risky behaviors such as running yellow or red lights and speeding through the intersection.

The FHWA Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors was used as part of the safety analysis. All signals converting to roundabouts have a crash reduction factor of 40 percent, which results in the following reductions: Louisiana Avenue intersections at Walker Street, 25 crashes reduced to 15, and West Lake Street, 21 crashes reduced to 13. The FHWA document does not have a countermeasure with a crash reduction factor for converting a signalized intersection to a grade-separated interchange. However, as referenced in the Research Report KTC-96-13, Development of Accident


Reduction Factors, Kentucky Transportation Center, there is a "construct interchange" countermeasure that shows a crash reduction factor of 55 percent. By applying this crash reduction factor to the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue intersection results in a crash reduction of 36 crashes (79*0.55=43). The total number of crashes reduced at the three study intersections totals 54 crashes over the five-year period.

The project also proposes closing the West Lake Street and the Hampshire Avenue access to Highway 7. The elimination of these access points is assumed to result in further crash reductions.

In addition to vehicle crashes, this project will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. The grade separated crossing of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue will substantially improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in the area and will support connections to the Cedar Lake Regional Trail and the future Southwest LRT Station proposed along Louisiana Avenue.

No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the future traffic growth will be required to utilize the existing transportation system which includes the existing Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue at-grade intersection. As a result, the existing safety concerns will continue to elevate under the No-Build Alternative with the frequency and severity of crashes likely to remain above the Metro District and Statewide averages.

As noted previously, Highway 7 currently has two right-in/right-out access points within close proximity of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection that do not meet Mn/DOT’s Access Spacing Guidelines. The presence of these access points creates conflicts between slower turning/merging traffic and higher speed through traffic. Furthermore, the crash and severity rates at the existing signalized intersection is 0.93 and 1.20 crashes/MEV (million entering vehicles), respectively. This is higher than the metro area average crash and severity rates of 0.7 and 1.0 crashes/MEV, respectively, for similar intersections. The high number of turning movement conflicts, speed along Highway 7, and the signalized intersection control are all contributing elements to the crashes being more severe and injurious, resulting in higher crash cost expense. Under the No-Build Alternative, the increased volumes may require longer amounts of green time on the traffic signal, which would further disrupt traffic flow along Highway 7, increasing the possibilities for collisions.

The existing operation of the intersection during peak periods is approaching capacity despite recent traffic signal timing improvements. The traffic volumes along Highway 7 require a substantial portion of the traffic signal green time resulting in the Louisiana Avenue approaches to Highway 7 experiencing


delays that exceed acceptable levels. Under the No-Build Alternative, as traffic volumes increase at the intersection, the traffic signal and existing lanes will not provide sufficient capacity and the intersection operations will fail based on analysis of design year (or future) conditions.

22. 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. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.

This project is located in an area in which conformity requirements apply and has been designated by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide. Furthermore, the USEPA has approved a screening method to determine which intersections need hot-spot analysis.

Mn/DOT demonstrates by the results of the screening procedure that the intersections located within this project area do not require hot-spot analysis. Therefore, no further air quality analysis is necessary.

"The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require that State Implementation Plans (SIP) must demonstrate how states with nonattainment and maintenance areas will meet federal air quality standards. The USEPA has designated all of Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka and portions of Carver, Scott, Dakota, Washington and Wright counties as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO). This area 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. These guidelines indicate that non-exempt transportation projects such as this project may need to be included in a regional emissions analysis to demonstrate the project would not increase regional CO emissions and would not increase the frequency or severity of existing violations. The regional analysis must be part of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Long Range Transportation Policy Plan (LRTPP) and the four-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

Accordingly, this project is consistent with the 2030 MPO’s LRTPP, and in the current 2011-2014 TIP. This project is included in the transportation conformity section of the LRTPP and/or the TIP.

The regional analysis shows that emissions are below the EPA-established emissions budget for the region. This project does not interfere with implementation of any transportation control measure included in the SIP.


The LRTPP was determined to conform to the requirements of the 1990 (CAAA) (per 40 CFR 51 and 93) by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration on August 11, 2010. A TIP conformity determination was made by those agencies on April 20, 2010. The project's design concept and scope are not significantly different from that used in the TIP and LRTPP conformity analyses.

As demonstrated by the above information, this project conforms to the requirements of the CAAA and to the Conformity Rules, 40 CFR 93."

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATS)

The Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project has a low potential for creating substantial mobile source air toxic effects. As a result, this EA includes a basic analysis of potential MSAT emission impacts.

In addition to controlling air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards (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), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).

Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest 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) http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html. 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) http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/. 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 mobile source air toxics, 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. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (vehicle-miles travelled, VMT) increases by 145 percent as assumed, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050, as shown in the graph on the following page.


NATIONAL MSAT EMISSION TRENDS 1999 – 2050 FOR VEHICLES OPERATING ON ROADWAYS USING EPA's MOBILE6.2 MODEL

Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project-specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how the potential health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project-level decision-making within the context of the National Environmental policy Act (NEPA).

Nonetheless, air toxics concerns continue to be raised on highway projects during the NEPA process. Even as the science emerges, we are duly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in our environmental documents. The FHWA, EPA, the Health Effects Institute, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field.


Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis. This EA includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this EA. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:

Incomplete or Unavailable Information. 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.

• Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model--emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis.

These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.


• Dispersion. The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT background concentrations.

• Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis.

Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSATs. Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses.


Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level.

The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.

• Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen. The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure.

• Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals.

• 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.

• Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure.

• Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.

• Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary non-cancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies.

There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile


source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several years.

Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems2. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project.

Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the human environment." In this document, Mn/DOT and the City of St. Louis Park has provided a qualitative assessment of MSAT emissions relative to the various alternatives and has acknowledged that the build alternative may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated.

As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions-if any-from the

2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-II (2000); Highway Health Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24 Studies on the relationship between health and air quality); NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited therein.


various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below 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: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm

For each of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue interchange alternatives, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This assumes that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each interchange alternative. The VMT estimated for the preferred alternative is slightly higher than that of the No-Build Alternative. The primary reason for this is related to the increased capacity and efficiency of the interchange over the existing at-grade intersection. An increase in VMT would lead to slightly higher MSAT emissions for the interchange alternatives, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along surrounding and parallel routes. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to reduced congestion and increased speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.

Because the estimated VMT under each of the interchange alternatives are nearly the same, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emission 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 MSAT emissions by 72 percent from 1999 and 2050. 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 cases.

Any potential for localized levels of MSAT emissions increasing with the construction of a grade separated interchange with roundabouts when compared to the No-Build Alternative will be offset by increases in speed and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). On a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions in MSAT emissions.

In sum, under all interchange alternatives in the design year, it is expected there would be reduced MSAT emissions in the immediate area of the project, relative to the No-Build Alternative, due to EPA’s MSAT reduction programs.


23. 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), any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides), and ozone-depleting chemicals (chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. The project will not involve any stationary sources of air emissions.

24. Odors Noise and Dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation?

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 No long-term odors will be generated by the proposed project. Odors may be generated by exhaust from diesel engines engaged in construction activities and fuel storage areas. All machinery will be properly equipped to control emissions.

Construction Noise During construction, it is anticipated that noise levels will increase in the immediate area surrounding the project site. The actual noise levels on and adjacent to the site will vary considerably depending on the number of pieces of equipment being operated simultaneously and the utilization factor (percent of time in operation and the distance from the equipment to the receptors).

Construction activities will be temporary in duration. Local noise ordinances will be complied with during the construction phase of the project. Construction equipment will be required to have factory installed mufflers or their equivalents in good working order during the life of the construction contracts. When feasible, construction will take place primarily during the less noise-sensitive daylight hours to avoid impacts during hours associated with sleep.

Traffic Noise A detailed traffic noise study was conducted using noise analysis software MINNOISE, a modified version of FHWA’s STAMINA 2.0. The analysis modeled noise levels for four unique scenarios: Existing Conditions (2007), No-Build Alternative (2031), Build Alternative (2031), and Build Alternative (2031) with analyzed noise barriers.


Noise Description

Noise is defined as any unwanted sound. Sound travels in a wave motion and produces a sound pressure level. This sound pressure level is commonly measured in decibels. Decibels 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 3 dBA is barely perceptible to the human ear, a 5 dBA increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (e.g. the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dBA increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases to where there is 10 times the sound energy level over a reference level, then there is a 10 dBA increase and it is heard twice as loud.

In Minnesota, traffic noise impacts are evaluated by measuring and/or modeling the traffic noise levels that are exceeded 10 percent and 50 percent of the time during the hour of the day and/or night that has the heaviest traffic. These levels are identified as the L10 and L50 levels. The L10 value is compared to FHWA noise abatement criteria.

The following chart provides a rough comparison of the noise levels of some common noise sources.

Sound Pressure Level (dBA) Noise Source

140 ----------------------------- Jet Engine (at 25 meters) 130 ----------------------------- Jet Aircraft (at 100 meters) 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, http://www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/pubs/noise.pdf and “Highway Traffic Noise,” FHWA, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/htnoise.htm


State of Minnesota Noise Regulations

Minnesota state noise standards are for a one-hour period and apply to outdoor areas (i.e. exterior noise levels). The standards are in terms of the L10 and L50 noise descriptors. The L10 is the sound level exceeded ten percent of the time or six minutes out of an hour. The L50 is the sound level exceeded fifty percent of the time or thirty minutes out of an hour. State noise standards have been established for daytime and nighttime periods. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) defines daytime as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and nighttime from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Table11 provides the Minnesota State Noise Standards for three Noise Area Classifications (NAC), and for daytime, nighttime, L10 and L50. 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 uses 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.

Table 11 – Minnesota State Noise Standards

Noise Area Classification

General Land Use Type

Sound Level (dBA)

Day (7:00 am-10:00 pm) Night (10:00 pm-7:00 am)

L10 L50 L10 L50

1 Residential 65 60 55 50

2 Commercial 70 65 70 65

3 Industrial 80 75 80 75

Federal Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)

In the Federal NAC, a noise impact is defined to occur when the predicted noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (see Table 12) or substantially exceed the existing levels.

The Federal NAC (23 CFR, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise) are in terms of the Leq or L10 descriptor. Since the L10 descriptor is used to identify impacts in Minnesota, the L10 descriptor is used to identify impacts in this analysis. The criteria for activity category E (Table 12) 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.

The state of Minnesota has defined “approach or exceed” as being within one dBA or less of the activity category of the NAC level, and “substantially exceed” as an increase of 5 dBA or more over existing noise levels.

Table 12 – FHWA NAC (Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level in Decibels (dBA)) Activity Category L10 (h)

Description of Activity Category

A 60 dBA (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

70 dBA

(Exterior)

Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.

C

75 dBA

(Exterior)

Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B.

D

No Limit

Undeveloped Lands

E

55 dBA

(Interior)

Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.

Traffic Noise Analysis Methodology and Assumptions

The proposed project is located in an urban area in the city of St. Louis Park. Traffic noise is generated by vehicles traveling on Highway 7, Louisiana Avenue, as well as intersecting local roadways. Other noise sources in the area include industrial and commercial activity in all quadrants of the intersection, as well as freight train activity along the eastern and southernmost limits of the study area.

