Alternatives Screening Recommendations for the US 14 EIS - New Ulm

OF 16

T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M

Alternatives Screening Recommendations for the US 14 EIS - New Ulm to NorthMankato, MN (S.P. 5200-03) PREPARED FOR: Peter Harff - Mn/DOT

Mary Dieken - Mn/DOTGiles Abbe - Mn/DOT

PREPARED BY: Howard Preston & Doug Abere – CH2M HILLCOPIES: Mary Gute - CH2M HILL

Jeff Olson – CH2M HILLJon Huseby - Bolton & MenkFile and Project Web Site

DATE: October 7, 2004

CH2M HILL prepared this technical memorandum to document the process of screening the initial wide range of alignment/locationand interchange options developed to-date for the US 14 corridor study/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The details in thismemo should be read within the context of Geographic Information System (GIS) maps showing and labeling the alignments discussedherein and a report on interchange concepts. The GIS maps are referenced within this report as Figures 1 and 2. The interchange reportis a separate document.

Screening Objectives, Methodology, and EIS Context/ScheduleMn/DOT staff and our consultant team have worked together to develop and refine a wide range of alignments and interchange con-figurations and have now presented those options to a Project Advisory Committee (PAC), to representatives of public agencies, and tothe general public at a series of Informal Open Houses held in July 2004. In the meantime, we have also begun to review the US 14 proj-ect area in detail—using GIS to map corridor environmental features, and completed initial field reviews to verify the presence of wet-lands and refine wetland boundaries.

At the beginning of the screening process, the total number of possible US 14 options was so great that a coherent technical comparisonwas not feasible. A thorough qualitative screening process, based on key project criteria and environmental data, is needed now tomove ahead—ultimately so that we can reach a more meaningful and focused comparison. Put simply, screening the range of alterna

List of Figures (attached—following this memo):

1. Preliminary Alt. Screening—New Ulm/West & Courtland

2. Preliminary Alt. Screening—Nicollet

3. Cross Section and Right-of-Way Needs for Through-TownImprovement (no Frontage Road)

4. Cross Section and Right-of-Way Needs for Through-TownImprovement (with Frontage Road)

5. Potential Right-of-Way Impacts—Courtland

6. Potential Right-of-Way Impacts—Nicollet

US 14 CORRIDOR STUDY/EIS SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS – OCTOBER 2004

PAGE 2 OF 16

Draft EIS - Alternatives Development and Screening Highlights Our team’s objectives for screening alternatives include:

• Develop and compare DEIS alternatives that present good tradeoffs; ultimately, provide a balanced area-wide plan—enhancing mobility and promoting environmental quality

• Provide opportunities to phase U.S. 14 project development

• Avoid and minimize anticipated adverse impacts, including diagonal farm severances, wetland/floodplain impacts, and residential property impacts

Scoping (completed in 2003) • Screened out improved 2-lane highway alternatives

• Screened out several bypass corridors, including Co. Highway 21 north of Courtland, southern bypasses of Courtland, and northern bypasses of Nicollet—including Co. Highway 25

Interchange Workshop (June 17, 2004) Objectives are to:

1) Identify the most promising interchange locations/configurations 2) Consider interchange influence on alignments/alternatives 3) Identify environmental and screening considerations

Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Meetings (periodic) • Obtain input on project objectives and alternatives; keep local government officials well

informed of progress

• Discuss feedback received and results from the interchange workshop, informal open house meetings, the agency workshop, and other meetings

Informal Open House Meetings (July 2004) • Discuss preliminary engineering alternatives with nearby residents • Obtain feedback to improve our understanding of the issues and screening criteria

Environmental Resource Agency Workshop (July 2004) • Incorporate environmental resource goals into the project planning framework • Establish and begin working through agency concurrence points

tives now will help Mn/DOT focus on the most promising alignments and interchange design concepts, ensuring more clarity in thedecision-making process than possible with too many alternatives.

The text box to the right (“Draft EIS – Alternatives Developmentand Screening Highlights”) summarizes the general steps in theUS 14 screening process, which have been discussed andimplemented over the last few months, from May to July of 2004.To capture the status of the screening process, this memo containsspecific recommendations to eliminate or retain certainalignments or interchange concepts. These recommendations areconsidered firm and supported by sound professional judgment.But they were provided initially for discussion and follow up—not with the intent that they must be followed absolutely.

