HWY 77 Bridge Project

Transcription

1 The Categorical Exclusion Determination document for this Class II (Categorical Exclusion) action describes the project's purpose and need, project description, social, economic and environmental impacts. HWY 77 Bridge Project DRAFT Categorical Exclusion June 2014

2 (revised: 5/21/08 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION Short Form STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District Address Review Draft ( X ) Final ( ) Trunk Highway: 77 State Project Number: Federal Project Number: Not Assigned Project Termini: At Minnesota River Ref. Point: to City(ies): Bloomington and Burnsville County(ies): Hennepin and Dakota Section, Township, Range: S-13, R24W, T27; S-18, R24, T27 Program: Bridge Improvement Letting Date: 10/24/14 Date Construction Expected to Begin: Summer 2014 End: Summer 2014 Project Manager: Jon Solberg Phone No.: (651) District Determination and Approval Based on the evaluation of this project and the attached documentation, it is determined that the project meets the criteria of and is properly classified as a Federal Categorical Exclusion (Class II Action Category 23 CFR ( d) ( 1 ). (It is also below the State EAW threshold). There are no extraordinary circumstances such as: 1. Significant impacts on the environment; 2. Substantial controversy on environmental grounds; 3. Significant impacts to Section 4(f) or 106 property; 4. Inconsistency with any federal, state or local law or administrative determination relating to the environment. It has been determined to be a: ( ) PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION. Does not exceed any threshold in Attachment B of the Programmatic CE Agreement between Mn/DOT & FHWA. (Only District Signature is required) ( X ) NON-PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION. But there are concerns regarding threshold(s) in Attachment B of the Programmatic CE Agreement between Mn/DOT & FHWA.. (Requires OES and FHWA signatures). Submitted by (Project Manager): Approved by (District Engineer): Jon Solberg Metro District South Area Planner Date Thomas O Keefe Metro District Assistant Engineer Date OES and FHWA Approvals (OES / FHWA signatures required if the project is Non-Programmatic categorical exclusion) Based on the evaluation of this project and the attached documentation, it is determined that the project meets the criteria of and is properly classified as a Categorical Exclusion. Approved: Approved: Deb Moynihan Mn/DOT Chief Environmental Officer Date Abbi Ginsberg FHWA Area Engineer Date

3 REPORT PURPOSE The Categorical Exclusion Determination document for this Class II (Categorical Exclusion) action describes the project's purpose and need, project description, social, economic and environmental impacts. Funding information, anticipated schedule and project manager are also included. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT BACKGROUND The proposed project is located on the Trunk Highway 77 (TH 77) bridge over the Minnesota River, in the Cities of Bloomington and Burnsville in Hennepin and Dakota Counties; refer to Figure 1 and 2 in Appendix A. This portion of the Minnesota River that TH 77 bridges over is part of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, see Figure 3 in Appendix A, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Snelling State Park, see Figure 4 in Appendix A. Both parks have trails that travel adjacent to and under the TH 77 Bridge, as illustrated in Figure 2. TH 77, also known as Cedar Avenue, provides an important regional connection with an Average Annual Daily Traffic volume on the bridge of 87,000 in The six-lane highway travels from its intersection with 138th Street in Apple Valley, and continues north to its northern terminus at its interchange with TH 62 in Minneapolis, approximately 11 miles. The project includes three bridges; Bridge #9600N (TH 77 northbound) and Bridge #9600S (TH 77 southbound) and 9600F (pedestrian trail bridge on the east side of the northbound TH 77 Bridge #9600N). The three bridges span the main channel of the Minnesota River and the Long Meadow Lake Trail, including large wetland areas on each side of the main channel. The DNR Fort Snelling park on the south side includes a boat launch and boat trailer parking area. Figure 5 in Appendix A illustrates the location of the bridges, trails, boat launch and parking. MnDOT has granted limited use permits (LUP) to the DNR to operate the boat launch and boat trailer parking area on MnDOT right of way, and the USFWS to locate the Long Meadow Lake Trail on MnDOT right of way. The TH 77 Bridges 9600N and 9600S are both steel tied arch bridges that were constructed in 1978; refer to Figure 6 in Appendix A. The steel arch portion of the bridge is approximately 360 feet long. The pedestrian Bridge #9600F was built in 1980 and is a steel beam span, and the two approach spans are concrete steel beam spans. The pedestrian bridge lies along the east side of the northbound TH 77 Bridge (9600N). Figures 6 and 7 in Appendix A illustrate the touch down points on either side of the river. PROJECT NEEDS This section discusses two types of needs: primary needs, which are the transportation problems that need to be addressed in the project; and secondary needs, which are additional transportation problems that should be addressed as part of the project

4 PRIMARY NEEDS The primary need for the proposed project is the condition of the paint on these three bridges. EXISTING PAINT CONDITION The three bridges were last painted in The existing condition of the paint is 15% unsound for Bridge # 9600F and 30% unsound for both Bridge #9600Nd and 9600S, based on the latest 2011 inspection date from the Structure Inventory Report, refer to Appendix B. The paint on the bridges is becoming deteriorated. SECONDARY NEEDS GUARDRAIL The existing guardrail end treatments do not meet current standards. In addition, the guardrail is in poor condition at locations where it connects to the concrete guardrail. BEARINGS AND EXPANSION JOINTS The bridge bearings and concrete expansion joints are beginning to show signs of deterioration and maintenance needs. PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of the project is as follows: Protect the steel and the elements of the bridges to extend the life of these structures; Provide guardrail that meets current standards; ALTERNATIVES "NO BUILD" ALTERNATIVE The No-Build Alternative would involve no painting of these bridges, guardrail replacement, bearing repair or joint replacement. Therefore, it does not address the purpose and need for the project. This alternative was rejected because it did not address the purpose and need of the project. The No-Build design provides the basis of comparison for the Preferred Build Alternative. 2

5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The proposed project is a continuing maintenance effort that is designed to save costs over an extended period of time. This project will paint the bridges and walkway to provide corrosion protection for the bridges and walkway structure. The following items will be performed as part of the Preferred Alternative: Paint the pedestrian Bridge (9600F) and the two TH 77 Bridges (northbound Bridge #9600N and southbound Bridge #9600S). Upgrade the existing guardrail to the current standards at eight locations (northbound and southbound lanes). Guardrail improvements to the connections to the existing concrete guardrail. New terminal endings and upgrades to the connection with the bridges concrete barriers. Replace and salvage guardrail endings and W beams. Rehabilitate the bearings clean and grease the bearings to allow for the movement of the structure due to temperature variations. Replace the existing expansion joints on the main spans of the TH 77 bridges (9600N and 9600S) to eliminate chloride contaminated water from leaking to the structure below. This includes one modular joint, and three strip seal joints on each bridge. COST AND FUNDING SOURCE PROJECT COST $2,405,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S) National Highway System (NHS) and State Match (SM) State Transportation Program, programmed in 2014 SCHEDULE AND PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT LETTING DATE: October 24, 2014 DATE CONSTRUCTION EXPECTED TO BEGIN: Spring