Many residences are located adjacent to the project area, and receptor locations were chosen that are representative of the various groupings of residences. It is also important to note that the project setting includes other noise sources in the area that may have some affect on ambient noise levels.

Existing noise level measurements were conducted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at two locations in the study area, one of which was used for this noise study. Only L50 values were measured as part of the monitoring. The Monitoring Points (MP) were selected in representative areas of outdoor human activity (i.e. residential land uses). Morning measurements were taken between 6:15 a.m. and 8:25 a.m., and evening noise measurements were taken between 3:45 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Monitoring Points are described in Table 13 and illustrated in Figure 9; MP2 was a sixth-row receiver and considered outside the affected environment.

MP1

MP2

A112

A115

A114

F108

F104

A102

A104

A108

A110

E101

D101

D102

C103

B101

A101

A103

A105

A106

A107

A109

A111

A113

A116

A117

A118

F106

F107

F105

F103

F102

F101

C105

C104C102

C101

C106

C107

11:0

6:15

AM

2/1/

2011

nbla

nchard

S:\

PT\

S\

Stlo

u\10

6311\

Envir

on

me

ntal\

DG

N fig

ures\10

6311-P

H1.dgn

EA

LA

YO

UT - fig 9

FIGURE

9Barrier Locations

Noise Receptor and

Prop

osed So

uthwest

LRT Line

High SchoolSt. Louis Park

ParkLouisiana Oaks

Walker St.

W. La

ke St.

W. Lake St.

Walker St.

Frontage Rd.

T.H. 7

T.H. 7

Louisia

na A

ve.

Republic A

ve.

Monitor St

MP#

R##

PROPOSED ROADWAY

PROPOSED SHOULDER, PAVED

PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY

LEGEND

PROPOSED BRIDGE

PROPOSED SIDEWALK

PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER, RAISED MEDIANS

DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY

PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT

PROPOSED TEMPORARY EASEMENT

ROUNDABOUT APRON

ROUNDABOUT GREEN SPACE

EXISTING MNDOT RIGHT OF WAY

PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN

NOISE MODEL MONITORING SITE

NOISE RECEPTOR SITE

PROPOSED IMPACT LIMITS

APPX. EXISTING R/ W & PARCEL BOUNDARIES

ANALYZED NOISE WALL2/1/2011

0

feetscale

100 250

WALL A1ANALYZED

WALL F1ANALYZED

WALL C1ANALYZED

Walker Pond

Lake St. Pond

AREA C

AREA F

AREA A

AREA B

AREA E

AREA D

Quebec A

ve.

Rhode Isla

nd A

ve.


Table 13– Noise Measurement Locations MP (Receptor) Site Description

MP1 (A105) Residence, Southwest-most corner of Louisiana Oaks Apartment Complex, approximately 138 feet north of westbound Highway 7

MP2 Residence, 3737 Oregon Avenue S, approximately 115 feet northwest of Lake Street W

Existing and future noise levels (2031) were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise prediction model STAMINA 2.0, as modified for use by Mn/DOT. Noise projections were based on existing and forecasted peak hour traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, mix of vehicles, roadway grades, and the distance from the roadway center-of-lanes to the receptor (horizontal and vertical).

The following assumptions were used in modeling the noise levels:

Daytime vs. Nighttime Traffic Volumes:

• Daytime hours were between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; nighttime hours were between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

• The noisiest daytime traffic volumes were assumed to correspond with the busiest traffic period, which for this study was the PM peak hour.

• Evaluation of daily traffic volumes showed that the noisiest Nighttime traffic volumes occur between 6:00 am and 7:00 am and are approximately 50 percent of the PM peak hour volumes.

Vehicle Speeds:

• Highway 7 mainline sections and ramps were modeled using posted limits of 45 miles per hour (MPH).

• Existing and No-Build Louisiana Avenue sections were modeled using posted limits of 30 mph.

• Build roundabout sections on Louisiana Avenue were modeled with the posted advisory speed of 15 mph, with 20 mph between roundabouts.

• Local city streets were modeled using posted limits of 30 mph.

Vehicle Mix:

Table 14 shows the assumptions for vehicle mix of each roadway classification in the model. Mainline and ramp mix was obtained from a nearby Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) on an expressway; local road mix was based on a similar study completed for I-35W.


Table 14 – Vehicle Mix

Ground Cover:

Sound traveling through air attenuates 3 dBA for every doubling of distance. Ground cover can provide additional noise attenuation in absence of a noise barrier. The two default ground values for the noise model are soft ground, which represents open, grassy areas that provide additional acoustical attenuation of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance, and hard ground, which represents surfaces such as asphalt or open water which do not provide additional acoustical attenuation. The study area is in an urban environment with a mixture of foliage, grassy areas, concrete, and asphalt. The default value for mixed environments is soft ground with an alpha value of 0.5.

Shielding Factor:

As per Mn/DOT procedure, for second row residences, the modeling incorporated one row of houses with 40 - 65% coverage, which provided a 3 dBA reduction, and each additional row of houses provided an additional 1.5 dBA reduction.

Noise Areas and Receptor Sites

The noise study area was divided into six areas labeled A through F with a total of 37 modeled receptor locations (see Figure 9). These receptors were chosen as locations representative of all noise sensitive land uses in the project area. Area A is found in the northwest quadrant of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue and contains 18 receptor locations, including 15 residential locations, one church, and two commercial locations. Area B is found in the northeast quadrant of Louisiana Avenue and Walker Street and contains 1 receptor location representing a commercial location. Area C is found in the northeast quadrant of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue and contains 7 receptor locations, including 3 commercial locations and 4 industrial locations. Area D is found in the southeast quadrant of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue and contains 2 commercial receptor locations. Area E is found in the southwest quadrant of Louisiana Avenue and Lake Street and contains 1 industrial receptor location. Area F is found in the southwest quadrant of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue and contains 8 receptor locations including 4 residential locations, 1 commercial location, and 3 industrial locations.

Road Classification Car% Medium Truck% Heavy Truck%

Highway 7 Mainline 97 2 1

Ramp 97 2 1

Louisiana Ave 94 4 2

Local Roads 94 4 2


Noise Analysis Results

The MINNOISE/ STAMINA 2.0 noise model applies four scenarios for comparison of the noise levels. The scenarios are: 1) Existing conditions (2007); 2) No-Build Alternative (2031); 3) Build Alternative (2031); 4) Build Alternative (2031) with analyzed noise barriers.

The noise analysis for the daytime L10 noise levels is referred to in this discussion. For purposes of addressing the Minnesota nighttime and L50 standards, analysis results are also included in Tables 15 and 16 for the daytime L50, nighttime L10 and nighttime L50 noise levels.

Noise modeling was conducted at 37 receptor sites. These sites represent several residences each, with similar noise characteristics at the residences. Daytime and nighttime L50 monitor data was available at one site. See Tables 15 and 16 on the following pages for the modeled noise levels and comparison to the Minnesota Noise Standards and the Federal Noise Abatement Criteria for daytime and nighttime respectively. Figure 9 shows the noise receptor locations, along with noise mitigation measures that have been analyzed for cost-effectiveness.

Noise Barrier Evaluation

Noise barrier construction decisions are determined based on a study of feasibility and reasonableness. Feasibility is determined by physical and/or engineering constraints (i.e., whether a noise barrier could feasibly be constructed on the site). Reasonableness is a more subjective criterion and is based on a number of factors. Economic reasonableness is determined by consideration of Mn/DOT’s Cost-Effectiveness (CE) index in concert with Mn/DOT’s noise barrier acoustical effectiveness limits (i.e., noise level reduction capability). If noise mitigation is found to be cost-effective, an additional reasonableness factor is to consider the desires of affected property owners.

The feasibility of noise barrier construction is sometimes dependent on design details that are not known until the final design phase of the project. It is assumed that any utilities located within the project corridor can be relocated to accommodate noise barriers. The following analysis assumes that noise barriers could be feasibly constructed up to 20 feet high throughout the project area.


Table 15 – Existing and Forecast Daytime Noise Levels

Receptor Monitored Existing 2007 No-Build 2031

Difference Between Existing

and No-Build 2031 Build


and Build L50 L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50

A101 (R) 63.8 56.2 64.7 57.3 0.9 1.1 61.7 56.4 -2.1 0.2 A102 (R) 65.1 59.3 65.8 60.2 0.7 0.9 63.3 58.8 -1.8 -0.5 A103 (R) 66.8 63.0 67.2 63.6 0.4 0.6 66.7 61.6 -0.1 -1.4 A104 (R) 69.3 64.6 69.6 65.1 0.3 0.5 69.9 64.0 0.6 -0.6 A105 (R) 62.1 64.7 60.5 65.0 61.0 0.3 0.5 65.2 60.8 0.5 0.3 A106 (R) 63.4 55.1 64.2 56.1 0.8 1.0 64.6 56.9 1.2 1.8 A107 (R) 62.6 58.4 63.0 59.0 0.4 0.6 63.2 59.2 0.6 0.8 A108 (R) 66.9 62.8 67.2 63.3 0.3 0.5 67.6 63.5 0.7 0.7 A109 (R) 63.4 59.3 63.7 59.8 0.3 0.5 64.0 60.3 0.6 1.0 A110 (R) 59.5 55.3 59.8 55.8 0.3 0.5 60.0 56.3 0.5 1.0 A111 (R) 63.1 58.0 63.4 58.5 0.3 0.5 63.8 59.3 0.7 1.3 A112 (R) 68.6 62.4 68.9 62.9 0.3 0.5 69.6 64.1 1.0 1.7 A113 (R) 61.2 55.4 61.5 55.9 0.3 0.5 61.7 56.2 0.5 0.8 A114 (R) 62.0 55.2 62.3 55.7 0.3 0.5 62.4 56.0 0.4 0.8 A115 (Ch) 69.1 62.0 69.5 62.5 0.4 0.5 69.5 62.3 0.4 0.3 A116 (C) 68.2 61.4 68.5 61.9 0.3 0.5 68.5 61.8 0.3 0.4 A117 (C) 67.9 61.2 68.2 61.6 0.3 0.4 68.3 61.7 0.4 0.5 A118 (R) 61.8 55.4 62.1 55.8 0.3 0.4 62.2 56.0 0.4 0.6 B101 (C) 63.2 57.3 63.6 58.1 0.4 0.8 63.8 56.2 0.6 -1.1 C101 (IND) 67.1 61.4 67.6 62.1 0.5 0.7 68.6 62.5 1.5 1.1 C102 (C) 67.5 62.4 68.0 63.1 0.5 0.7 68.5 63.7 1.0 1.3 C103 (C) 69.2 64.0 69.6 64.7 0.4 0.7 70.1 65.2 0.9 1.2 C104 (C) 68.0 63.2 68.4 63.9 0.4 0.7 68.2 63.6 0.2 0.4 C105 (IND) 69.5 64.7 69.9 65.3 0.4 0.6 69.7 65.1 0.2 0.4 C106 (IND) 63.9 57.6 64.5 58.4 0.6 0.8 65.3 59.0 1.4 1.4 C107 (IND) 62.5 57.0 63.0 57.7 0.5 0.7 63.3 57.6 0.8 0.6 D101 (C) 69.0 63.3 69.5 64.1 0.5 0.8 70.2 62.1 1.2 -1.2 D102 (C) 64.0 60.0 64.5 60.7 0.5 0.7 64.4 60.5 0.4 0.5 E101 (IND) 64.2 57.5 64.9 58.4 0.7 0.9 63.3 58.1 -0.9 0.6 F101 (IND) 64.8 60.6 65.1 61.1 0.3 0.5 65.1 61.0 0.3 0.4 F102 (IND) 67.7 62.7 68.0 63.2 0.3 0.5 67.4 62.4 -0.3 -0.3 F103 (IND) 67.4 61.9 67.7 62.5 0.3 0.6 66.9 61.3 -0.5 -0.6 F104 (R) 67.0 61.2 67.3 61.7 0.3 0.5 66.7 61.0 -0.3 -0.2 F105 (C) 65.8 60.7 66.1 61.2 0.3 0.5 65.9 61.0 0.1 0.3 F106 (R) 66.4 60.9 66.6 61.3 0.2 0.4 66.5 61.2 0.1 0.3 F107 (R) 62.4 56.7 62.7 57.2 0.3 0.5 62.6 57.1 0.2 0.4 F108 (R) 63.2 57.5 63.6 58.0 0.4 0.5 63.0 57.5 -0.2 0.0 State Standards-NAC1 65 60 65 60 65 60 State Standards-NAC2 70 65 70 65 70 65 State Standards-NAC3 80 75 80 75 80 75 Federal Criteria-Category B 70 70 70 Federal Criteria-Category C 75 75 75