The recommendations in this memo are considered firm and are sup-ported by sound professional judgment. But they were provided ini-

tially for discussion and follow up—not with the intent that they mustbe followed absolutely.

A draft of this memo was first developed for a ProjectManagement Team meeting on August 5, 2004. That meetingfollowed the Interchange Design Workshop held on June 17, 2004;the first PAC Meeting, held on July 1, 2004; and the AgencyWorkshop held on July 21, 2004.

During this period, four public open house meetings were alsoheld (on July 1, July 8, July 20, and July 21). The current EISschedule includes additional work toward defining the“reasonable few” alternatives for detailed environmental study,working with the PAC, the public, and resource agencies toinform them and seek concurrence. Our study team also plans to hold a major public information meeting on October 13, 2004, with thekey EIS development goal being to commence detailed environmental impact studies and preliminary writing of all sections of the EISsoon after that meeting.


PAGE 3 OF 16

Screening Criteria and GoalsThis initial screening of alternatives was completed with emphasis on the following qualitative criteria and goals (see also the text boxon the previous page):

• Satisfy Purpose and Need—The key points of project purpose and need include the ability to satisfy access management, mobility,and safety objectives. Still, the screening process does not preclude detailed analysis of alternatives that might fail to completelyaddress purpose and need. For example, concepts involving improvements along existing US 14 through Courtland and Nicollethave recently been considered in some detail, but now are no longer recommended for further study. The additional analysesshowed that while US 14 could be expanded through the middle of these communities, the finished improvements would not pro-vide a high level of service and would not resolve safety and access management goals. Finally, such improvements would result inunwanted community and property impacts, which also runs counter to overall project objectives. For more discussion of this rec-ommendation, see also Table 1 (below) and the information which follows Table 1.

• Avoid and Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts—The potential for an alternative to satisfy purpose and need while alsoavoiding adverse impacts, such as diagonal farm severances, wetland/floodplain impacts, and residential property impacts is key toits potential success.

• Develop Alternatives that Exhibit Good Continuity/Consistency and Efficiency—This objective means that we will strive to pro-vide for consistent design objectives/characteristics throughout reasonable stretches of US 14. This includes consideration of road-way design consistency and efficiency. Efficiency refers generally to effectiveness in transportation function while avoiding unduecosts in right-of-way or other impacts.

• Balance Impacts and Provide a Reasonable Range of Remaining Choices—Some of the initially developed alignments have thepotential for substantial impacts to certain resources—for example woodlands, a stream, ravine features and residential areas alongthe top of the bluff near the west end of the project. Eliminating or adjusting alignments that present avoidable impacts like thosecited above is a necessary step to provide a better balance between different types of impacts.


PAGE 4 OF 16

Detailed Screening Recommendations and Next StepsThis section provides our detailed screening recommendations, with alignments and interchange concepts coded and labeled as fol-lows, both in this memo and in the related GIS maps—Figures 1 and 2:

GREEN Alignment/concept recommended to be retained for detailed study

RED Alignment/concept recommended to be eliminated from further detailed study

X Initial alignment concept, recommended to be eliminated

A Initial alignment concept, recommended to be retained

IC Interchange concept

1 Study section 1 – New Ulm/West

2 Study section 2 – Courtland

3 Study section 1 – Nicollet

Table 1 (beginning on the next page) presents the screening recommendations in detail. In addition to the codes noted above, eachalignment or concept is also lettered A, B, C, D etc. –- thus we have labels used within this screening process like A1A (retained align-ment on the west/New Ulm end of the corridor), X2A (eliminated alignment in the Courtland section of the corridor), and IC3C (inter-change concept in the Nicollet segment). Clearly, it is very important to view the related GIS/alignment mapping and interchangeconcepts along side this memo—Table 1 basically won’t make much sense without those graphics.