6 DATE CONSTRUCTION EXPECTED TO FINISH: Summer 2015 PROJECT MANAGER: Jon Solberg 1500 W. County Road B2 Roseville, MN Phone: (651) SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL (SEE) IMPACTS This project has been reviewed for its potential effects on the environment and community. Information is presented for those items checked "yes" and meriting individual discussion. If items are checked in the "no effect" box, they have been considered, relative to appropriate laws, executive orders, rules, and regulations. Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts Issue Questions Degree of Impact Will the project... Yes No Impact Description or Page Reference NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Farmland Impacts Require any right of way? X Affect fish or wildlife? (including X See Page 7 Fish and Wildlife Migratory Birds) Threatened and Endangered Species, Federal Threatened and Endangered Species, Species of Special Concern, State Visual Quality Vegetation Affect any Federal endangered species due to project location and design? Affect any State endangered species due to project location and design? Affect visual quality to or from natural visual resources, cultural visual resources, or project environment? Affect any of the four vegetation categories? X See Page 8 X See Page 8 X X Water-Related Issues 4

7 Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts Issue Questions Degree of Impact Wetlands Will the project... Yes No Have wetlands present within the construction limits? Affect wetland habitat? Impact Description or Page Reference X See Page 8 X Floodplains Stream or Water Body Modification Special River Concerns Erosion Control Water Quality Section 404 Permit (COE) Cross or lie adjacent to any floodplain area? Change the course, current, or cross section of any stream? Affect a state or federal Wild & Scenic River; a federal candidate Wild & Scenic River; a state Canoe & Boating River; MNRRA Involve major soil disturbance (depth or volume) or have erosion potential due to land form, wind patterns, or water volume? Affect water quality of lakes, streams, wetlands, etc.? X See Page 8 X X See Page 9 X X See Page 9 X Coast Guard Permits X See Page 9 Coastal Zone Impacts Affect highways along Lake Superior? X PHYSICAL / CONSTRUCTION Air Quality Affect air quality? X Noise Affect noise sensitive receptors? X See Page 9 Utilities Affect utilities? X See Page 10 Construction Impacts Cause construction impacts (erosion, noise, air, vibration, etc.)? X See Page 10 Contaminated Properties or Materials Involve excavation (including utilities) in any known or potentially contaminated property, or handling of any contaminated materials? X See Page Error! Bookmark not defined. 5

8 Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts Issue Questions Degree of Impact Excess Materials Will the project... Yes No Involve disposal of excess materials outside planned construction limits? Impact Description or Page Reference X See Page 11 Groundwater Geology, Earthborne Vibration Traffic Detour Affect groundwater, geology, or cause earthborne vibrations? Require a traffic detour? X X See Page 11 SOCIAL-ECONOMIC Access Control Land Use Impacts Relocation Right of Way Parks, Recreation, Section 4(f) or 6(f)(LAWCON) Economic Impacts Environmental Justice Change access to properties (close, change location, make one-way, etc.)? Be inconsistent with local and regional land use plans? Require any relocation of homes or businesses? Require any right of way (or easements)? Use any significant public park, recreation, or wildlife or waterfowl refugees, or any historical site? Will the project affect any LAWCON land? Affect business activity or have other economic impacts? Have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and lowincome populations? X X X X X See Page 11 X X See Page 12 Social Affect public safety (i.e. police or fire protection)? Impact sensitive groups (children, handicapped, minorities, poor, etc.)? Affect accessibility to schools, churches, recreation facilities, etc.? Affect community cohesion? X See Page 13 X X X 6

9 Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts Issue Questions Degree of Impact Bikeways & Pedestrians Will the project... Yes No Affect bicycle and/or pedestrian movements? Impact Description or Page Reference X See Page 13 Accessibility Affect sidewalk or curb and gutter (design for)? X Transit Affect transit routes? X See Page 13 Controversy Be controversial or be likely to cause controversy? X CULTURAL RESOURCES Historical Archaeological Cultural Affect any historical, archaeological, or cultural site? X See Page 14 Tribal Lands Affect Tribal Lands? X NOTES CLARIFYING SEE CONCERNS: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT FISH AND WILDLIFE The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the United State Fish and Wildlife Service US F&WS) were contacted regarding the proposed project. There are sensitive ecological features in the project area. The project is located within one mile of 4 calcareous fens, five trout streams and the Minnesota River. The Minnesota River does contain rare species (native mussels and fish species). All work should have stringent contaminant containment measures to prevent these resources from adverse impact. (See the attached MnDNR in Appendix C). MITIGATION: A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The SWPPP will ensure that paint materials are managed on site and that BMPs are employed by the contractor to ensure proper disposal of paint product and cleaning of equipment to ensure paint is not being disposed in the river or adjacent wetlands or lakes. In addition, a diaper containment system will be part of the construction plan set to ensure that the contractor captures all debris during sandblasting and painting from entering the river. 7

10 MIGRATORY BIRDS MnDOT reviewed the PONTIS bridge data, which lists whether migratory birds have been found nesting on the bridge. PONTIS indicates no bird nests on these bridges. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, FEDERAL MnDOT's Natural Resource Specialist has reviewed this project 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. (See the attached Federal Threatened & Endangered Species in Appendix C). THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, STATE There are sensitive ecological features in the project area, namely the nearby calcareous fen, a trout stream, the Minnesota River and Fort Snelling State Park. The DNR has determined that the project will not negatively affect any Public Waters or known occurrences of rare features. As proposed, adherence to natural resource regulations under other agencies authority, such as the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and MPCA programs such as the Regulated Waste Management Program and the Stormwater Program for Construction Activity (General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MNR100001) will suffice for DNR concerns. All work should have stringent contaminant containment measures to prevent these resources from adverse impact. (See the DNR in Appendix C). MITIGATION: See mitigation above on page 7 for Fish and Wildlife. WATER RELATED ISSUES WETLAND IMPACTS The proposed project will not place fill in any wetland areas within the project area. As noted above the contractor will have specified work practices to avoid any impact of paint materials entering adjacent wetland areas. FLOOD PLAINS The proposed project bridges over the Minnesota River flood plain area. All work will be above the floodplain. The project will not put any fill into the flood plain. SPECIAL RIVER CONCERNS The Minnesota River is a navigable river and designated a state boating and canoeing river. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is responsible for the safety and security of the river. MnDOT has a permit from the U.S. Coast Guard for the TH 77 bridge over the Minnesota River. The permit requires that an envelope of navigation be provided for boaters on the river. 8