Underlined refers to values approaching/exceeding federal criteria Bold refers to values exceeding state standards alone (R) - Residential; (C) - Commercial; (Ch) - Church; (IND) - Industrial


Table 16 – Existing and Forecast Nighttime Noise Levels

Receptor Monitored Existing 2007 No-Build 2031


and No-Build 2031 Build


and Build L50 L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50

A101 (R) 60.7 51.9 61.6 53.0 0.9 1.1 58.9 52.4 -1.8 0.5 A102 (R) 62.3 55.1 63.0 56.1 0.7 1.0 60.6 55.0 -1.7 -0.1 A103 (R) 64.2 59.3 64.7 59.9 0.5 0.6 63.9 57.5 -0.3 -1.8 A104 (R) 66.5 60.7 66.9 61.2 0.4 0.5 67.1 59.9 0.6 -0.8 A105 (R) 59.3 62.1 56.7 62.4 57.2 0.3 0.5 62.6 57.0 0.5 0.3 A106 (R) 60.3 50.8 61.0 51.8 0.7 1.0 61.4 52.6 1.1 1.8 A107 (R) 60.0 54.7 60.4 55.3 0.4 0.6 60.6 55.5 0.6 0.8 A108 (R) 64.2 59.1 64.6 59.5 0.4 0.4 65.0 59.7 0.8 0.6 A109 (R) 60.7 55.5 61.1 56.0 0.4 0.5 61.5 56.6 0.8 1.1 A110 (R) 56.9 51.5 57.2 52.0 0.3 0.5 57.5 52.6 0.6 1.1 A111 (R) 60.3 54.0 60.7 54.6 0.4 0.6 61.1 55.4 0.8 1.4 A112 (R) 65.6 58.3 66.0 58.8 0.4 0.5 66.8 60.1 1.2 1.8 A113 (R) 58.3 51.3 58.7 51.8 0.4 0.5 58.9 52.2 0.6 0.9 A114 (R) 58.9 50.9 59.3 51.5 0.4 0.6 59.5 51.8 0.6 0.9 A115 (Ch) 66.0 57.6 66.4 58.2 0.4 0.6 66.4 58.0 0.4 0.4 A116 (C) 65.1 57.2 65.5 57.7 0.4 0.5 65.5 57.6 0.4 0.4 A117 (C) 64.8 56.9 65.2 57.4 0.4 0.5 65.3 57.4 0.5 0.5 A118 (R) 58.7 51.1 59.1 51.7 0.4 0.6 59.3 51.8 0.6 0.7 B101 (C) 60.3 53.3 60.8 54.0 0.5 0.7 60.7 51.9 0.4 -1.4 C101 (IND) 64.3 57.3 64.8 58.0 0.5 0.7 65.7 58.3 1.4 1.0 C102 (C) 64.7 58.4 65.3 59.1 0.6 0.7 65.9 59.8 1.2 1.4 C103 (C) 66.4 60.0 66.9 60.7 0.5 0.7 67.4 61.3 1.0 1.3 C104 (C) 65.3 59.3 65.8 60.0 0.5 0.7 65.6 59.7 0.3 0.4 C105 (IND) 66.7 60.7 67.2 61.4 0.5 0.7 67.0 61.2 0.3 0.5 C106 (IND) 61.0 53.4 61.6 54.2 0.6 0.8 62.4 54.9 1.4 1.5 C107 (IND) 59.7 52.9 60.3 53.7 0.6 0.8 60.5 53.5 0.8 0.6 D101 (C) 66.1 59.2 66.7 60.0 0.6 0.8 66.9 57.7 0.8 -1.5 D102 (C) 61.4 56.3 61.9 56.9 0.5 0.6 61.8 56.8 0.4 0.5 E101 (IND) 61.1 53.3 61.9 54.1 0.8 0.8 60.5 54.1 -0.6 0.8 F101 (IND) 62.2 56.8 62.5 57.4 0.3 0.6 62.5 57.2 0.3 0.4 F102 (IND) 64.9 58.7 65.3 59.3 0.4 0.6 64.6 58.4 -0.3 -0.3 F103 (IND) 64.6 57.8 64.9 58.4 0.3 0.6 64.1 57.3 -0.5 -0.5 F104 (R) 64.1 57.0 64.5 57.6 0.4 0.6 63.8 56.9 -0.3 -0.1 F105 (C) 63.0 56.8 63.3 57.2 0.3 0.4 63.2 57.0 0.2 0.2 F106 (R) 63.5 56.8 63.8 57.3 0.3 0.5 63.8 57.1 0.3 0.3 F107 (R) 59.5 52.6 59.9 53.1 0.4 0.5 59.8 53.0 0.3 0.4 F108 (R) 60.3 53.4 60.7 53.9 0.4 0.5 60.2 53.5 -0.1 0.1 State Standards-NAC1 55 50 55 50 55 50 State Standards-NAC2 70 65 70 65 70 65 State Standards-NAC3 80 75 80 75 80 75 Federal Criteria-Category B 70 70 70 Federal Criteria-Category C 75 75 75 Underlined refers to values approaching/exceeding federal criteria Bold refers to values exceeding state standards alone (R) - Residential; (C) - Commercial; (Ch) - Church; (IND) - Industrial


A noise barrier must achieve a noise reduction of 5 dBA or more to be considered acoustically effective. The cost per dBA of reduction per residence should be equal to, or less than $3,250 to be considered cost-effective. The following formula is used to determine the CE of a barrier.

The CE index is equal to the cost of the noise barrier1 divided by the product of the average noise level reduction based on those residences that had noise level reductions of 5 dBA or more and the number of residences that had noise level reductions of 5 dBA or more. 1The cost of a noise barrier is calculated using $15 per square foot of wall, except on bridges and retaining walls, where the cost is $18 per square foot. The height of a noise barrier on a bridge is limited to 10 feet due to structural limitations. Only receptors that experience a five or greater decibel decrease in noise following construction of a new noise barrier or improvements to an existing noise barrier are to be considered in the CE analysis. The result of the above formula is a cost per decibel per residence (or commercial/industrial sites represented by each receptor).

Only receptor locations that experience a 5 or greater dBA reduction in noise following construction of a noise barrier are considered in this analysis. The result of the above formula is a cost per decibel per residence represented. This approach is outlined in Mn/DOT Noise Policy for Type I and Type II Federal-Aid Projects as per 23 CFR 772.

There are several steps to assessing the CE of noise barriers. First, the cost-effective noise barrier height is determined for each segment of the project area. For this study, three heights of potential noise barriers were analyzed: 20, 15 and 10 feet. If a 20-foot noise barrier is feasible and meets the reasonableness criteria, it would be proposed for construction. If the 20-foot barrier does not meet the criteria, a 15-foot barrier is evaluated. Likewise if a 15-foot barrier does not meet the criteria, a 10-foot barrier is studied. If a 10-foot noise barrier meets the reasonableness criteria and is feasible, it would then be proposed.

State noise standards would be exceeded throughout the study area (see Tables 15 and 16). Noise barriers were evaluated at three locations within the study area. Figure 9 illustrates barriers that were considered and Tables 17, 18, and 19 show the acoustical effectiveness of each barrier and identifies which barriers are cost effective.

Area A (Receptors A101-A118)

Area A consists of mixed-land use north of Highway 7 and west of Louisiana Avenue to approximately Rhode Island Avenue (see Figure 9). Noise sensitive land uses include the Louisiana Oaks and Newport on Seventh Apartment complexes, single-family residences, a church and church office, and commercial properties. The residential and church land uses were predicted to exceed daytime and


nighttime state standards for future build conditions. Mitigation in the form of one noise barrier was analyzed.

Wall A1

An approximately 2,623-foot noise barrier was modeled between Louisiana Avenue and the Louisiana Oaks Apartment Complex from Walker Street to the west-bound Highway 7 entrance ramp, then extending along the ramp and Highway 7 to Rhode Island Avenue (see Figure 9). The noise barrier would shield 18 receptors representing approximately 64 residences, 1 church, 1 church office/school, and 2 commercial properties. As shown in Tables 17 through 19, the 2,623-foot long, 20-foot high modeled barrier provided a reduction that varied from 1.3 dBA to 9.7 dBA. The cost-effectiveness of the 20-foot high barrier was $3,022/dBA/residence. The approximately 2,623-foot long, 15-foot high modeled barrier provided a reduction that varied from 0.7 dBA to 8.8 dBA. The cost-effectiveness of the 15-foot barrier was $4,997/dBA/residence. The approximately 2,623-foot long, 10-foot high modeled barrier provided a reduction that varied from 0.3 dBA to 6.8 dBA. The cost-effectiveness of the 10-foot high barrier was $7,102/dBA/residence.

The 20-foot modeled barrier meets Mn/DOT’s cost-effectiveness criteria.

Area B (Receptor B101)

Area B consists of commercial land use in the northeast quadrant of Louisiana Avenue and Lake Street (see Figure 9). Noise sensitive land uses include one commercial property. No land uses were predicted to exceed daytime or nighttime state standards. Therefore, no further consideration is required.

Area C (Receptors C101 – C107)

Area C consists of a mixed-land use area north of Highway 7 and east of Louisiana Avenue to approximately the CP (Soo) rail line (see Figure 9). Noise sensitive land uses include commercial and industrial properties north and south of Walker Street. One commercial property was predicted to exceed daytime standards under future build conditions. No land uses were predicted to exceed nighttime state or federal standards under future build conditions. Mitigation in the form of one noise barrier was analyzed.