Finally, what are the recommended follow up actions? To find answers, please focus on the right-most column in Table 1. Please alsonote that, in some cases there is reference to the action to amend the Scoping Decision. This proposed follow-up action refers to a rec-ommended formal statement amending the original Scoping Decision of June 2003. Overall, the most important next steps in the proc-ess are planned to include:

1. Publication of this memo on the project web site; 2. A public information meeting, scheduled for October 13, 2004; and3. Completion and disclosure of documentation that establishes the Amended Scoping Decision


PAGE 5 OF 16

TABLE 1. Detailed Screening Recommendations (NOTE: This content should be reviewed with GIS/Alignment Maps and the Interchange Concept Report)

Alignment or Concept I.D., (Description),and Brief Recommendation

Justification to Retain Alignment/Concept for More Study orEliminate

Adjustment/Refinement Recommenda-tions & Other Follow Up Actions

Section 1. West/New Ulm

A1A. Existing US 14 (at the bottom ofthe bluff along MN River)—RETAIN

Preliminary analyses indicate that this section of existing highwayalignment can be widened to four lanes without a substantial continu-ous impact to the MN River floodplain if a constrained (urban) cross-section is used. The constrained design would use a 6-foot raised con-crete island (not a median barrier) to separate the east and west boundroadways, and curb/gutter on the outside edges in order to reduce theoverall roadway width to approximately 84 feet.

Need more design detail (including crosssections with bluff and floodplain shown andaccess treatments) to confirm the feasibilityof the alignment with the special cross-section and to fully understand impacts.

A1B. Near North Top-of-Bluff—RETAINwestern portion and adjust the portion toeast

This alignment is the most promising top-of-bluff routing in theWest/New Ulm Section, and is recommended for retention based onpotential for superior access management. This alignment should beadjusted slightly to provide better continuity and balancing of impacts(see discussion to right). Toward the east, A1B should connect onlywith A2A (the Courtland Far North Bypass). See also alignments rec-ommended to be eliminated (below).

Mn/DOT staff will refine this alignment tobest balance between property acquisition,relocation, and farm severance impacts.This work will also look to minimize impactsto the ravine and Hyman’s Creek and willinclude a best connection with A2B (theCourtland Near North Bypass). Also, seeinterchange concepts.

X1A. Far North Top-of-Bluff—ELIMINATEwestern portion of this alignment

Unnecessary to study an alignment this far north, involving substantiallygreater farmland impacts than other top-of-bluff routings. The recom-mended A1B adjustments will provide the best balance.

--

X1B. Eastward Continuation of A1B,Near North Top-of-Bluff—ELIMINATEbased on adjustment of A1B

See A1B discussion above. This alignment fails to avoid or minimizethe stream, forest land, and ravine impacts.

--

X1C. West Connection between A1Aand A1B—ELIMINATE; AMEND SCOPINGDECISION

Eliminate based on justifications similar to those stated for X1B —theconnection fails to effectively avoid or minimize stream, forest land, andslope impacts on the bluff. Additionally, this connection fails to addressobjectives related to continuity, purpose & need, and environment – itclimbs the bluff at a location that will introduce grade/design problems,cause residential impacts, and has little potential to simplify design oraccess management needs.

Scoping Decision recommended analysis inan EIS. Mn/DOT staff will amend the Scop-ing Decision to eliminate this alternativefrom review in the EIS.

X1D. East Connection between A1A andA1B—ELIMINATE; AMEND SCOPING DECISION

This connection is routed up/down the bluff at a location that fails toaddress continuity and purpose & need objectives because it does notavoid the access management challenges east of the connection, in theresidential area and at the High School.



PAGE 6 OF 16





NOTE: At a coordination meeting on Aug. 5, 2004, Mn/DNR suggesteda “bifurcated” horizontal alignment alternative at the west end. Twolanes would remain on existing US 14 and two lanes would move to thetop of the bluff. Problems with this concept include: 1) bluff impactsfrom two lanes going on top of the bluff; and 2) traffic operations andsafety issues—especially concern about wrong-way movements andcircuity issues for residents between the two roadways.

SPECIAL NOTE FOR FOLLOW UP: SeeFigure 1 (dashed line)—a different intercon-nection crossing X1D appears to have merit,connecting to existing US 14 at Co. Highway37 and extending up the bluff going eastfrom 37. Such a connection might allow formaximum use of the existing highway whileavoiding access management challengesnear the High School and residential area.

IC1A.1. Existing US 14/MN 15 Alignment,Directional Concept; stays in river val-ley—RETAIN and Study IC Options

IC1A.2. Existing US 14/CR 37 Alignment,Directional Concept; stays in river val-ley—RETAIN

These concepts are promising from a number of perspectives becausethey minimize the need for new right-of-way and provide free-flowmovement and very good continuity for US 14, MN 15, and CR 37.

Studies of additional interchange conceptsthat emphasize the existing US 14 alignmentare still advised, including a possible dia-mond interchange at the junction of US 14and MN 15. CH2M HILL will proceed withadditional study of these concepts asauthorized by Mn/DOT.