11 The proposed work on the bridges over the Minnesota River will be reviewed by the U.S. Coast Guard. The work will not require a bridge permit amendment; however an approval letter from the Coast Guard will be required prior to work beginning. The Coast Guard will communicate the project impacts to the navigation community. MITIGATION: A diaper containment system will be part of the construction plan set to ensure that the contractor captures all debris during sandblasting and painting from entering the river and a navigable envelope will be maintained throughout the project duration. COAST GUARD PERMIT The TH 77 Bridges (9600N and 9600S) are USCG permitted bridges. The proposed work will not require a bridge permit amendment; however, before work can commence, a work plan must be submitted for USCG approval. The Plan will describe in-river equipment, containment system and duration of the project. The USCG typical approval time is 30-days from the time MnDOT s plan is received. The USCG will issue a conditional approval letter allowing MnDOT to complete the work on the bridges. The Coast Guard's conditional approval letter will spell-out any conditions on performing the work. The Coast Guard's review time will likely take 30 days from receipt of MnDOT's submittal to issuing the conditional approval letter. MnDOT has had initial coordination with the USCG, as per the provided in Appendix B, the USCG has consulted local towing interests and a five-foot encroachment below the low-steel on the bridges over the navigational channel would not adversely impact navigation. In addition, any containment system must follow the contours of the bridge to maintain the five-foot encroachment. During construction on the Minnesota River Bridge, the navigational clearance envelope below the bridge, noted above as a maximum encroachment of five-feet, will be maintained along with the navigation lighting on the bridge. The Coast Guard will be given around-the-clock contact numbers for the contractor and MnDOT s resident engineer. WATER QUALITY The proposed work is not anticipated to impact the existing water quality of the Minnesota River or adjacent waters/wetlands. As noted above in the Fish and Wildlife section on page 7, an NPDES permit from the MPCA will be required to ensure proper handling and disposal of materials is conducted. A SWPPP will be developed for the NPDES permit. The SWPPP will ensure that paint materials are managed on site and that BMPs are employed by the contractor to ensure proper disposal of paint product and cleaning of equipment to ensure paint is not being disposed in the river or adjacent wetland or lakes. In addition, A diaper containment system will be part of the construction plan set to ensure that the contractor captures all debris during sandblasting and painting from entering the river. NOISE The proposed project does not cross the threshold of a Type I project and therefor does not require a full noise analysis. However, elevated noise levels during the painting and sandblasting could be encountered which will be unavoidable for this type of project. Once construction is complete noise levels will return to their existing levels. It should be noted that residential housing is not located close to the project area. However, boaters passing through the area and park users on the nearby trails along the river bank in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Snelling State Park may experience increased noise levels in the vicinity of the bridges. 9

12 MnDOT will require that construction equipment be properly muffled and in proper working order. While MnDOT is exempt from local noise ordinances, it is MnDOT s practice to require contractor(s) to comply with applicable local noise restrictions and ordinances to the extent that is reasonable. Advanced notice will be provided to affected communities of any planned abnormally loud construction activities. UTILITIES There are no utilities on these bridges. However, the University of Minnesota has an acoustic monitoring device with solar panels on the bridges. The monitoring device is inside of the tie girder on Bridge 9600N and the solar panels and cable leads are attached to the south end of the pedestrian Bridge # 9600F; it is attached to both the fence and the superstructure. MITIGATION: The special provisions provided in the project plan will include necessary details to protect these devices from harm during construction activities. This is likely to include disconnecting the sensors and computer located inside the tie girder from the solar panel. The cables would be placed inside the girder alongside the sensors and computer. A tarp would be used to enclose and protect these items inside the girder. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The proposed project will have moderate to high impacts for vehicle traffic on TH 77. Several construction scenarios were evaluated to determine the best scenario that could minimize traffic disruptions, maintain construction worker safety and maximize product quality. It was determined that working under traffic would substantially increase construction duration, would impact the quality of the joint work, and require setup and teardown of closing and opening the freeway multiple times; therefore a full closure of each bridge is necessary to complete this work. Two options are under considerations for managing traffic while each bridge is closed. One option is to construct crossovers to move the traffic from one side of the freeway to the other for two lane traffic in each direction on the bridge while work is performed on the other bridge. The second option is to detour traffic to I-35E and I-494 while work is performed. The duration of the work is 4-6 weeks. The pedestrian bridge located under the southbound TH 77 Bridge and the boat launch located on the south bank is expected to require full closure for the entire duration of work on these bridges. In the event that they can be opened prior to completion of the work the area will be signed accordingly. MnDOT has been working with both the DNR and USFWS to coordinate public involvement and ensure that advanced notification and proper signage occurs to help minimize impacts for users. TH 77 is a limited access highway and biking and pedestrians are prohibited from using the highway. Detours for this crossing are not close due to the distance between bridge crossings of the Minnesota River. Pedestrian and bike commuters that use this crossing have the option to use the Metro Transit Red Line to cross the river on the highway. Cedar Grove Park and Ride is located at TH 13 and TH 77. Several Red Line bus stops are located on the north side of the Minnesota River. MnDOT s Metro Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator reviewed the project, refer to Appendix C. A detour for pedestrians and bicyclists will be developed for the pedestrian bridge closure. See the noise section on page 9 for noise impacts during construction. 10

13 CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES OR MATERIALS MnDOT's Environmental Investigation Unit has reviewed the MPCA and Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) databases to check for known contaminated sites in the project area. Based on the database review, there is one, closed petroleum release site located within 500 feet of the project corridor. Given the nature and location of the project area, and based on the HPDP threshold criteria, as summarized in the attached Contaminated Properties in Appendix B, the project has low risk for impacting a potentially impacted site. (See the attached Contaminated Properties in Appendix C). EXCESS MATERIALS Excess materials and debris from this project will be disposed of in accordance with MnDOT Standard Specification for Construction, C and Minnesota Rule In particular, excess materials and debris will not be placed in wetlands or floodplains. As noted in the Water Quality section on page 9 a NPDES permit will be required with a SWPPP that will detail disposal of product material to ensure that no paint is entering the Minnesota River or adjacent wetlands or lakes. TRAFFIC DETOUR MnDOT is developing a Traffic Management Plan to minimize traffic impacts to the extent possible. As discussed in the Construction Impacts section on page 10 a detour is under consideration for managing traffic. The detour would be I-35E and I-494. A press release and area signage notifying motorist of the upcoming work will be provided in the corridor. REGULATED WASTE REMOVAL MnDOT's Regulated Waste Unit reviewed the proposed project and determined that the guardrail posts may be treated wood which would be considered regulated waste, refer to Appendix C. In the event the posts are treated wood, they will be disposed of at an MPCA-permitted sanitary or industrial waste landfill. The documentation from the landfill will be put in the project file. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC PARKS, RECREATION, SECTION 4(F) OR 6(F)(LAWCON) As noted above in the background portion of the Purpose and Need, this portion of the Minnesota River that TH 77 bridges over is part of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Snelling State Park. Both parks have trails that travel adjacent to and under the TH 77 Bridge, as illustrated in Figures 2-4. FHWA has determined that the pedestrian trail (Bridge #9600F) is a Section 4(f) property. This bridge crosses the Minnesota River connecting trails on the west and east side of the River; the US Fish and Wildlife Service s Long Meadow Lake Trail on the west side of the River, and the DNR s trail along the east bank of the Minnesota River, the Minnesota Valley State Trail. The boat launch and parking area are under a limited use permit agreement with the MnDNR and are located within MnDOT right of way and do not constitute a 4(f) resource. 11