Table 17 – Barrier Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: 20-foot Barriers

Barrier

Receptor

Build 2030 withReduction

(dBA) Affected

Residences

Residences with 5 dBA Reduction

Total dBA Reduction

Segment Length

(ft)

Barrier Area (SF)

Total Cost of Barrier ($15/SF)

Cost Effectiveness Cost/dBA/Res

No Barriers

Barriers (20 ft)

A1

A101 (R) 61.7 57.8 -3.9 2 0 0.0

2,623 52,012 $780,180 $3,022

A102 (R) 63.3 59.6 -3.7 5 0 0.0 A103 (R) 66.7 63.6 -3.1 4 0 0.0 A104 (R) 69.9 65.9 -4.0 4 0 0.0 A105 (R) 65.2 61.3 -3.9 5 0 0.0 A106 (R) 64.6 63.3 -1.3 2 0 0.0 A107 (R) 63.2 60.6 -2.6 4 0 0.0 A108 (R) 67.6 62.0 -5.6 6 6 -33.6 A109 (R) 64.0 57.9 -6.1 6 6 -36.6 A110 (R) 60.0 54.3 -5.7 9 9 -51.3 A111 (R) 63.8 57.0 -6.8 5 5 -34.0 A112 (R) 69.6 60.4 -9.2 2 2 -18.4 A113 (R) 61.7 54.4 -7.3 5 5 -36.5 A114 (R) 62.4 55.6 -6.8 2 2 -13.6 A115 (Ch) 69.5 59.8 -9.7 2 2 -19.4 A116 (C) 68.5 59.8 -8.7 1 1 -8.7 A117 (C) 68.3 62.2 -6.1 1 1 -6.1 A118 (R) 62.2 59.0 -3.2 2 0 0.0

C1

C101 (IND) 68.6 59.9 -8.7 1 1 -8.7

1,496 29,472 $442,080 $13,519

C102 (C) 68.5 63.8 -4.7 1 0 0.0 C103 (C) 70.1 61.4 -8.7 1 1 -8.7 C104 (C) 68.2 61.8 -6.4 1 1 -6.4 C105 (IND) 69.7 60.8 -8.9 1 1 -8.9 C106 (IND) 65.3 63.1 -2.2 2 0 0.0 C107 (IND) 63.3 60.8 -2.5 2 0 0.0

F1

F101 (IND) 65.1 64.5 -0.6 1 0 0.0

1,216 23,872 $358,080 $5,243

F102 (IND) 67.4 61.9 -5.5 1 1 -5.5 F103 (IND) 66.9 59.8 -7.1 1 1 -7.1 F104 (R) 66.7 58.6 -8.1 3 3 -24.3 F105 (C) 65.9 58.1 -7.8 1 1 -7.8 F106 (R) 66.5 61.5 -5.0 1 1 -5.0 F107 (R) 62.6 60.7 -1.9 2 0 0.0 F108 (R) 63.0 56.8 -6.2 3 3 -18.6

State Standards-NAC1 65 65 State Standards-NAC2 70 70 Federal Criteria-Category C 75 75 Underlined refers to L10 values approaching/exceeding federal criteria Bold refers to L10 values exceeding state standards alone (R) - Residential; (C) - Commercial; (Ch) - Church; (IND) - Industrial Barrier Area includes tapered ends (2 foot taper per panel to 6 foot high ends)


Table 18- Barrier Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: 15-foot Barriers

Barrier

Receptor


(dBA) Affected

Residences


Total dBA Reduction

Segment Length

(ft)

Barrier Area (SF)



No Barriers

Barriers (15 ft)

A1

A101 (R) 61.7 59.2 -2.5 2 0 0.0

2,623 39,113 $586,695 $4,997

A102 (R) 63.3 60.8 -2.5 5 0 0.0 A103 (R) 66.7 65.2 -1.5 4 0 0.0 A104 (R) 69.9 68.1 -1.8 4 0 0.0 A105 (R) 65.2 63.4 -1.8 5 0 0.0 A106 (R) 64.6 63.9 -0.7 2 0 0.0 A107 (R) 63.2 62.0 -1.2 4 0 0.0 A108 (R) 67.6 64.7 -2.9 6 0 0.0 A109 (R) 64.0 60.6 -3.4 6 0 0.0 A110 (R) 60.0 56.5 -3.5 9 0 0.0 A111 (R) 63.8 58.6 -5.2 5 5 -26.0 A112 (R) 69.6 62.1 -7.5 2 2 -15.0 A113 (R) 61.7 55.0 -6.7 5 5 -33.5 A114 (R) 62.4 56.5 -5.9 2 2 -11.8 A115 (Ch) 69.5 60.7 -8.8 2 2 -17.6 A116 (C) 68.5 60.6 -7.9 1 1 -7.9 A117 (C) 68.3 62.7 -5.6 1 1 -5.6 A118 (R) 62.2 59.3 -2.9 2 0 0.0

C1

C101 (IND) 68.6 60.8 -7.8 1 1 -7.8

1,496 22,208 $333,120 $12,430

C102 (C) 68.5 64.6 -3.9 1 0 0.0 C103 (C) 70.1 62.9 -7.2 1 1 -7.2 C104 (C) 68.2 63.0 -5.2 1 1 -5.2 C105 (IND) 69.7 63.1 -6.6 1 1 -6.6 C106 (IND) 65.3 63.7 -1.6 2 0 0.0 C107 (IND) 63.3 61.5 -1.8 2 0 0.0

F1

F101 (IND) 65.1 64.6 -0.5 1 0 0.0

1,216 18,008 $270,120 $5,524

F102 (IND) 67.4 62.5 -4.9 1 0 0.0 F103 (IND) 66.9 60.7 -6.2 1 1 -6.2 F104 (R) 66.7 59.8 -6.9 3 3 -20.7 F105 (C) 65.9 59.5 -6.4 1 1 -6.4 F106 (R) 66.5 62.0 -4.5 1 0 0.0 F107 (R) 62.6 61.1 -1.5 2 0 0.0 F108 (R) 63.0 57.8 -5.2 3 3 -15.6



Table 19- Barrier Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: 10-foot Barriers

Barrier

Receptor


(dBA) Affected

Residences


Total dBA Reduction

Segment Length

(ft)

Barrier Area (SF)



No Barriers

Barriers (10 ft)

A1

A101 (R) 61.7 60.3 -1.4 2 0 0.0

2,623 26,182 $392,730 $7,102

A102 (R) 63.3 61.8 -1.5 5 0 0.0 A103 (R) 66.7 65.4 -1.3 4 0 0.0 A104 (R) 69.9 68.7 -1.2 4 0 0.0 A105 (R) 65.2 64.4 -0.8 5 0 0.0 A106 (R) 64.6 64.3 -0.3 2 0 0.0 A107 (R) 63.2 62.8 -0.4 4 0 0.0 A108 (R) 67.6 66.5 -1.1 6 0 0.0 A109 (R) 64.0 62.5 -1.5 6 0 0.0 A110 (R) 60.0 58.2 -1.8 9 0 0.0 A111 (R) 63.8 60.5 -3.3 5 0 0.0 A112 (R) 69.6 64.5 -5.1 2 2 -10.2 A113 (R) 61.7 56.6 -5.1 5 5 -25.5 A114 (R) 62.4 58.5 -3.9 2 0 0.0 A115 (Ch) 69.5 62.7 -6.8 2 2 -13.6 A116 (C) 68.5 62.5 -6.0 1 1 -6.0 A117 (C) 68.3 63.7 -4.6 1 0 0.0 A118 (R) 62.2 60.1 -2.1 2 0 0.0

C1

C101 (IND) 68.6 62.5 -6.1 1 1 -6.1

1,496 14,912 $223,680 $36,669

C102 (C) 68.5 66.0 -2.5 1 0 0.0 C103 (C) 70.1 65.5 -4.6 1 0 0.0 C104 (C) 68.2 64.9 -3.3 1 0 0.0 C105 (IND) 69.7 66.1 -3.6 1 0 0.0 C106 (IND) 65.3 64.5 -0.8 2 0 0.0 C107 (IND) 63.3 62.5 -0.8 2 0 0.0

F1

F101 (IND) 65.1 64.8 -0.3 1 0 0.0

1,216 12,112 $181,680 N/A

F102 (IND) 67.4 63.8 -3.6 1 0 0.0 F103 (IND) 66.9 62.6 -4.3 1 0 0.0 F104 (R) 66.7 61.9 -4.8 3 0 0.0 F105 (C) 65.9 62.1 -3.8 1 0 0.0 F106 (R) 66.5 63.3 -3.2 1 0 0.0 F107 (R) 62.6 61.9 -0.7 2 0 0.0 F108 (R) 63.0 59.8 -3.2 3 0 0.0


S.P. #163-010-038 and 2706-226 Trunk Highway 7/Louisiana Interchange Project May 2011 Page 82

Wall C1

An approximately 1,496-foot noise barrier was modeled north of Highway 7 from the CP (Soo) rail line to the westbound exit ramp and then along the westbound exit ramp to just east of Louisiana Avenue (see Figure 9). The noise barrier would shield 7 receptors representing 3 commercial properties and 6 industrial properties. As shown in Tables 17 through 19, the 1,496-foot long, 20-foot high modeled barrier provided a reduction that varied from 2.2 dBA to 8.9 dBA. The cost-effectiveness of the 20-foot high barrier was $13,519/dBA/residence. The approximately 1,496-foot long, 15-foot high modeled barrier provided a reduction that varied from 1.6 dBA to 7.8 dBA. The cost-effectiveness of the 15-foot barrier was $12,430/dBA/residence. The approximately 1,496-foot long, 10-foot high modeled barrier provided a reduction that varied from 0.8 dBA to 6.1 dBA. The cost-effectiveness of the 10-foot high barrier was $36,669/dBA/residence.

The 20-, 15-, and 10-foot modeled noise barriers did not meet Mn/DOT’s minimum $3,250 cost-effectiveness criteria.

Area D (Receptors D101 and D102)

Area D consists of commercial/office land use south of Highway 7 and east of Louisiana Avenue (see Figure 9). Noise sensitive land use consists of a commercial property south of the proposed eastbound entrance ramp and an office property south of Lake Street. One commercial property was predicted to exceed daytime state standards under future build conditions. No land uses were predicted to exceed nighttime state standards under future build conditions. Although standards are exceeded under future build conditions, with only two receptors representing two properties the sensitive land-use density in this area is too low to for consideration of a noise barrier.

Area E (Receptor E101)

Area E consists of industrial land use in the southwest quadrant of Louisiana Avenue and Lake Street (see Figure 9). Noise sensitive land uses include one industrial property. No land uses were predicted to exceed daytime or nighttime noise standards under future build conditions. Therefore, no further consideration is required.

Area F (Receptors F101 – F109)

Area F consists of mixed land use south of Highway 7 and west of Louisiana Avenue to approximately Rhode Island Avenue (see Figure 9). Noise sensitive land uses include single family residences, commercial properties, and industrial properties. The residential land uses were predicted to exceed daytime and nighttime state standards under future build conditions. Mitigation in the form of a noise barrier was analyzed.