IC1B.1. US 14/MN 15 New AlignmentAbove Bluff, Diamond Concept—RETAINpartially, for further consideration of the US14/MN 15 junction (based on the A1Balignment).

IC1B.2. Existing US 14/CR 37 Alignment,Directional Concept; stays in river val-ley—ELIMINATE. Concept, extending downthe bluff is eliminated as a poor alignmentchoice.

The IC1B.1 concept is being retained because it provides access at MN15 using a top-of-bluff alignment (A1B).

The IC1B.2 concept is being eliminated would require that US 14 berouted up/down the bluff east of the 1C1B.1 concept at a location thatfails to address continuity and purpose & need objectives because itdoes not avoid the access management challenges. See IC1E.2 fordiscussion of an Above the Bluff interchange concept at CR 37.

Based on the recommendation to adjust thetop-of-bluff alignment to a “best fit” location,a new concept has emerged wherein accessto the MN 15 – CR 37 junction must bestudied using only the retained top-of-bluffalignment (see IC1E).

IC1C.1. US 14 Above Bluff, MN 15 SplitDiamond Concept, Below Bluff, —ELIMINATE

IC1C.2. US 14/CR 37 Alignment, SplitDiamond Concept, Below Bluff—ELIMINATE

The split diamond concept is being eliminated from further considera-tion because this design type is not compatible with the rural nature ofUS 14. This split diamond design is more commonly used in urbanareas where right-of-way is at a premium.

See discussion above, for IC1B.

IC1D.1. US 14/MN 15 Diamond ConceptBelow the Bluff—RETAIN

IC1D.2. Existing US 14/CR 37 Alignment,

These concepts are promising from a number of perspectives becausethey minimize the need for new right-of-way and provide free-flowmovement and very good continuity for US 14.

--


PAGE 7 OF 16





Directional Concept; stays in river val-ley—RETAIN

IC1E.1. US 14/MN 15 New AlignmentDiamond Concept, Above the Bluff—RETAIN for further consideration of the US14/MN 15 Junction (based on the refinedA1B alignment).

IC1E.2. US 14/CR 37 New AlignmentDiamond Concept, Above the Bluff—RETAIN for further consideration of the US14/CR 37 Junction (based on the refinedA1B alignment).

These concepts are being retained because they provide access to thejunctions at MN 15 and CR 37 using a top-of-bluff alignment (A1B).

--

Section 2. Courtland

A2A. Connection From Existing US 14 toWest to the Near North Courtland By-pass (A2B)—RETAIN

This alternative is reasonable to retain for connectivity to existing US 14(Alternative A1A) toward the west. See also IC2A.

The current diamond interchange concept(IC2A) includes realignment of CR 12. Mi-nor refinements are possible.

X2A. Existing US 14 Through Court-land—Connected only to A1A (Existing US14) toward west, ELIMINATE; AMEND SCOPINGDECISION

Expansion of the existing highway through town would result in sub-stantial adverse property impacts while also failing to meet all projectobjectives and would not fully satisfy purpose and need. See the ad-ditional discussion following this table for a summary of potential im-pacts. See Figure 5.

--

A2B. Courtland Near North Bypass—RETAIN, connected only to A1B (Top-of-Bluff) toward west/New Ulm

This alternative is reasonable to retain for connectivity to a refinementof the Alternative A1B alignment toward the west. See also IC2A. Thisalternative is a slight variation of the Scoping Alternative Bypass #1,also named the Near North Bypass. The alignment in the City ofCourtland Comprehensive Plan best matches the A2B alignment (ap-proximately 1/3 mile south of city limits at CR 12).

Immediate design efforts should includerefinement of this alignment along with inter-change concept development.

A2C. Connection from Existing US 14 toWest to Courtland Bypasses (A2A &A2B) —RETAIN, Connected to US 14 to-wards the east

This alternative provides a common optimal alignment for AlternativesA2A and A2B from the west to connect back to US 14.