14 MnDOT received a letter of temporary occupancy from the USFWS for the use of the Long Meadow Lake Trail, refer to Appendix D for letter and map of trail. In addition, FHWA is working with the DNR regarding trail impacts for Bridge #9600F. A de minimis (very minor impacts) to Section 4(f) properties is the anticipated action from FHWA. A public comment period will be provided as per the rules for a de minimis finding. As anticipated, when FHWA makes a de minimis determination of a project s Section 4(f) impacts, the Section 4(f) process is satisfied and no further analysis is needed, refer to the Appendix D for letter to DNR. The Minnesota River is also designated a boating and canoe recreational river. There are no anticipated impacts to boating or canoeing on the river. In addition, there are no impacts anticipated to the USFWS Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge or and the MnDNR Snelling State Park other than the closure of the pedestrian trail bridge. All necessary precautions to contain the sandblasting and paint within the work area will be detailed in the contractor s plans. MITIGATION: FHWA and MnDOT have been coordinating project planning with the DNR and USFWS to minimize potential impacts to users of the pedestrian trail bridge. The nearest crossing of the Minnesota River is on the I-494 Bridge between Bloomington and Mendota. MnDOT s Metro Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator reviewed the project; refer to Appendix C. The coordinator and MnDOT project manager will work with the project area city and park staff to develop a detour for pedestrians and bicyclists during bridge closure. Signing will be provided up stream of the closure to inform trail users of the closure and alternative trail routes. All restricted facilities will be open for use at the completion of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The purpose of Executive Order is to identify, address, and avoid disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. BACKGROUND Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, dated February 11, 1994, directed that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its program, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States The proposed project has federal funding and federal permit requirements and is considered a federal project for purposes of compliance with the Executive Order. PROJECT AREA DEMOGRAPHICS A 500-foot buffer has been drawn around the project area to determine neighborhoods that could be impacted by the project, refer to Figure 8 in Appendix C. The closest housing is located on the south side well outside the buffer, approximately 2/3 mile away. The direct area of impact would be the park and trails. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS 12

15 If any minority or low-income populations are found to reside within a project area, Executive Order requires that the proposed action be reviewed to determine if there are disproportionately high or adverse effects on these populations. Disproportionate is defined in two ways: the impact is predominantly borne by the minority or low-income population group, or the impact is more severe than that experienced by non-minority or non-low-income populations. There are no impacts from this project that would impact human health or environmental effects. As noted in the construction staging section on page 10, an NPDES permit and SWPPP will be developed to protect the adjacent water resources. The project will have park impacts and travel time impacts; however, these impacts would not have a high or adverse impact to human health or environmental effects. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FINDING The purpose of Executive Order is to identify, address, and avoid disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations. The Environmental Justice analysis on this project shows that there is no population residing within the project area and that potential impacts do not pose a high or adverse human health or environmental effects. Therefore, the proposed action will not have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on any minority population or low income population. SOCIAL IMPACTS Emergency services were reviewed for possible project impacts. Because the project is located on the border between two cities, Bloomington and Burnsville, each city provides their own fire and police services on their cities side of the river. A closure on TH 77 at the river bridge should have no impact on emergency services. BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIANS See the Parks, Recreation, Section 4(f) or 6(f)(Lawcon) on page 11 for the description of the project area pedestrian and biking trails, anticipated impacts and proposed mitigation. TRANSIT TH 77 carries the Metro Transit Red Line, a heavily used commuter line from the southern suburb area of Apple Valley, Burnsville and Eagan to the Mall of America. The Red Line connects to the Blue Line (Hiawatha) at the Mall of America to bring travelers to such destinations as the airport, downtown Minneapolis and Target Field. The majority of high use is during the Monday through Friday work week. In addition, there are several Metro Transit bus routes outside of the Red Line that use the bridge as part of their route across the river. Currently there are two construction staging scenarios under consideration. One option will maintain traffic on TH 77 by constructing crossovers and the other option will detour traffic to I-35E and I-494, see the Construction Impacts section above on page

16 MITIGATION: MnDOT is working with Metro Transit and Minnesota Valley Transit Authority to minimize transit impacts to the extent possible. Any necessary signing at transit stops will be provided. MnDOT s public relations staff will provide a new release regarding the project construction and any additional public notifications determined necessary. CULTURAL RESOURCES SECTION 106 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURAL MnDOT's Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) has reviewed the project and has determined that these bridges are not considered eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, the finding of CRU is that there will be no historic properties affected by the project; refer to the Appendix C for their December 27, 2011 letter. MITIGATION AND COMMITMENTS Mitigation for project impacts or additional project coordination is addressed under the subheadings above; in particular please see discussion under the subheadings listed below: Fish and Wildlife: See Page 7 Threatened and Endangered Species: See Page 8 Special River Concerns: See Page 8 Coast Guard Permit: See Page 9 Water Quality: See Page 9 Utility Impacts: See Page 10 Construction Impacts: See Page 10 Excess Materials: See Page 11 Traffic Detour: See Page 11 Parks, Recreation, Section 4(f) or 6(f)(LAWCON): See Page 11 Bikeways and Pedestrians: See Page 13 Transit: See Page 13 14

17 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT (PERMITS/APPROVALS) MnDOT has contacted the USFWS and MnDNR regarding this project, due to potential impacts to facilities operated by these agencies. Letters signed by these agencies can be found in Appendix D. An opportunity for public comment on the temporary project closure of the pedestrian bridge (#9600F) across the Minnesota River is required under federal regulation, since this bridge is considered a Section 4(f) property, and FHWA plans to make a no adverse effect (de minimis) determination on the pedestrian bridge. A draft of this report has been posted on MnDOT s web page at Notices have been placed in local newspaper in Bloomington, Eagan and Burnsville, offering an opportunity for a public hearing / open house meeting. A 30-day comment period will be established as part of the notice, during which the public may request a public hearing / open house meeting. FHWA will consider public comments before finalizing it de minimis determination on the pedestrian bridge. PERMITS AND APPROVALS Current Status Unit of government Type of application To be requested Requested Complete Federal FHWA Categorical Exclusion determination X FHWA Section 4(f) determination (de minimis) X MnDOT CRU on behalf of FHWA Section 106 (Historic / Archeological) determination [ MnDOT OES on behalf of Endangered Species Act Section 7 determination FHWA U.S. Coast Guard conditional approval letter X U.S. Fish and Wildlife Special Use Permit (if needed for temporary access to project site Service via the Long Meadow Lake Trail) X State MnDOT Categorical Exclusion document X Minnesota Pollution Control Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - Construction Storm Water Phase II Permit X X X 15