Wall F1

An approximately 1,216-foot noise barrier was modeled south of Highway 7 west of Louisiana Avenue to Rhode Island Avenue (see Figure 9). The noise barrier would shield 8 receptors representing 9 residences, 1 commercial property, and 3 industrial properties. As shown in Table 17 through 19, the 1,216-foot long, 20-foot high modeled noise barrier provided a reduction that varied from 0.6 dBA to 8.1 dBA. The cost-effectiveness of the 20-foot high noise barrier was $5,243/dBA/residence. The approximately 1,216-foot long, 15-foot high modeled noise barrier provided a reduction that varied from 0.5 dBA to 6.9 dBA. The cost-effectiveness of the 15-foot noise barrier was $5,524/dBA/residence. The approximately 1,216-foot long, 10-foot high modeled noise barrier provided a reduction that varied from 0.3 dBA to 4.8 dBA.

The 20-foot and 15-foot modeled noise barriers did not meet Mn/DOT’s $3,250 cost-effectiveness criteria. The 10-foot modeled noise barrier did not meet the minimum noise reduction criteria of 5 dBA.

Project Wide Cost-Effectiveness

A project wide Cost-Effectiveness (CE) is calculated by using an aggregate of barriers (some cost-effective and others not cost-effective) that were analyzed for the project, and an aggregate of the residential noise level reductions due to those barriers. The result is an evaluation of the overall CE for the aggregate of barriers. This is done by ranking CE on a project wide basis for all barrier segments. A project wide calculation consecutively adds the next lowest CE value to the overall CE calculation until all barriers segments that can be incorporated into the project without exceeding $3,250/dBA/residence are determined.

The project wide CE calculations for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project are presented in Table 20. As previously discussed, Analyzed Noise Wall A1 met Mn/DOT’s $3,250 criteria, while Analyzed Noise Walls C1 and F1 have values above Mn/DOT’s $3,250 criteria. The next most cost-effective noise barrier was a 20-foot high Wall F1 with an individual CE of $5,243. Adding Wall F1 to the project wide calculation (including Wall A1) the CE became $3,486. This cost exceeds Mn/DOT’s $3,250 cost-effectiveness criteria; therefore, no additional barriers are proposed by use of the project wide cost-effectiveness procedure.


Table 20- Project Wide Barrier Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Barrier

Average dBA

Reduction Affected

Residences Total dBA Reduction

Approximate Barrier

Length (ft)

Approximate Barrier

Height (ft)

Barrier Surface

Area (SF) Cost

($15/SF) Cost Effectiveness

(cost/dBA/residence) A1 -6.62 39 -258.2 2623 20 52,012 $780,180 $3,022 F1 -6.83 10 -68.3 1216 20 23,872 $358,080 $5,243

Total -6.66 49 -326.5 3839 20 75,884 $1,138,260 $3,486

Barrier Area includes tapered ends (2 foot taper per panel to 6 foot high ends) Evaluation of Other Noise Abatement Measures

Noise barriers have been chosen as the most cost-effective noise mitigation measure available for this project. Other noise mitigation measures have been considered, as listed in 23 CFR 772.13(c) and are addressed below:

a. Traffic management measures: The primary purpose of the facility is to move people and goods. Restrictions of certain vehicles or speeds would be inconsistent with the purpose of the project.

b. Alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments: The project was realigned for practical reasons based on grade and safety. Redesigning the horizontal and vertical alignments to minimize noise impacts would be impractical for this project.

c. Acquisition of real property or interests therein (predominantly unimproved property) to serve as a buffer zone to preempt development that would be adversely impacted by traffic noise: With the exception of the undeveloped properties in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the intersection, exclusive land use designations or acquisition of property to serve as a buffer zone between the roadway and adjacent lands would not be feasible because land has already been developed along the project corridor. Noise compatible land uses should be encouraged for the aforementioned undeveloped parcels.

d. Noise insulation of public use or nonprofit institutional structures: Noise insulation does not address the outside environment. Therefore, noise insulation is not proposed as a part of the project. Under Mn/DOT and FHWA guidelines, only public buildings such as schools and hospitals should be considered for acoustical insulation.

Conclusion

In general, future forecast traffic volumes and construction of the project will result in noise levels exceeding state noise standards at many receptor locations. Mitigation in the form of noise barriers was analyzed. Barriers that achieved a 5 dBA reduction and were found to be cost effective include a 20-foot barrier along


the northwest quadrant of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue (see Figure 9). The city of St. Louis Park, in cooperation with Mn/DOT, has begun an outreach program in Noise Evaluation Area A (northwest quadrant) to determine the desires of the affected property owners in this neighborhood. If the majority of property owners in Area A desire a barrier, the construction materials, exact locations, and heights of the barrier will be refined during the final design process and/or during the development of a noise exemption request. As the design of the project progresses, the noise analysis may need to be refined.

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 Mn/DOT 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 revegetated areas).

25. Nearby Resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?

a. Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? Yes No b. Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? Yes No c. Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? Yes No d. Scenic views and vistas? Yes No e. Other unique resources? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resources. Describe

any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. a. The Mn/DOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) reviewed the proposed project with

respect to federal Section 106 requirements on behalf of FHWA and determined there will be no historic properties affected by the project as currently proposed. The Mn/DOT CRU determination letter can be found in Appendix D.

b. The project area is fully developed and as a result will not impact any farmlands.

c. The project will create a minor impact on Louisiana Oaks Park, which is located in the northwest quadrant of the Walker Street and Louisiana Avenue intersection. The City-owned parkland is approximately 33 acres in size and contains several amenities including: shelter, restrooms, playground equipment, picnic areas, soccer/baseball/softball fields, sledding hill, and several trails. The proposed improvements will involve a minor encroachment into the parkland in order to construct the Walker Street/Louisiana Avenue


roundabout intersection and the associated relocation of the pedestrian/bicycle trail around the park monument sign. The City of St. Louis Park believes the project is acceptable and consistent with the designated use of the recreational resource and that the project has a de minimis impact on Louisiana Oaks Park. A De Minimis Section 4(f) Evaluation preliminary determination has been made and is located in Appendix E.

Temporary impacts to existing pedestrian/bicycle facilities located along Louisiana Avenue will occur during construction. The proposed transportation improvements include a 10-foot pedestrian trail along both the east and west sides of Louisiana Avenue within the project area. As a result of the project, pedestrian and bicycle movements will be enhanced throughout the project area by eliminating the at-grade crossing of Highway 7

d. There are no scenic views or vistas in the project area.

e. There are no other unique resources located in the project area.

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? Yes No If yes, explain.

The general setting of the project area is a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue are dominant features on the landscape and will not be substantially altered with the exception of raising Highway 7 to create the overpass of Louisiana Avenue and allow construction of the access/exit ramps. Overall, the type of traveler or neighbor will determine if the visual impact is perceived as being either adverse or beneficial.

27. 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?

Yes No If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts

will be resolved. If no, explain. The project area is subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan and is zoned as Residential, Commercial, and Industrial. The construction of the preferred alternative would not cause any conflict with the designated land use of this area. The City of St. Louis Park has a Comprehensive Plan that is intended to assist decision-makers faced with guiding development and providing specific direction regarding future land use changes.


The project is included in the 2011-2014 State Transportation Improvement Program. It is also part of the Metro District Transportation System Plan 2008-2030.

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 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.)

Lighting and signing improvements will be necessary to serve the project. Lighting will be provided at the roundabout intersections along the corridor. Signing will be provided, in accordance with the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices guidelines to provide direction to motorists.

No new utility infrastructure is required to serve the project other than that constructed as part of the project.

Typical reconstruction of existing public infrastructure (sewer/water lines) within the project limits will occur as part of the project. No major facilities will be impacted and service disruptions will be minor.

Maintenance of the new interchange at Highway 7 will be the responsibility of Mn/DOT. Improvement along Louisiana Avenue, Walker Street, and West Lake Street will be the responsibility of the City of St. Louis Park.

29. Cumulative Impacts. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 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. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact 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 grade separated crossing of Highway 7 and related improvements. Rather, they are the total effect of all known actions (past, present, and future) in the vicinity of the proposed interchange 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 cumulative potential effects analysis is limited to those resources, ecosystems, and human communities directly affected by the proposed project, i.e., wetlands, storm water runoff, and parkland.

The geographic scope of this analysis varies by the resource under examination, as described in each sub-section below. For purposes of this assessment, the geographic boundary has been generally defined as the land area within one-mile of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection. The temporal scope of the analysis attempts to consider previous impacts to the resources that occur over time. The year 2030 is considered the current limit of comprehensive planning activities for the area, as the extent of transportation and land use planning projections are generally available up to that date. Thus, year 2030 is used as the temporal horizon for assessing future cumulative impacts.

Past Actions

The project area contains a mix of land uses including low- and high-density residential, commercial, corporate/office, manufacturing, and open space.

Past actions in the project area have been described in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) completed for the project. The following history of the project area is taken from this report. These past actions have resulted in the current state of built environment in the vicinity of the proposed interchange.

On the earliest site record (Atlas of Hennepin County 1898) the site is depicted as an industrial complex with railway corridor going around the property. Lake Street, portions of which becomes Highway 7, is present on this map. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway is located to the south of the project corridor. The Minneapolis Malleable Iron Works and N.E. Thomason Wagon Company buildings are present on the north side of the corridor.

A 1901 Topographic Map shows a wetland associated with Minnehaha Creek extending under the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway to the southwest side of the Project corridor.


Sanborn Maps from 1912 show the corridor layout the same as previous records. However, Moline Plow Co. occupies the property directly east of the Monitor Street. The Moline Plow Co facility consisted of several buildings including a foundry.

The 1913 Hennepin County Atlas does not show any significant changes to the project corridor.

There is no record of the site between 1914 and 1937. In 1937 (aerial photograph), Highway 7 and Walker Road are visible. The Republic Creosoting Co (RCC) property is visible north of Walker Street. Several buildings occupied by an acetylene gas manufacturer are located west of Monitor Street, two Calcium Hydroxide Ca(OH)2 pits are visible adjacent to these buildings. Other properties along the corridor appear to be undeveloped.

In the 1940 aerial photograph the project corridor appears similar to the 1937 aerial. An area of disturbed soil appears in the northeast corner of the aerial photograph. Buildings are now present on the property east of Hampshire Avenue.

In the 1947 aerial photograph, dark colored areas which appear to be ponds or flooded wetlands are present between Walker Road and Highway 7, between Highway 7 and Lake Street, south of Lake Street and southeast of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway. The building located at the southwest corner of West 37th Street and Walker Street appears to have expanded, and residential development occurred east of the RRC property. The disturbed soil in the 1940 aerial photograph is now a baseball field.