--

X2B. Connection From Existing US 14to East (A1A) TO NEAR NORTH COURTLANDBYPASS ROUTES—ELIMINATE; AMEND

This connection involves several avoidable residential and forest landimpacts (similar to X1E). It also compromises both purpose and needand environmental objectives, by unnecessarily combining existing US

Scoping Decision recommended analysis inan EIS. Mn/DOT staff will consider amend-ing the Scoping Decision to eliminate thisalternative from review in the EIS. It is not


PAGE 8 OF 16





SCOPING DECISION 14 to the west with a Near North Courtland bypass. clear that the Scoping Decision will need tobe amended because this idea is simply areconnection back to the existing US 14.

X2C. Connection From Top-of-BluffAlignment (A1B) to Existing Near NorthCourtland Bypass Routes—ELIMINATE

This connection unnecessarily attempts to tie back to existing US 14going west from the bluff top just west of Courtland and would impactresidences and a cemetery near existing US 14. This connection is notneeded and the adverse impacts are avoidable.

--

X2D. Far North Bypass of Courtland—ELIMINATE; AMEND SCOPING DECISION

Unnecessary to study an alignment this far north. The recommendedA2A and A2B alignments will provide the best balance for a North ofCourtland Bypass.


X2E. Courtland Hillside North Bypass—Connection From A1B (Near North Top-of-Bluff) to A2C.—ELIMINATE

This connection is too close to Courtland and it sits on the hillside whichunnecessarily complicates design and construction. Location directlyon the bluff side. This alternative does not provide adequate spacebetween the interchange and Courtland. The alignment in the City ofCourtland Comprehensive Plan best matches the A2B alignment (ap-proximately 1/3 mile south of city limits at CR 12).

--

IC2A. Diamond Interchange North ofCourtland—Retain

Corresponds to A2C alignment. As stated above (A2C) minor refinementsare still possible, including routings for CR12.

Section 3. Nicollet

A3A., A3B. & A3C.—Near South BypassAlignments—RETAIN

• A3A.Tie back to existing US 14 assoon as reasonable west of Nicollet,thus widening the highway within theSwan Lake Wildlife Management Area(WMA)

• A3B. & A3C. Tie back to existing US14 as soon as reasonable west of theWMA, thus avoiding direct impact tothe WMA

The Nicollet Near South Bypasses (A3A., A3B. and A3C) provide sev-eral opportunities for refinement, both in terms of alignments and inter-changes. See also discussion of interchange concepts IC3A, B, and C(below).

Compared to X3A (see below), alignments A3B., A3C, and A3D. pro-vide a segment that runs more parallel to existing US 14 south of thedeveloped portions of Nicollet. This segment of roughly parallel align-ment to the south provides a logical southern boundary area for thefuture development of Nicollet, but the A3B alignment still ties back intoexisting US 14 as soon as reasonable on the west side of Nicollet (seealso discussions of X3A and X3B below).

The City of Nicollet commented during the Scoping process, their pref-erence for a near south bypass of the city.

Consideration of the sub-options (A3A, A3B,and A3C) will involve refinement of each tobest balance impacts, either following exist-ing US 14 through the WMA (A3A) oravoiding the WMA to the south (A3B andA3C). This process should involve substan-tial input from Mn/DNR.

NOTE: Recommend that a “best balanced”A3A alignment be determined as soon aspossible (avoiding the WMA), with input fromMn/DNR.


PAGE 9 OF 16





A3D. Far South Bypass Alignment Ex-tending Straight West from US 14—RETAIN

In general, the near south alignments (A3A, A3B, and A3C) providesufficient flexibility in bypass routings with more efficiency and fewerimpacts to farmland, including ditch crossings, than the Far South By-pass routes. However, current land development issues in Nicolletmake it desirable at this point in the decision-making process to retain afar south alignment for additional study. Consideration of wetlandavoidance is a key design priority, with considerable farmland impacts agiven along this corridor.

Further refinement should focus on devel-opment of a single far south bypass align-ment would only connect to the section linealignment (A3C) west of Nicollet. Additionalrefinement may include consideration ofwetland avoidance and local access.

X3A. Existing US 14 Through Nicollet—ELIMINATE for comparative study

Expansion of the existing highway through town would result in sub-stantial adverse property impacts while also failing to meet all projectobjectives and would not fully satisfy purpose and need. See the addi-tional discussion following this table for a summary of impacts from thisalternative. See Figure 6..

--

X3B. Near South Diagonal Alignment—ELIMINATE

This short alignment involves substantial diagonal severance of farm-lands immediately south of US 14 while avoiding nothing readily appar-ent from an environmental standpoint. This diagonal alignment wouldalso constrain the future growth and development of Nicollet by creatinga triangular land area (see also A3B above).