18

19 Appendix A Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Metro Area Location Map Project Area Map U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Long Meadow Lake Trail Map Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Fort Snelling State Park Site Elements North Pedestrian Bridge Touch Down and Tied Arch Bridges South Pedestrian Bridge Touch Down Environmental Justice: 500-foot Buffer

20

21 Bloomington Bridge Painting Project TH SP: Eagan Burnsville Figure 2: Project Location Map TH 77 SP:

22

23 LOOKING FOR MORE INFORMATION? The DNR has mapped the state showing federal, state and county lands with their recreational facilities. Public Recreation Information Maps (PRIM) are available for purchase from the DNR gift shop, DNR regional offices, Minnesota state parks and major sporting and map stores. Check it out - you'll be glad you did. 9/2006 by State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources LRT MINNEAPOLIS US Naval Air Station Veterans Medical Center LRT PIKE ISLAND LRT Station Big Rivers Trail LRT Station Federal Building Mississippi River Blvd. ST. PAUL historic fort Shepard Road Sibley House Historic Site MENDOTA Crosby Farm Park (City of St. Paul) MENDOTA HEIGHTS Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport Post Road 34th Avenue So. Lexington Avenue 34th Avenue So. SUMMER TRAILS Walking only Biking/Walking, Paved Surface Biking/Walking, Gravel Surface SUMMER FACILITIES Information/Office Beach Boat Ramp Canoe Access Fishing Pier 43th Avenue So. 54th Street Minnehaha Trail Bloomington Road Colville Ave. Taylor Avenue chapel PICNIC ISLAND See enlargement on back. 5 West 7th Street FORT SNELLING STATE PARK SUMMER FACILITIES AND FEATURES 150 picnic sites Swimming beach and changing facilities River and lake fishing 2 drive-in boat ramps Canoe access to Snelling Lake and to the Minnesota River 18 miles of walking trails 5 miles of paved biking trails Year-round visitor center Golf course Recreation fields for soccer, rugby and softball Historic site within walking distance Picnic shelters for large picnics and events Visit Our Nature Store Located in the park s visitor center, the store has a variety of merchandise for sale including clothing for kids and adults, books, food items, toys, ornaments and nature-related gift items. Proceeds from the sale help fund resource management and education programs for the DNR Division of Parks and Recreation. Visitor Center Picnic Area Rec. Fields Soccer/Rugby/Softball (Minneapolis Park & Rec) Golf Course (Minneapolis Park & Rec) Lindbergh Terminal 5 Humphrey Terminal Fort Snelling National Cemetery Park Entrance 13 Pilot Knob Road 55 Mendota Heights Road th Street Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center PARK BOUNDARY Mall of America, 1/2 mi. BLOOMINGTON Lone Oak Road Because lands exist within the boundaries of this park that are not under the jurisdiction of the D.N.R., check with the park manager if you plan to use facilities such as trails and roads other than those shown. TRAIL DISTANCES (in miles) 13 In the example shown below, it is 4.4 miles from Minnehaha Falls to the Sibley House. Cedar Avenue Bike Crossing Black Dog Road EAGAN 77 Nichols Road PARK BOUNDARY NORTH Beach Big Rivers Trail Cedar Avenue Ramp Chapel Fishing Pier Golf Course Historic Fort Mendota Ramp Minnehaha Falls Park Office Picnic Shelter A Picnic Shelter B Pike Island Bridge Recreation Fields River Confluence Sibley House Visitor Center WPA Overlook 54th Street LOOP TRAILS DISTANCES: Pike Island Loops: 1,2 & 3 miles Picnic Island Loops: 1.75 miles Snelling Lake Loop: 3 miles Miles Kilometers

24 Ramp to Ped/Bike Trail along Highway 77 Bike/Ped Bridge along the east side of Highway 77 Boat Launch Ramp to Ped/Bike Trail along Highway 77 DNR Parking Lot Boat Trailer Parking Under the Highway 77 Bridge Figure 3: Trail, Ramps, Boat Launch and Parking Lot Locations Parcel Lines

25 Pedestrian Bridge north end (on east side of northbound Bridge #9600N)

26 Pedestrian Bridge south end (on east side of northbound Bridge #9600N)

27 Figure 8: 500-foot Buffer -- Environmental Justice Analysis TH 77 SP:

28

29 Appendix B Bridge Structure Inventory Reports Bridge ID: 9600S TH 77 Southbound Report Bridge ID: 9600N Report TH 77 Northbound Report Bridge ID: 9600F Pedestrian Bridge Report

30

31 Bridge ID: 9600F Mn/DOT Structure Inventory Report PED TRAIL over MINNESOTA RIVER Date: 07/16/2012 Agency Br. No. District County City Township + G E N E R A L + METRO 27 - HENNEPIN BLOOMINGTON Maint. Area 5A Desc. Loc. EAST SIDE OF BR. #9600N Sect., Twp., Range Latitude Longitude Custodian Owner Inspection By BMU Agreement Year Built Year Fed Rehab Year Remodeled Temp Plan Avail. Service On Service Under Main Span Type Main Span Detail Appr. Span Type Skew 44d 49m 38.48s 93d 13m 52.26s STATE FOREST STATE HWY 1980 Appr. Span Detail Culvert Type Barrel Length NN - 24W METRO DISTRICT CENTRAL + S T R U C T U R E + PED-BICYCLE STREAM STEEL BM SPAN CSTL BEAM SPAN Number of Spans MAIN: 1 APPR: 18 TOTAL: 19 Main Span Length Structure Length Deck Width Deck Material Wear Surf Type 10.0 ft Wear Surf Install Year ft 1,427.0 ft C-I-P CONCRETE N/A Wear Course/Fill Depth Deck Membrane Deck Protect. Deck Install Year Structure Area Roadway Area N/A Sidewalk Width - L/R Curb Height - L/R Rail Codes - L/R NONE 14,270 sq ft 11,420 sq ft Crew 7647 Bridge Match ID (TIS) Roadway O/U Key Route Sys/Nbr + R O A D W A Y ON Roadway Name or Description Roadway Function Roadway Type PED TRAIL N/A Control Section (TH Only) 2758 Ref. Point (TH Only) Date Opened to Traffic Detour Length Lanes ADT (YEAR) HCADT NN NN Vertical Functional Class. 0 mi. 1 (2009) URB/PR ART FRWY If Divided NB-EB SB-WB Roadway Width Vertical Clearance Posted Load Traffic + R D W Y D I M E N S I O N S + Max. Vert. Clear. Horizontal Clear. Lateral Clr. - Lt/Rt Appr. Surface Width Roadway Width Median Width Horizontal MNTH 77 + M I S C. B R I D G E D A T A + Structure Flared Parallel Structure Field Conn. ID Cantilever ID Abut. Pier Historic Status On - Off System Year Painted Painted Area Primer Type Finish Type NO NONE Foundations CONC - FTG PILE CONC - FTG PILE NOT ELIGIBLE OFF + P A I N T Pct. Unsound 15 % 16,000 sf 3309-ORGANIC ZINC URETHANE + B R I D G E S I G N S + NOT REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED NOT APPLICABLE + I N S P E C T I O N + Deficient Status Sufficiency Rating N/A N/A Last Inspection Date Inspection Frequency 24 Inspector Name METRO Structure A-OPEN + N B I C O N D I T I O N R A T I N G S + Deck 1 % UNSOUND 7 Superstructure Substructure Channel Culvert N + N B I A P P R A I S A L R A T I N G S + Structure Evaluation N Deck Geometry N Underclearances N Waterway Adequacy 9 Approach Alignment 8 + S A F E T Y F E A T U R E S + Bridge Railing N-NOT REQUIRED GR Transition N-NOT REQUIRED Appr. Guardrail N-NOT REQUIRED GR Termini N-NOT REQUIRED + I N D E P T H I N S P. + Frac. Critical Underwater Pinned Asbly. Spec. Feat. + W A T E R W A Y + Drainage Area 16,200.1 sq mi Waterway Opening Navigation Control Pier Protection Nav. Vert./Horz. Clr sq ft PERMIT REQD NOT REQUIRED 55 ft ft Nav. Vert. Lift Bridge Clear. MN Scour Code I-LOW RISK Scour Evaluation Year C A P A C I T Y R A T I N G S + Design Load PED Operating Rating PED Inventory Rating PED Posting Rating Date Mn/DOT Permit Codes A: N B: N C: N V2006