Sanborn maps from 1951 indicate that the National Lead Co. occupies the site of the previously mentioned Moline Plow Co. east of Monitor Street. The Presto-Lite-Co, Inc. is located west of National Lead across Monitor Street. The King Foundry Inc building is shown northeast of National Lead across Hampshire Avenue. The RCC, is present on the 1951 Sanborn. Ten (10) aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) contents unknown are indicated on the property with a total capacity of 1,843,100 gallons. The Rogers Hydraulic, Inc, building is located at the southeast corner of Walker Avenue and Oregon Avenue.

On the 1952 Minneapolis South Topographic map several railroad tracks appear on the RCC property. An area of disturbed soil is indicated north of the railroad tracks in the vicinity of the white areas present on previous aerial photographs. The 1952 Sanborn shows the Presto-Lite-Co, Inc.

On the 1953 aerial photograph, the ponds or wetland are approximately half the size as compared to 1947. A building is visible in the area of the former pond between Highway 7 and Walker Road. A building and area of disturbed soil is


present at the southeast corner of Highway 7 and Oregon Avenue. Buildings and disturbed soil are visible directly east of the RCC property.

The 1957 aerial photograph depicts residential development to the west and east of the subject corridor. Structures appear on the St. Louis Park Substation property.

The 1963 Sanborn map shows the National Lead building has expanded to the north and a machine shop building (present Fabri-Top building) is at the south end of Monitor Street. The Robinson Rubber Products Co. occupies the former King Foundry Building.

In the 1964 aerial photograph, buildings are present on the southwest and southeast corners of Louisiana Avenue South and West Lake Street. The Golden Auto Parts salvage yard is present south of West Lake Street between Monitor Street and Hampshire Avenue.

The only significant change present in the 1966 Sanborn map is a 50,000 gallon Fuel Oil AST at the National Lead property.

The project corridor on the Minneapolis South Topographic map from 1967, 1972 and 1977 does not changes with the exception of the railroad tracks on the RRC property are no longer visible after 1967.

In the 1979 aerial photograph, the RCC facility is no longer present and has been replaced by Louisiana Oaks Park. Louisiana Avenue South is now visible north of Highway 7. The Ca(OH)2 pits are grown over with vegetation and a pond is visible adjacent to the railroad tracks. The Flame Metals building can be seen and the Cardinal Glass building is on the current Sam’s Club Property.

The corridor in the 1984 aerial photograph appears similar to the previous aerial, with the exception of Louisiana Avenue South, which connects to West Lake Street under Highway 7.

In the 1991 aerial photograph, U-Store facility can be seen and the former Costco building is located in what is currently the Sam’s Club parking lot. Golden Auto Parts property appears to be about half the size it was in previous photos and the National Lead Co. buildings are no longer on the property.

In the 1997 aerial photograph Louisiana Avenue South is not in its current alignment. Cars can be seen back on the Golden Auto Parts property and cars appeared to be parked on the National Lead Co. property and south of the St. Louis Park Substation property.

The 2000 aerial photograph appears the same as the previous photograph.


In the 2003 aerial photograph the Louisiana Oaks Apartment complex is now at the corner of Walker Street and Louisiana Avenue South. An area of disturbed soil is at the northeast corner of Louisiana Avenue South and Oak Leaf Drive.

In the 2006 aerial photograph a condominium complex is located at the northeast corner of Louisiana Avenue South and Oak Leaf Drive. An area of disturbed soil is visible at the southwest corner of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection. A small pond adjacent to this disturbed area in previous photographs is no longer visible. The buildings on the Golden Auto Parts property and the buildings on the east side of Hampshire Avenue South have been removed.

In the 2008 aerial photograph the Costco building has been removed and the Trunk Highway 7 Business Park is now located at 7000 Lake Street. A parking lot is visible in the area of disturbed soil at the southwest corner of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection.

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 either existing, actually planned for, or 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 resource.

The following projects are the currently known future planned projects in the City of St. Louis Park:

• Southwest Transitway - The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) recommended LRT 3A or the Kenilworth-Opus-Golden Triangle alignment as the locally preferred alternative in November 2009. The Metropolitan Council formally amended the region's long-range transportation investment plan (the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan) at its meeting on May 12, 2010, completing the locally preferred alternative selection process for the Southwest Transitway. The purpose of the Metropolitan Council 2030 Transportation Policy Plan is to guide development of the region’s transportation system to the year 2030 and to provide for an integrated multimodal transportation system that advances regional land use and growth management goals. The Southwest LRT Draft Environmental Impact Statement is currently under review by the Federal Transit Administration. Furthermore, a rail relocation for the MN&S freight rail is currently being proposed by Hennepin County and a state Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is underway.


• New commercial and residential developments in close proximity to the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection are planned and may occur depending on market forces and private investments. The incremental impact of these actions would be occurring in an environment that is already substantially developed and corresponds to city zoning and land use plans. All future development and roadway improvements will be subject to environmental review where potential impacts will be evaluated.

• St. Louis Park, in cooperation with Mn/DOT and Hennepin County, have and will continue to pursue roadway improvements to critical regional transportation routes including Highway 7, Highway 100, Highway 12, Highway 169, CSAH 3, and CSAH 5.

Impacts from the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project have been discussed previously. The main project impacts are summarized below and include wetlands, storm water runoff, and parkland. Cumulative impacts to these resources from the proposed project and anticipated future projects listed above are discussed in the following sections.

Wetland Impacts

The proposed interchange project will require partial filling of four wetland basins in the project area. These impacts will be mitigated as discussed in Item 12 of this EAW.

Other roadway improvements or new commercial, residential, or industrial developments may occur in the area. These projects will likely impact additional wetland areas. Mitigation for any impacts will be determined under the environmental review process for each project.

Wetlands in Minnesota are protected by federal law (Clean Water Act Section 404) and state law (Minnesota WCA and Executive Orders) that mandate the “no net loss” concept of wetland functions and values. These laws require the avoidance of wetland impacts when possible and when avoidance is not possible, impacts must be minimized and mitigated. Both the MNDNR and WCA require mitigation of wetland impacts at replacement ratios that are determined at the time of permitting. Local zoning can control the intensification of development and protection of wetlands from future development.

Storm Water Runoff

The project will slightly increase the amount of impervious surface in the project area as discussed in EAW Item 17. Storm water impacts have been considered for this project and runoff will be treated and controlled through best management practices.


Other roadway improvements or new commercial, residential, or industrial development may also result in increased impervious surface area within the watershed district and an increase in storm water runoff. If not properly managed, increased runoff could result in a variety of adverse impacts on receiving water bodies including increased chances of flooding, erosion of streambanks and drainage ways, warming of stream waters, and decreased ground water base flow due to less infiltration. However, storm water management practices are routinely used to reduce the magnitude of these potential impacts.

Federal, state, and local surface and ground water management regulations are in-place that require mitigation in conjunction with proposed development. 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, and adverse cumulative potential effects to water quality and quantity are not anticipated. In fact, the proposed storm water management strategies (ponds and infiltration) will likely result in a beneficial impact on water quality. The existing conditions allow storm water runoff to discharge directly into receiving water bodies, whereas following the construction of the proposed project all highway runoff will be collected and treated prior to discharging into these same water bodies.

Parkland

The project will result in a minor impact to Louisiana Oaks Park. The anticipated impact is discussed in the De Minimis Section 4(f) Evaluation located in Appendix E of this document.

Other roadway improvements or new commercial, residential, or industrial development may also result in impacts to parkland. Mitigation for any impacts will be determined under the environmental review process for each project.

Cumulative Potential Effect Impact Finding

The incremental affect of the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project is not anticipated to result in substantial effects on natural resources within the cumulative potential effect geographic boundary area. The incremental impact of these actions would be occurring in an environment that is already highly developed and corresponds to city zoning and land use plans. All future development/redevelopment will be subject to local, state, and federal environmental reviews where potential impacts to natural resources will be evaluated.


30. 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. There are no additional environmental impacts associated with the proposed highway and local road improvements.

31. Summary of Issues. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative 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.

The analysis conducted to address the preceding questions did not reveal any substantial impacts that would require further investigation prior to proceeding with development of the proposed improvements. All necessary permits and approvals listed under EAW Question 8 will be obtained at the appropriate times during the project development process.

A summary list of mitigation commitments contained within this EA/EAW is provided below.

• Impacts to wetland habitats will be mitigated through the wetland permitting and mitigation process. Habitat is a wetland function and a value variable that is accounted for in the wetland replacement process through both the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and federal Clean Water Act wetland permitting/mitigation processes.

• The latest USACE draft St. Paul District Compensatory Mitigation Policy for Minnesota (USACE, January 2009) will be followed to implement wetland mitigation for the project and to maintain consistency with the WCA wetland replacement requirements. The project is located in the Bank Service Area 7, but is located within the seven-county metropolitan area, and is regulated as a public transportation project. The minimum wetland replacement ratio will be 2:1, assuming that mitigation is done from a wetland bank located within the seven county metropolitan area, and uses wetland credit of the same type of wetland impacted. It is assumed that a Mn/DOT wetland bank will be utilized. As wetland impacts are estimated to be 1.09 acres, a total of 2.18 acres of wetland credit would need to be withdrawn. A Wetland Mitigation Plan will be prepared and submitted with the wetland permit application. The Plan will include detailed design plans and data, the administrative procedures, and will address the need for wetland replacement. The Mitigation Plan will be submitted with the wetland permit application at Mn/DOT for WCA approval, USACE for permit approval, and MNDNR for review.


• Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through protective and mitigation measures as described in the water quality section of this document.

• In general, future forecast traffic volumes and construction of the project will result in noise levels exceeding state noise standards at many receptor locations. Mitigation in the form of noise barriers was analyzed. Barriers that achieved a 5 dBA reduction and were found to be cost effective include a 20-foot barrier along the northwest quadrant of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue (see Figure 9). The city of St. Louis Park, in cooperation with Mn/DOT, has begun an outreach program in Noise Evaluation Area A (northwest quadrant) to determine the desires of the affected property owners in this neighborhood. If the majority of property owners in Area A desire a barrier, the construction materials, exact locations, and heights of the barrier will be refined during the final design process and/or during the development of a noise exemption request. As the design of the project progresses, the noise analysis may need to be refined.


B. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section details those environmental subject areas not addressed as part of the EAW form presented in Section V.A.

1. Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966 The proposed project requires minor encroachment onto the following Section 4(f) property: Louisiana Oaks City Park. The parkland is owned and under the jurisdiction of the City of St. Louis Park.

Louisiana Oaks Park is located in the northwest quadrant of the Walker Street and Louisiana Avenue intersection. The City Park is approximately 33 acres in size and contains several recreational amenities including: park shelter/concession area/restrooms, playground equipment, picnic area; soccer/baseball/softball fields, sledding hill, and several trails.

The proposed project will involve minor encroachments into the City Park in order to construct the Walker Street/Louisiana Avenue roundabout intersection and the associated pedestrian/bicycle trail. The City has concurred that the proposed transportation improvements will result in a de minimis impact on the park. The reconstruction of an existing trail will require the realignment of the trail around the backside of an existing park monument sign located in the southeast corner of the park. The City of St. Louis Park believes the project is acceptable and consistent with the designated use of the Section 4(f) properties and that all possible planning to minimize harm has been accomplished in the location and design of the improvements. A letter of support from the City of St. Louis Park can be found in De Minimis Section 4(f) documentation located in Appendix E.

2. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

The project has been reviewed for potential Section 6(f) involvement. The project will not use any outdoor recreational land acquired, planned, or developed with Land and Water Conservation Act (LAWCON) funds. As a result, Section 6(f) does not apply to the proposed project.

3. Right-of-Way and Relocation Within the project area, the proposed improvements will require acquisition of approximately 3.09 acres of permanent right-of-way. This represents areas that are currently outside of either state or city owned right-of-way.

The Preferred Alternative will not require any relocations.

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and 49 CFR Part 24 provides that assistance be


granted to persons, businesses, farms, and non-profit organizations that are displaced by public improvements, such as the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project.

4. Social Impacts The project is expected to have a beneficial effect on access for emergency vehicles, such as police, fire trucks or ambulances. Currently, any emergency vehicle traffic destined for the hospital from the northern portion of the City is dependent on the at-grade intersection and subject to the delay which results from the heavily congested intersection approaches. The construction of a grade separated interchange is anticipated to improve emergency vehicle response times in the study area and beyond.

Louisiana Avenue is a north/south minor arterial roadway with traffic volumes ranging between 11,500 and 13,100. The grade separated interchange will provide a safe and efficient link to the state highway system and to areas north and south of Highway 7.

Residents within close proximity of the project area are expected to experience beneficial effects from the proposed improvements. Benefits will result from having improved access to businesses and community resources (public buildings, schools, churches, parks, etc.) located on the north and south sides of Highway 7. Furthermore, there are no community resources within the project area that would be adversely affected by the proposed improvements.

No categories of people uniquely sensitive to transportation (e.g., children, elderly, minorities, persons with mobility impairments) will be unduly impacted as a result of the proposed improvement.


5. Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicycles The current at-grade intersection creates a barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists wishing to access destinations north and south of Highway 7. The City of St. Louis Park’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for improved pedestrian/bicycle access and safety in this area of the city. The interchange will improve pedestrian/bicycle safety and mobility by providing a grade separated crossing of Highway 7, which will connect them to local and regional trail systems, parks, commercial and residential areas, as well as the proposed Southwest LRT Station that is being planned along Louisiana Avenue. As a multi-modal connection to future LRT service, Louisiana Avenue will provide a major transportation link for St. Louis Park to destinations further southwest (Hopkins, Eden Prairie) and northeast (Minneapolis).

The City of St. Louis Park and Mn/DOT have considered bicycle and pedestrian movements at all phases of planning and design. Furthermore, the City has involved a local trail planning group to solicit input and recommendations on the concepts considered.

6. Environmental Justice a. Environmental Justice Background/Directive

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” dated February 1, 1994, requires that environmental justice be addressed (to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law) in all federal planning and programming activities. The purpose of Executive Order 12898 is to identify, address and avoid disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The proposed project has federal permit requirements and will likely receive federal funding. As such, it is considered a federal project for the purpose of compliance with this Executive Order.

Project Area Demographics The first step in the environmental justice determination process is to establish whether minority and/or low-income populations are present within the project area. For the purposes of environmental justice, a low-income population or minority population is defined as a population of people or households located in close geographic proximity meeting the racial or income criteria set forth in Executive Order 12898.

Information on population characteristics of the project area was obtained from Census 2000 data.


Demographic statistics from the 2000 U.S. Census were compiled at the most refined level practical and used to characterize the population in the project area. This information was reviewed, and an assessment of the demographics (income levels and racial composition) was made. U.S. Census data is available in many different levels, including tracts, block groups, and blocks. This assessment used block group data and included all block groups within the project area. In many cases, the boundaries of the block groups extended beyond the individuals directly affected by the proposed project; however, it can be assumed that these larger areas generally represent the minority and low-income composition of the project area. The information presented in Table 21 describes the population characteristics for the project area. The census data (2000) presented in the table indicates the potentially impacted portions of the project area include a low percentage of minority groups and low-income populations.

Table 21 – 2000 U.S. Census Data – Households and Population

Demographic Group Census Tract 230, Block Group 1

Census Tract 1225, Block Group 1

Census Tract 1226, Block Group 2

Population 1,447 735 853

White 1,344 665 738

Black/African American 38 1 65

American Indian and Alaska Native 7 2 3

Asian 27 21 23

Native Hawaiian & Pacific Islander 0 0 0

Other Race1 31 46 24

1999 Median Household Income ($) $48,781 $52,448 $53,750

Income below Poverty Level 32 0 28 Notes: 1 Category includes all other races (i.e., Hispanic, Latino) and individuals of two or more races

To supplement the demographic and economic information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, direct contacts were made with local government officials to assist in determining if there are any readily identifiable minorities and low-income populations living in close geographic proximity to the project area. The information obtained did not indicate that the project area contains identifiable minority populations and/or low-income populations.


Environmental Justice Determination

Based on consideration of the information described above it is reasonable to conclude that the project area contains no readily identifiable minority populations and/or low-income populations.

Therefore, as defined by the USDOT final order and based upon the data presented above, the improvements associated with the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Preferred Alternative will not result in disproportionately high or adverse effects to minority or low-income populations.

7. Section 404 Permit A Section 404 General Permit/Letter of Permission (GP/LOP) will be required for the project since there are an estimated 1.09 acres of wetland impacts associated with the proposed improvement.

8. Other Effects The proposed improvements will temporarily impact traffic on Highway 7, Louisiana Avenue, Walter Street, and West Lake Street during construction. A construction staging and traffic management plan will be developed during the final design phase of the project. The plan will identify anticipated timeframes for traffic disruptions. The plan will attempt to minimize adverse affects to local traffic patterns while also maximizing directness of detoured routes to minimize short-term impacts on emergency services, transit services, pedestrian/bicyclists, and the traveling public. Access to local properties will be maintained throughout the construction process.


VI. PUBLIC/AGENCY INVOLVEMENT A. PUBLIC AND AGENCY OUTREACH

The Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project development process included a public and agency involvement program that was initiated at the on-set of the study, and was ongoing and active throughout the project development process. There were several elements to the involvement program, each of which is detailed below.

Target Audiences:

• City of St. Louis Park Staff (Office, Public Works, Public Safety)

• Members of the City Council

• Area Residents

• Area Businesses

• Commuters/Users (Motorists, Pedestrians, Bicyclists)

Topics Covered:

• Provide a summary of the alternatives analysis process

• An overview of the alternatives considered and screening process

• Descriptions of the remaining alternatives

• Next steps in project development

• Roundabout education/information

1. Public Meetings Public informational meetings were held in January 2009, January, 2010, and November 2010. The purpose of the meetings was to provide information to the public, receive comments, and answer questions. Participants included property owners, business owners/representatives, and residents in the area. Verbal and written comments were received from the public including preferences on the concept alternatives, potential issues and impacts, and other project concerns. These meetings were announced in direct mailing, local newspapers, city newsletters, and on the city web site.


No unresolved issues/controversial issues have been identified at this time with the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project. A public hearing will be held as part of the formal comment period for this EA. The public hearing will provide an opportunity for attendees to ask questions and formally submit public testimony.

2. Business/Land Owner Meetings Informal meetings with interested business and land owners adjacent to the proposed improvement project occurred during the preliminary design process at the request of the interested business/property owners. The purpose of the meetings was to present the interchange concepts, receive feedback, and address any comments or questions regarding the project.

3. Project Management Team (PMT) The project development process has been guided by a PMT consisting of staff from the City of St. Louis Park, the Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County, Mn/DOT, and FHWA. The PMT has met on a regular basis since 2009. The purpose of the PMT is to guide the development of alternatives, recommend solutions, and to review and comment on the preliminary design of the roadway and bridge improvements.

4. Project Newsletters & Mailings A series of informational newsletters and mailings have been and will continue to be prepared with the intent of providing project related information to the public. To date, three project newsletters have been distributed to property owners and business owners in the project area.

5. Project Web Page An informational project web page has been established on the World Wide Web at (http://www.stlouispark.org). The site provides an additional means of distributing information and gathering input with an e-mail reply feature. The site is periodically updated to reflect project developments, planning/design changes, and to address new issues.

6. Summary of Early Coordination Comments As a result of the above early coordination meetings and contacts, comments and concerns about the proposed project were received.


Those substantive comments and concerns received are summarized below:

• Comments were received with concerns over potential business impacts (e.g. relocations, access closures, detours).

• Comments were received with concerns over additional traffic on local streets and the speeds at which vehicles travel along the roadway.

• Concerns were expressed about roundabout operations.

• Comments were received regarding the need for improved safety of pedestrians/bicyclists

• Concerns were expressed regarding storm water runoff.

This early coordination process has provided the opportunity for interested individuals to express their ideas and concerns. St. Louis Park will continue to cooperatively work with the public and other agencies to address these and additional concerns.

B. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing will be held during the 30-day comment period for the EA/EAW. The public hearing will include a presentation of the environmental documentation followed by a formal public testimony period. Comments will be received at the hearing and for a minimum of 10 days thereafter and will become a part of the official hearing record.

C. REPORT DISTRIBUTION Copy(ies) of this document have been sent to agencies, local government units, libraries, and others as per Minnesota Rule 4410.1500 (Publication and Distribution of an EAW).

D. PROCESS BEYOND THE HEARING Following the comment period, Mn/DOT and the FHWA will make a determination as to the adequacy of the environmental documentation. If further documentation is necessary it could be accomplished by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), by revising the Environmental Assessment, or clarification in an EA Update, whichever is appropriate. If an EIS is not necessary, Mn/DOT will prepare a Findings of Fact and Conclusions and a Negative Declaration for the state environmental requirements. If the FHWA agrees that the EA is adequate and the project does not have the potential to result in significant environmental harm, it


will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact. Notices of the federal and state decisions and availability of the above documents/determinations, will be placed in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor. On behalf of Mn/DOT, the City of St. Louis Park will distribute the Negative Declaration and FONSI to the EA/EAW distribution list announcing the environmental and project alternatives decisions that were made. Copies of these documents will be made available to the public upon request.

Appendix A Conceptual Alternatives

Option 11 – Tight Diamond with Roundabouts

Appendix B Mn/DOT and MNDNR Letters – Threatened and Endangered Species Review

"Dalton, Rick (DOT)" <[email protected]>

07/26/2010 12:33 PM

To Bob Rogers <[email protected]>

cc

bcc

Subject 2726-226 (TH 7/Louisiana) - ESA (Section 7) - Determination of No Effect

Hi Bob – see attached. Rick Dalton651‐234‐7677 ----- Message from "Alcott, Jason (DOT)" <[email protected]> on Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:34:45 -0500 -----

To: "Ross, Jennie (DOT)" <[email protected]>

cc: "Dalton, Rick (DOT)" <[email protected]>, "Galajda, Valerie (DOT)" <[email protected]>, "Bunde, Deb (DOT)" <[email protected]>

Subject: ESA (Section 7) - Determination of No Effect - Metro Projects - 7-23-10Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended – Section 7Determination of No Effect S.P. 0202-95, 02-683-03, Trunk Highway 10/County State Aid Highway 83, Interchange Construction/Roadway Expansion, Anoka CountyS.P. 0207-94, Trunk Highway 65, Installation of Traffic Control Devices, Anoka County S.P. 1002-89, Trunk Highway 5, Roadway Surfacing and Associated Improvements, Scott CountyS.P. 1306-40, Trunk Highway 95, Roadway Surfacing and Associated Improvements, Chisago CountyS.P. 1901-162, 1002-92, Trunk Highway 13, Bridge Improvements, Dakota CountyS.P. 2706-226, 163-010-30, Interchange Construction, Hennepin CountyS.P. 6205-37, Trunk Highway 10, Roadway Surfacing and Associated Improvements, Ramsey CountyS.P. 6222-165, Trunk Highway 61, Roadway Surfacing and Associated Improvements, Ramsey County

In response to your request, the proposed actions have been reviewed for potential effects to federally-listed threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate species and listed critical habitat. As a result of this review, a determination of no effect has been made.