--

X3C. Near South with Connection Westof A3B.1—ELIMINATE

This alignment extends farther west than the A3B alignment, but still re-joins US 14 east of the WMA.

--

X3C. Far South Bypass DiagonalAlignment—ELIMINATE

See the discussion for alignment A3D, above. The diagonal alignmentrepresented by X3C has no advantages, while only causing more im-pacts to agricultural properties.

--

IC3A. Diamond Interchange South ofNicollet on Existing CR. 23—RETAIN

This is a basic, very simple, diamond interchange layout connected tothe main north-south highway south of town. It requires no majorchanges to other highway routings and should be studied further be-cause it provides an alternative interchange location versus IC3C.

Minor refinements may be warranted tomake this concept a “best fit” with NearSouth Bypass alignments.

IC3B. Split Diamond Bypass at Nicollet—ELIMINATE

This concept involves putting directional ramps on either end of theNear South Bypass of Nicollet, resulting in a geometric split between a“New US 14” (south bypass) and a “Business 14” route. This conceptis recommended to be eliminated because the interchange form ismore fitting within a more constrained urban or suburban area (whereminimizing right-of-way take is a priority) and because it is not as intui-tive to the driving public as a single diamond interchange.

--

IC3C. Diamond Interchange South of This is a simple diamond interchange layout that involves some re- Minor refinements may be warranted to


PAGE 10 OF 16





Nicollet, Involving Realignment of MN 99and CR 23—RETAIN

routing or new designations of MN 99 and CR 23. It is promising fromthe standpoint of logic and convenience and also should be studiedfurther because it provides an alternative interchange location versusIC3A.

make this concept a “best fit” with NearSouth Bypass alignments.

IC3D. Far South Bypass Diamond Inter-change (X3C or X3D)—RETAIN

See A3D discussion above. --

Section 4. North Mankato

A4A. Common Western Alignment—RETAIN

This alternative to expand US 14 on the existing alignment from east ofNicollet to the eastern project limit, is the common alignment for allalignments to the west.

--

Consideration of Expanding Existing US 14 through Courtland & NicolletThis section provides additional information about the recommendations to eliminate design concepts involving the expansion of ex-isting US 14 through Courtland and Nicollet. As noted above in Table 1, these concepts are both proposed to be eliminated from addi-tional environmental review based on substantial community impacts and failure to satisfy project objectives. In both communities, itwill be impractical to either eliminate access completely, develop an interchange on the existing highway, or provide an improvementthat would resolve conflicts sufficiently to prevent future installation of traffic signals.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the roadway cross sections considered in Courtland and Nicollet. The proposed roadway designs would pro-vide for more through traffic on four through lanes with a two-way left turn lane in the center. However, speeds would still be reducedthrough the towns, most likely to the same posted speeds as today’s or to lower speed limits (the current posted speed limits are 35 and45 mph through Courtland and 50 mph through Nicollet, based on Mn/DOT web site data). Average speeds along US 14 would also bereduced further as traffic signals are added.

While a frontage road was also studied for Nicollet (Figure 4), this would create additional community impacts and might not be neces-sary because of the potential to provide supporting roadways and access improvements 1-3 blocks from existing US 14 (sometimesknown as “backage roads”). Therefore, the community impact considerations discussed below, for both Courtland and Nicollet, areconsidered conservatively low—based only on the cross section shown in Figure 3 (without the frontage road).


PAGE 11 OF 16

Alternative X2A - Existing Alignment US 14 Through CourtlandThis alternative fails to meet project objectives and does not fully satisfy purpose and need. Potential impacts from expanding the ex-isting US 14 to four lanes through the City of Courtland were assessed based on a 130-foot right-of-way and the City’s standard 20-footsetback as documented in the City of Courtland’s Zoning Standards (see Figure 5 attached to the back of this memo)1.

An alignment alternative was developed to expand the highway only to the north holding the southern edge of the existing US 14pavement. The decision to expand to the north was made based on right-of-way considerations and because of a park located on thesouth side of US 14. This park would likely be considered a Section 4(f) property during an EIS. Expanding the roadway to the northdemonstrates an attempt to avoid a Section 4(f) property as required by FHWA guidelines.