32

33 Bridge ID: 9600S Mn/DOT Structure Inventory Report TH 77 SB over MINNESOTA R & BLACK DOG Date: 07/16/2012 Agency Br. No. District County City Township + G E N E R A L + METRO 27 - HENNEPIN BLOOMINGTON Maint. Area Desc. Loc. 1.0 MI N OF JCT TH 13 Sect., Twp., Range Latitude Longitude Custodian Owner Inspection By BMU Agreement Year Built Year Fed Rehab Year Remodeled Temp Plan Avail. Service On Service Under Main Span Type Main Span Detail Appr. Span Type Skew 44d 49m 37.49s 93d 13m 54.13s STATE HWY STATE HWY 1978 Appr. Span Detail Culvert Type Barrel Length 5A NN - 24W METRO DISTRICT CENTRAL + S T R U C T U R E + HIGHWAY HWY;STREAM STEEL TIED ARCH PRESTR BM SPAN Number of Spans MAIN: 1 APPR: 42 TOTAL: 43 Main Span Length Structure Length Deck Width Deck Material Wear Surf Type 59.8 ft ft 5,184.7 ft C-I-P CONCRETE LOW SLUMP CONC Wear Surf Install Year 1980 Wear Course/Fill Depth Deck Membrane Deck Protect. NONE Deck Install Year 1980 Structure Area Roadway Area Sidewalk Width - L/R Curb Height - L/R Rail Codes - L/R 0.17 ft EPOXY COATED REBAR 310,045 sq ft 292,940 sq ft Crew 7647 Bridge Match ID (TIS) Roadway O/U Key Route Sys/Nbr + R O A D W A Y ON Roadway Name or Description Roadway Function Roadway Type TH 77 SB (CEDAR AVE) MAINLINE Control Section (TH Only) 58 Ref. Point (TH Only) Date Opened to Traffic Detour Length Lanes ADT (YEAR) Vertical HCADT 1,410 Functional Class. 1 WAY TRAF 1 mi. 3 Lanes ON Bridge 47,000 (2004) URB/PR ART FRWY If Divided NB-EB SB-WB Roadway Width Vertical Clearance Posted Load Traffic + R D W Y D I M E N S I O N S + Max. Vert. Clear. Horizontal Clear. Lateral Clr. - Lt/Rt Appr. Surface Width Roadway Width Median Width Horizontal MNTH 77 + B R I D G E S I G N S + NOT REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED OBJECT MARKERS NOT REQUIRED 56.5 ft 18.3 ft 21.4 ft 56.4 ft 56.0 ft 56.5 ft + M I S C. B R I D G E D A T A + Structure Flared Parallel Structure Field Conn. ID Cantilever ID Abut. Pier Historic Status On - Off System Year Painted Painted Area Primer Type Finish Type NO LEFT BOLTED Foundations CONC - FTG PILE CONC - FTG PILE NOT ELIGIBLE ON + P A I N T Pct. Unsound 30 % 3309-ORGANIC ZINC URETHANE + I N S P E C T I O N + Deficient Status Sufficiency Rating ADEQ 91.5 Last Inspection Date Inspection Frequency 12 Inspector Name METRO Structure A-OPEN + N B I C O N D I T I O N R A T I N G S + Deck 2 % UNSOUND 6 Superstructure Substructure Channel Culvert N + N B I A P P R A I S A L R A T I N G S + Structure Evaluation 6 Deck Geometry 7 Underclearances 9 Waterway Adequacy 9 Approach Alignment 8 + S A F E T Y F E A T U R E S + Bridge Railing 1-MEETS STANDARDS GR Transition N-NOT REQUIRED Appr. Guardrail 1-MEETS STANDARDS GR Termini N-NOT REQUIRED + I N D E P T H I N S P. + Frac. Critical Underwater Pinned Asbly. Spec. Feat. Y 24 mo 09/ W A T E R W A Y + Drainage Area 16,200.1 sq mi Waterway Opening Navigation Control Pier Protection Nav. Vert./Horz. Clr sq ft PERMIT REQD NOT REQUIRED 55 ft ft Nav. Vert. Lift Bridge Clear. MN Scour Code N-STBL;LIM SCOUR Scour Evaluation Year C A P A C I T Y R A T I N G S + Design Load HS20 Operating Rating HS Inventory Rating HS Posting Rating Date Mn/DOT Permit Codes A: 1 B: 1 C: 1 V2006