Section 7 of Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires each Federal agency to review any action that it funds, authorizes or carries out to determine whether it may affect threatened, endangered, proposed species or listed critical habitat. Federal agencies, or their designated non-federal representatives (FHWA has delegated Mn/DOT) as their non-federal representative) must consult with the Service if any such effects may occur as a result of their actions. Consultation with the Service is not necessary if the proposed action will not directly or indirectly affect listed species or critical habitat. If a federal agency finds that an action will have no effect on listed species or critical habitat, it should maintain a written record of that finding that includes the supporting rationale.

Based on the information you have provided, it has been determined that no further action under Section 7 of the Act is required. However, if information becomes available indicating that federally-listed species or designated critical habitat may be affected, please contact this office and consultation with the Service will be initiated, if necessary. Jason AlcottNatural Resource Specialist, Program CoordinatorMinnesota Department of TransportationMail Stop 620395 John Ireland BoulevardSt. Paul, MN 55155-1899Phone: 651-366-3605Fax: 651-366-3603Email: [email protected](Note: Email Address Change)

- 1 -

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4010

August 27, 2010

Rick Dalton MnDOT Metro District 1500 West County Rd B-2 Roseville, MN 55113

RE: Response to MnDOT Early Notification Memo Requesting Information and Early Coordination Regarding TH 7 Intersection reconstruction (SP 2706-226) Hennepin County

Dear Mr. Dalton:

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has completed review of the information submitted in the MnDOT Early Notification Memo regarding a proposed construction of a new interchange to replace the at-grade intersection of TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue in the City of Saint Louis Park. The following comments were submitted to me during DNR field review of the project:

1. Several Public Waters are located near the project area (within a ½ mile), including Minnehaha Creek (map attached to cover email). However documents provided and subsequent emails state that no alterations are proposed to the structures at these crossings. As such, the project will not require a Public Waters Work Permit. Should plans change to include structural work (such a work on stormwater outfalls) at any of the Public Waters in the project area please contact me as further review may be required. Adherence to the MPCA Stormwater Program for Construction Activity (General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MNR100001)] will suffice for DNR erosion and sediment concerns.

2. My understanding is the Louisiana Avenue will remain at its existing elevation and TH 7 will be raised for a bridge over Louisiana Avenue. Associated with this project , there will be excavation work up to 30 feet deep for the removal of contaminated soils, however any lowering of the local surficial water table is not expected to be permanent as clean soils will used to replace the contaminated soils. However please be aware that any dewatering that may require a DNR Water Appropriations permit. From the information supplied I am not certain that the project would meet condition of the Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit (GP 1997-0005) or if an individual permit would be required. For more information on these permits and their requirements, see the DNR website http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/appropriations/permits.html

3. The Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if 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 TH 7 Intersection Reconstruction (S.P. 2706-226) project area. Based on this query, there are no known occurrences of rare features in the area searched.

The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area.

If you have questions regarding this letter, please e-mail me at [email protected] or call at (651) 366-3634.

On behalf of the DNR, Sincerely,

Peter Leete, DNR Transportation Hydrologist @ Office of Environmental Services, mail stop 620 Minnesota Department of Transportation, 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 C: ERDB file 20100715

An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity

DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/appropriations/permits.html

Appendix C Project Area Flood Insurance Rate Maps

Appendix D Mn/DOT Cultural Resources Unit Review Letter

Appendix E Louisiana Oaks Park – De Minimis Section 4(f) Evaluation

______________________________________________________________________TH 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page1 De Minimis Section 4(f)

SECTION 4(F) DE MINIMIS PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amendment to the Section 4(f) requirements allows the U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to determine that certain uses of Section 4(f) land are de minimis.

An impact may be determined to be de minimis if the transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, including consideration of impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures, is so minor in nature that it does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). Such a finding will be conditioned upon:

• the official(s) with jurisdiction over the resource indicating, in writing, that the proposed action, including consideration of the mitigation, will not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes that are important to the resource;

• the public has been afforded an opportunity (by public notice) to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and

• implementation of the mitigation measures.

When this is the case, an analysis of avoidance alternatives is not required and the Section 4(f) evaluation process is complete. The official(s) with jurisdiction over the resource will be informed of FHWA’s intent to make the de minimis impact finding.

These conditions appear to be met in the case of the Trunk Highway (TH) 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project that impacts the Louisiana Oaks City Park. Following public and agency review of this report, it is anticipated that the City of St. Louis Park will request the FHWA to determine the proposed action at Louisiana Oaks Park be considered a Section 4(f) de minimis action in accordance with Section 6009(a) of SAFETEA-LU.

1. Description of The Section 4(f) Property.

Name: Louisiana Oaks Park

Size (acre): The total size of the park is approximately 33 acres.

Location: The southeastern portion of Louisiana Oaks City Park is located near the Walker Street and Louisiana Avenue intersection. North of the project area, the parkland continues to run adjacent to Louisiana Avenue, in the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (see Figures 1 and 2).

Ownership: City of St. Louis Park


Type of Section 4(f) Property: Parkland

Function of or Available Activities on the Property: The Louisiana Oaks City Parkland offers activities such as picnic shelter, restroom, playground equipment, soccer/baseball/softball fields, winter sledding hill, recreational trail, and parking facilities.

Description and Location of Existing and Planned Facilities: The existing facilities at

Louisiana Oaks Park include play equipment, ball fields, picnic shelter/restrooms, and parking areas. Figure 2 illustrates the location of the existing facilities within the park. There are currently no planned facilities/amenities associated with Louisiana Oaks City Park.

Access: The park has two primary access points where vehicle parking is available (Walker Street Access located just west of Louisiana Avenue and Louisiana Avenue Access located approximately 1,000-feet north of Walker Street. The Louisiana Oaks City Park can also be accessed from surrounding neighborhoods via local streets and trails.

Usage: An inventory of annual or daily park users has not been conducted. However, the park is used throughout the year as it provides a variety of seasonal activities. The highest level of usage occurs during spring/summer/fall weekends due to the athletic fields.

Relationship to Other Similarly Used Lands in the Vicinity: The City of St. Louis Park

has an extensive park system that includes fifty city-owned properties located throughout the community (see Figure 1). Within one-half mile of the project area there are six similarly used parklands that total more than 21 acres of recreational space. These parklands include the following: Walker Field Park (3.7 acres), Oak Hill Park (13.83 acres), Freedom/Paul Frank Fields (1.62 acres), Edgebrook Park (1.25 acres), Parkview Park (0.18 acres), and Jovig Park (0.6 acres). The amenities at these six parks include, but are not limited to, shelters, playground equipment, ball fields, tennis/basketball courts, sledding, ice rinks, and trails.

Applicable Clauses Affecting Ownership: None Unusual Characteristics Reducing or Enhancing the Value of the Property: The

Louisiana Oaks City Park is an unusual property in that it is a large public resource that provides a wide variety of passive and active recreational opportunities within a developed urban area.

Section 6(f) Impacts: Not applicable.


2. Impacts to the Section 4(f) Property.

Amount of land impacted: 639 square feet Permanent R/W Acquisition/Easements: None Temporary Easements: 639 square feet (same as land impacted)

Functions Affected: None Facilities Affected: None 3. Coordination with Responsible Official with Jurisdiction Over the Section

4(f) Property.

The City of St. Louis Park is the responsible agency with jurisdiction over Louisiana Oaks City Park. The City has considered the proposed action and has indicated that the proposed project results in a de minimis impact to the parkland, which will not adversely affect the activities, features, and/or attributes that are important to Louisiana the City Park. A copy of a letter signed by the City is attached to this Section 4(f) documentation.

4. Considerations.

Impact Avoidance: Several concept design alternatives were considered during the early project planning and scoping stages. These options would have resulted in varying degrees of impact on the Section 4(f) property well as on the natural and built environments. Options that would have maintain a conventional intersection at Walker Street and Louisiana Avenue with a traffic control signal would have avoided impacts to Louisiana Oaks Park. It was determined by the City and Mn/DOT that the roundabout configuration would improve safety and mobility at the intersection and better satisfy the project purpose and need objectives. Planning to minimize harm: The design process for the proposed TH 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project included all possible planning to minimize harm to Section 4(f) properties. The City of St. Louis Park has worked cooperatively with Mn/DOT to design and construct a new interchange at TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue, along with the associated local roadway improvements.

Mitigation: The City of St. Louis Park as concurred that the proposed project creates a de minimis affect on Louisiana Oaks City Park. As a result, no specific mitigation is proposed. However, the improvements include the construction of 10-foot wide trails along both sides of Louisiana Avenue and the project will result in the removal of the at-grade intersection at TH 7/Louisiana Avenue. These elements of the


project will improve the access and safety conditions for park users accessing Louisiana Oaks Park via bicycle or walking.

Enhancement: The proposed project will make maximum use of existing infrastructure. The project will enhance safety for not only vehicles travelling along TH 7, Louisiana Avenue, Walker Street, and West Lake Street, but also for pedestrians. As discussed above, the proposed improvements will eliminate the at-grade crossing of TH 7 which is a high speed four-lane highway.

5. Public Notice:

The public will be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project including the protected activities, features, and attributes of Louisiana Oaks Park. Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA), including this Section 4(f) De Minimis Preliminary determination, will be sent to resource agencies, local government units, libraries, and others. Furthermore, a public hearing will be held during the 30-day comment period for the EA. The public hearing will include a presentation of the environmental documentation followed by a formal public testimony period. Comments will be received at the hearing and for a minimum of 10 days thereafter and will become a part of the official hearing record.

6. Conclusion.

The proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource, and is not anticipated to adversely affect the activities, features and attributes of the Louisiana Oaks Park.


Figure 1 – Project Location and City-Wide Park Map

TH 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project

Louisiana Oaks Park


Figure 2 – Preliminary Layout – Preferred Alternative

Louisiana Oaks Park (size 33 ac.)

Parking

Soccer Field

Play Equipment

Sledding Hill

Parking

Pavilion

Play Fields


Figure 3 – Preliminary Layout – Section 4(f) Impacts

Park Boundary

www.sehinc.com

th 7/louisiana avenue interchange deminim section 4(f ... · city of st. louis park, hennepin...

Documents