A preliminary environmental review revealed that if US 14 were expanded to four lanes through Courtland, it would result in very highimpacts to the community, including acquisition of multiple residences and businesses (see Table 2 below and Figure 5 attached to theback of this memo). Expanding the roadway to four lanes through Courtland would permanently alter the existing level of communitycohesion in Courtland by introducing a larger community divide between residences and businesses located north of US 14 and resi-dences and businesses located south of US 14.2 Courtland residents would be required to cross a four-lane facility to access residences,businesses, or public buildings located on either side of the highway.

Given the small size of the City of Courtland and the proximity of the highway to any remaining homes and businesses, there would belimited opportunity to minimize the adverse impacts to community cohesion, in terms of using roadway design features to blend withthe existing landscape and consideration of vegetative screening to minimize the visual impacts on adjacent properties.

1 The existing alignment of US 14 through Courtland is 74 feet wide.2 Community cohesion refers to the social bonds that currently exist among community residents, as well as people from the surrounding areas who support the local businesses, usepublic resources, and participate in the social activities within the community.


PAGE 12 OF 16

TABLE 2. Potential Impacts – Four-lane expansion of Existing US 14 Alignment Through CourtlandEnvironmental Issue Potential Impacts

Property Impacts - Over 30 buildings within 130 ft. right-of-way- Approximately 60 buildings within 130 ft. right-of-way + 20 foot standard setback

Parks and Open Space None anticipated assuming expansion to the north or the existing highway

Historic Architectural Resources None anticipated1

Archaeological Resources None anticipated1

Wetlands Some wetland impacts anticipated

1 BASED ON CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY FOR TH 14 WEST INTERREGIONAL CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES STUDY (SP 5200-03) NICOLLET COUNTY, MN COMPLETED MAY 2004

Additionally, access to the remaining properties in Courtland would be drastically altered compared to the existing conditions. Asnoted in the project purpose and need, one of the objectives of undertaking improvements to US 14 is to manage access to the roadwayin order to address documented safety deficiencies and to preserve mobility consistent with US 14’s functional designation. Mn/DOTaims to limit the number of access points and is looking at interchange options along the entire extent of the corridor—including inCourtland. If an interchange providing access to the expanded US 14 were included in the improvements, the impacts to Courtlandwould increase substantially.

Given the substantial impacts that would result from expanding US 14 to four-lanes through Courtland and given that the City ofCourtland has expressed its preference is for US 14 to bypass the city (a north bypass route is identified in the City’s ComprehensivePlan), Mn/DOT is eliminating this alternative from additional environmental review at this time. Because this alternative was recom-mended in the Scoping Decision Document for further environmental review, Mn/DOT must amend the Scoping Decision to eliminatethis alternative from further environmental review.

Alternative X2A - Existing Alignment US 14 Through NicolletThe expansion of US 14 through Nicollet (Alternative X2A) is also recommended for no further detailed study, based on justificationssimilar to those stated for Courtland. Based on the area depicted in Figure 6, Table 3 shows the anticipated impacts of expanding US 14to a four-lane roadway through Nicollet. Assuming a 130-foot right-of-way, no buildings would be impacted by expanding US 14 tofour lanes. Assuming a 130-ft. cross section and the City’s standard residential 30-foot setback, approximately five buildings would beimpacted by expanding US 14 to four-lanes through Nicollet. These buildings are located on the south side of US 14 and are either partof a business or a mobile home park.


PAGE 13 OF 16

In addition to property impacts, access to businesses and residential areas located both north and south of the roadway would be im-pacted. Currently, the properties that would be acquired access US 14 directly from the highway. Figure 6 does not include an inter-change option as part of the expansion of US 14 through Nicollet option. If an interchange were included with this alternative, theimpacts would increase considerably. It an interchange were included as part of this alternative the impacts would include takingmuch of what is currently located in all four quadrants of US 14 and CR 23/MN 111. The potential direct community impacts onNicollet from this alternative are not as great as those anticipated from a highway expansion in Courtland, and there would be less po-tential for adverse impact on community cohesion. However, the City of Nicollet favors being bypassed by US 14 and the long-termeffectiveness of a through-town expansion is poor—the need for a traffic signal would still arise and the presence of increasing trafficthrough town would continue to impact adversely on the community. For these reasons, and based on close consultations withMn/DOT, the alternative of expanding US 14 through Nicollet is recommended for elimination from further detailed study.