34 Bridge ID: 9600S Mn/DOT Structure Inventory Report TH 77 SB over MINNESOTA R & BLACK DOG Date: 07/16/2012 Agency Br. No. District County City Township + G E N E R A L + METRO 27 - HENNEPIN BLOOMINGTON Maint. Area Desc. Loc. 1.0 MI N OF JCT TH 13 Sect., Twp., Range Latitude Longitude Custodian Owner Inspection By BMU Agreement Year Built Year Fed Rehab Year Remodeled Temp Plan Avail. Service On Service Under Main Span Type Main Span Detail Appr. Span Type Skew 44d 49m 37.49s 93d 13m 54.13s STATE HWY STATE HWY 1978 Appr. Span Detail Culvert Type Barrel Length 5A NN - 24W METRO DISTRICT CENTRAL + S T R U C T U R E + HIGHWAY HWY;STREAM STEEL TIED ARCH PRESTR BM SPAN Number of Spans MAIN: 1 APPR: 42 TOTAL: 43 Main Span Length Structure Length Deck Width Deck Material Wear Surf Type 59.8 ft ft 5,184.7 ft C-I-P CONCRETE LOW SLUMP CONC Wear Surf Install Year 1980 Wear Course/Fill Depth Deck Membrane Deck Protect. NONE Deck Install Year 1980 Structure Area Roadway Area Sidewalk Width - L/R Curb Height - L/R Rail Codes - L/R 0.17 ft EPOXY COATED REBAR 310,045 sq ft 292,940 sq ft Crew 7647 Bridge Match ID (TIS) Roadway O/U Key Route Sys/Nbr + R O A D W A Y UNDER Roadway Name or Description BLACK DOG RD (IN BURNSVILLE ) Roadway Function Roadway Type Control Section (TH Only) Ref. Point (TH Only) Date Opened to Traffic Detour Length Lanes ADT (YEAR) HCADT Functional Class. 1 mi. MAINLINE 2 WAY TRAF 2 Lanes UNDER Bridge 49 (1980) URBAN LOCAL If Divided NB-EB SB-WB Roadway Width Vertical Clearance Traffic Vertical + R D W Y D I M E N S I O N S + Max. Vert. Clear. Horizontal Clear. Lateral Clr. - Lt/Rt Appr. Surface Width Roadway Width Median Width Posted Load Horizontal MUN B R I D G E S I G N S + NOT REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED OBJECT MARKERS NOT REQUIRED 30.0 ft 21.9 ft 21.9 ft 32.0 ft 30.0 ft 30.0 ft 31.9 ft + M I S C. B R I D G E D A T A + Structure Flared Parallel Structure Field Conn. ID Cantilever ID Abut. Pier Historic Status On - Off System Year Painted Painted Area Primer Type Finish Type NO LEFT BOLTED Foundations CONC - FTG PILE CONC - FTG PILE NOT ELIGIBLE ON + P A I N T Pct. Unsound 30 % 3309-ORGANIC ZINC URETHANE Deficient Status + I N S P E C T I O N + Sufficiency Rating ADEQ 91.5 Last Inspection Date Inspection Frequency 12 Inspector Name Structure METRO + N B I C O N D I T I O N R A T I N G S + Deck Superstructure Substructure Channel Culvert 2 % UNSOUND + N B I A P P R A I S A L R A T I N G S + Structure Evaluation Deck Geometry Underclearances Waterway Adequacy Approach Alignment + S A F E T Y F E A T U R E S + Bridge Railing GR Transition Appr. Guardrail GR Termini Drainage Area Waterway Opening Navigation Control Pier Protection Nav. Vert./Horz. Clr N MEETS STANDARDS N-NOT REQUIRED 1-MEETS STANDARDS N-NOT REQUIRED + W A T E R W A Y + Nav. Vert. Lift Bridge Clear. MN Scour Code Scour Evaluation Year Design Load Operating Rating Inventory Rating Posting + I N D E P T H I N S P. + Frac. Critical Underwater Pinned Asbly. Spec. Feat. Rating Date A-OPEN Y 24 mo 09/ ,200.1 sq mi HS sq ft PERMIT REQD NOT REQUIRED 55 ft ft N-STBL;LIM SCOUR HS C A P A C I T Y R A T I N G S + HS Mn/DOT Permit Codes A: 1 B: 1 C: 1 V2006

35 Bridge ID: 9600N Mn/DOT Structure Inventory Report TH 77 NB over MINNESOTA R & BLACK DOG Date: 07/16/2012 Agency Br. No. District County City Township + G E N E R A L + METRO 27 - HENNEPIN BLOOMINGTON Maint. Area Desc. Loc. 1.0 MI N OF JCT TH 13 Sect., Twp., Range Latitude Longitude Custodian Owner Inspection By BMU Agreement Year Built Year Fed Rehab Year Remodeled Temp Plan Avail. Service On Service Under Main Span Type Main Span Detail Appr. Span Type Skew 44d 49m 38.20s 93d 13m 52.67s STATE HWY STATE HWY 1978 Appr. Span Detail Culvert Type Barrel Length 5A NN - 24W METRO DISTRICT CENTRAL + S T R U C T U R E + HIGHWAY HWY;STREAM STEEL TIED ARCH PRESTR BM SPAN Number of Spans MAIN: 1 APPR: 42 TOTAL: 43 Main Span Length Structure Length Deck Width Deck Material Wear Surf Type 59.8 ft ft 5,159.1 ft C-I-P CONCRETE LOW SLUMP CONC Wear Surf Install Year 1980 Wear Course/Fill Depth Deck Membrane Deck Protect. NONE Deck Install Year 1978 Structure Area Roadway Area Sidewalk Width - L/R Curb Height - L/R Rail Codes - L/R 0.17 ft EPOXY COATED REBAR 308,514 sq ft 291,486 sq ft Crew 7647 Bridge Match ID (TIS) Roadway O/U Key Route Sys/Nbr + R O A D W A Y ON Roadway Name or Description Roadway Function Roadway Type TH 77 NB (CEDAR AVE) MAINLINE Control Section (TH Only) 58 Ref. Point (TH Only) Date Opened to Traffic Detour Length Lanes ADT (YEAR) Vertical HCADT 1,410 Functional Class. 1 WAY TRAF 1 mi. 3 Lanes ON Bridge 47,000 (2004) URB/PR ART FRWY If Divided NB-EB SB-WB Roadway Width Vertical Clearance Posted Load Traffic + R D W Y D I M E N S I O N S + Max. Vert. Clear. Horizontal Clear. Lateral Clr. - Lt/Rt Appr. Surface Width Roadway Width Median Width Horizontal MNTH 77 + B R I D G E S I G N S + NOT REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED OBJECT MARKERS NOT REQUIRED 56.5 ft 18.1 ft 21.4 ft 56.4 ft 56.0 ft 56.5 ft + M I S C. B R I D G E D A T A + Structure Flared Parallel Structure Field Conn. ID Cantilever ID Abut. Pier Historic Status On - Off System Year Painted Painted Area Primer Type Finish Type NO RIGHT BOLTED Foundations CONC - FTG PILE CONC - FTG PILE NOT ELIGIBLE ON + P A I N T Pct. Unsound 30 % 14,600 sf 3309-ORGANIC ZINC URETHANE + I N S P E C T I O N + Deficient Status Sufficiency Rating ADEQ 91.5 Last Inspection Date Inspection Frequency 12 Inspector Name METRO Structure A-OPEN + N B I C O N D I T I O N R A T I N G S + Deck 2 % UNSOUND 6 Superstructure Substructure Channel Culvert N + N B I A P P R A I S A L R A T I N G S + Structure Evaluation 6 Deck Geometry 7 Underclearances 9 Waterway Adequacy 9 Approach Alignment 8 + S A F E T Y F E A T U R E S + Bridge Railing 1-MEETS STANDARDS GR Transition 1-MEETS STANDARDS Appr. Guardrail 1-MEETS STANDARDS GR Termini 1-MEETS STANDARDS + I N D E P T H I N S P. + Frac. Critical Underwater Pinned Asbly. Spec. Feat. Y 24 mo 09/ W A T E R W A Y + Drainage Area 16,200.1 sq mi Waterway Opening Navigation Control Pier Protection Nav. Vert./Horz. Clr sq ft PERMIT REQD NOT REQUIRED 55 ft ft Nav. Vert. Lift Bridge Clear. MN Scour Code N-STBL;LIM SCOUR Scour Evaluation Year C A P A C I T Y R A T I N G S + Design Load HS20 Operating Rating HS Inventory Rating HS Posting Rating Date Mn/DOT Permit Codes A: 1 B: 1 C: 1 V2006