TABLE 3. Potential Impacts – Four-lane expansion of Existing US 14 Alignment Through NicolletEnvironmental Issue Potential Impacts

Property Impacts - No buildings located within the 130 ft. right-of-way- approximately 5 buildings within 130 ft. right-of-way and 30-foot standard setback

Parks and Open Space None anticipated

Historic Architectural Re-sources

None anticipated1

Archaeological Resources None anticipated1

Wetlands Some wetland impacts anticipated

1 BASED ON CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY FOR TH 14 WEST INTERREGIONAL CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES STUDY (SP 5200-03) NICOLLET COUNTY, MN COMPLETED MAY 2004

Wetland and Floodplain Avoidance/Minimization by Study AreaThis section provides a discussion of wetland and floodplain avoidance and minimization within the context of the above-stated alter-natives screening recommendations. These are key considerations throughout the process of developing and studying highway im-provement alternatives for an EIS, and should be addressed at least in general terms before moving ahead with study of a reducednumber of alternatives. Each major section of the corridor is addressed in the subsections below, with additional discussion of the SwanLake WMA (a special natural resource area) in Section 3—Nicollet.

With reference to the maps that depict the screening recommendations (Figures 1 and 2), it is important to note that the wetland fea-tures shown were determined based on available GIS data and a “windshield level” field review completed in June of 2004. Additional,


PAGE 14 OF 16

more detailed, wetland determinations are ongoing and the results will be reflected in the EIS. Most importantly, the recent field workhas been factored into the discussions below, which consider how the corridors evaluated through screening relate to wetland andfloodplain features, as well as the WMA. Overall, the review indicates that there are no major flaws in the screening recommendationswith regard to these resources. Additionally, the remaining range of alternatives will provide more detailed comparisons and allow formore complete consideration of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation when determined necessary.

Section 1. West/New UlmThe retained and eliminated alternatives in the West/ New Ulm section of the project would all have some wetland impacts. Retainedalternatives A1A (along existing US 14) will have the potential to impact wetland edges and floodplain in the bottoms of the MinnesotaRiver valley as well as portions of isolated wetlands. Potential impacts to Minnesota River valley bottom wetlands could be substan-tially avoided or minimized by constructing Alternative A1A on the northeast side of existing US 14, as close to the bluff as feasible, andby using only a 6-foot raised median. Potential wetland impacts resulting from Alternative A1B (on top of the bluff) in the West/ NewUlm section are expected to be negligible though probably not completely avoidable.

Section 2. CourtlandThe retained and eliminated alternatives in the Courtland section of the project area all have the potential to impact some wetlands.The wetlands in the Courtland section north of existing US 14 are generally small and isolated depressions. Complete avoidance ofwetland impacts in the Courtland section of the project is not likely to be feasible; however, impacts here would be relatively small.Alternative X2D and other corridors north of retained corridor A2A generally show more potential for wetland impacts, making thescreening recommendations to eliminate these routes consistent with wetland avoidance/minimization goals.

Section 3. NicolletThe retained and eliminated alternatives in the Nicollet section of the project area each have the potential to impact some wetlands. Ingeneral, the retained alternatives have less potential wetland impacts than eliminated alternatives—particularly with additional refine-ments. However, complete avoidance of wetlands in the Nicollet section of the project area is not feasible. The range of retained alter-natives also includes new corridor options that would avoid the Swan Lake WMA to the south, as well as one alternative (A3A whichruns along existing US 14 just west of Nicollet) that would not avoid the WMA. Additional detailed study of the WMA and coordina-tion with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will ultimately help determine if complete avoidance of the WMA is the pre-ferred approach.

Section 4. North MankatoThere are no location alternatives in the eastern-most part of the corridor and few wetlands are present; therefore, there are no meaning-ful avoidance/minimization issues to discuss for purposes of the screening recommendations.


PAGE 15 OF 16

PLACE FIGURE 1 HERE (SEPARATE PDF FILE)


PAGE 16 OF 16

PLACE FIGURE 2 HERE (SEPARATE PDF FILE)

Figure 3Cross Section and Right-of-Way Needs for Through-Town Improvement(no Frontage Road)--Courtland or Nicollet

Figure 4Cross Section and Right-of-Way Needs for Through-Town Improvement(with Frontage Road)--as Evaluated for Nicollet

Alternatives Screening Recommendations for the US 14 EIS - New Ulm

Documents

Transcript of Alternatives Screening Recommendations for the US 14 EIS - New Ulm