36 Bridge ID: 9600N Mn/DOT Structure Inventory Report TH 77 NB over MINNESOTA R & BLACK DOG Date: 07/16/2012 Agency Br. No. District County City Township + G E N E R A L + METRO 27 - HENNEPIN BLOOMINGTON Maint. Area Desc. Loc. 1.0 MI N OF JCT TH 13 Sect., Twp., Range Latitude Longitude Custodian Owner Inspection By BMU Agreement Year Built Year Fed Rehab Year Remodeled Temp Plan Avail. Service On Service Under Main Span Type Main Span Detail Appr. Span Type Skew 44d 49m 38.20s 93d 13m 52.67s STATE HWY STATE HWY 1978 Appr. Span Detail Culvert Type Barrel Length 5A NN - 24W METRO DISTRICT CENTRAL + S T R U C T U R E + HIGHWAY HWY;STREAM STEEL TIED ARCH PRESTR BM SPAN Number of Spans MAIN: 1 APPR: 42 TOTAL: 43 Main Span Length Structure Length Deck Width Deck Material Wear Surf Type 59.8 ft ft 5,159.1 ft C-I-P CONCRETE LOW SLUMP CONC Wear Surf Install Year 1980 Wear Course/Fill Depth Deck Membrane Deck Protect. NONE Deck Install Year 1978 Structure Area Roadway Area Sidewalk Width - L/R Curb Height - L/R Rail Codes - L/R 0.17 ft EPOXY COATED REBAR 308,514 sq ft 291,486 sq ft Crew 7647 Bridge Match ID (TIS) Roadway O/U Key Route Sys/Nbr + R O A D W A Y UNDER Roadway Name or Description BLACK DOG RD (IN BURNSVILLE) Roadway Function Roadway Type Control Section (TH Only) Ref. Point (TH Only) Date Opened to Traffic Detour Length Lanes ADT (YEAR) HCADT Functional Class. 1 mi. MAINLINE 2 WAY TRAF 2 Lanes UNDER Bridge 49 (1980) URBAN LOCAL If Divided NB-EB SB-WB Roadway Width Vertical Clearance Traffic Vertical + R D W Y D I M E N S I O N S + Max. Vert. Clear. Horizontal Clear. Lateral Clr. - Lt/Rt Appr. Surface Width Roadway Width Median Width Posted Load Horizontal TWNS B R I D G E S I G N S + NOT REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED OBJECT MARKERS NOT REQUIRED 30.0 ft 21.7 ft 21.7 ft 32.0 ft 30.0 ft 30.0 ft 31.9 ft + M I S C. B R I D G E D A T A + Structure Flared Parallel Structure Field Conn. ID Cantilever ID Abut. Pier Historic Status On - Off System Year Painted Painted Area Primer Type Finish Type NO RIGHT BOLTED Foundations CONC - FTG PILE CONC - FTG PILE NOT ELIGIBLE ON + P A I N T Pct. Unsound 30 % 14,600 sf 3309-ORGANIC ZINC URETHANE Deficient Status + I N S P E C T I O N + Sufficiency Rating ADEQ 91.5 Last Inspection Date Inspection Frequency 12 Inspector Name Structure METRO + N B I C O N D I T I O N R A T I N G S + Deck Superstructure Substructure Channel Culvert 2 % UNSOUND + N B I A P P R A I S A L R A T I N G S + Structure Evaluation Deck Geometry Underclearances Waterway Adequacy Approach Alignment + S A F E T Y F E A T U R E S + Bridge Railing GR Transition Appr. Guardrail GR Termini Drainage Area Waterway Opening Navigation Control Pier Protection Nav. Vert./Horz. Clr N MEETS STANDARDS 1-MEETS STANDARDS 1-MEETS STANDARDS 1-MEETS STANDARDS + W A T E R W A Y + Nav. Vert. Lift Bridge Clear. MN Scour Code Scour Evaluation Year Design Load Operating Rating Inventory Rating Posting + I N D E P T H I N S P. + Frac. Critical Underwater Pinned Asbly. Spec. Feat. Rating Date A-OPEN Y 24 mo 09/ ,200.1 sq mi HS sq ft PERMIT REQD NOT REQUIRED 55 ft ft N-STBL;LIM SCOUR HS C A P A C I T Y R A T I N G S + HS Mn/DOT Permit Codes A: 1 B: 1 C: 1 V2006

37 Appendix C Correspondence Department of Natural Resource Review Peter Leete Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Review Jason Alcott U.S. Coast Guard Eric Washburn Contaminated Properties Review Carolyn Boben Regulated Waste Review Jackie Klein Pedestrian and Bicycle Review Gina Mitteco Cultural Resources Jacqueline Sluss

38

39 Bunde, Deb (DOT) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Leete, Peter (DOT) Monday, January 09, :16 AM Bunde, Deb (DOT) Hreha, Jodi M (DOT); Straumanis, Sarma (DOT); Vogel, Mark (DOT); Troyer, Brett (DOT); Stenlund, Dwayne (DOT); Yearwood, Terri L (DNR); Doneen, Randall (DNR); Sullivan, Dan (MPCA); Joyal, Lisa (DNR); Doperalski, Melissa (DNR); Cleveland, Mark L (DNR); Hintzman, Rachel (DNR); Berg, Jeffrey J. (DNR); Norris, Doug J (DNR) Comments on MnDOT Early Notification Memos, TH77 (cedar Ave) from Minn R to I-35E (SP ,53, 54) TH77 SP ScopingDocument.pdf; TH77 SP scopingmap.pdf; Bridge painting EARLY NOTIFICATION MEMO Dec pdf; DNRbasemap.pdf Deb, I have three Early Notification Memos that have overlapping reviews due to these three adjacent segments. All involve Cedar Ave (TH77) from the Minnesota River south to points beyond I 35E. SP Minnesota River Bridge painting SP rehabilitation of TH77 from the river bridge to TH13 SP rehabilitation of TH77 from TH13 to south of I35E I have record of commenting on one previously (SP ) and recall talking to you about the bridge painting project. For your records I ve looked at the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) for rare features, potential state listed species impacts as well as the Public Waters Inventory (PWI) for permit jurisdiction. As you know, there are sensitive ecological features in the project area. Namely the nearby calcareous fen, a trout stream, the Minnesota River, and Fort Snelling State Park. The nearby Public Waters and rare features can be seen on the attached DNRbasemap... Contact me if you want more information on any of the polygons on this map. From reading through the three ENMs, it does not appear that any work in the water is proposed for the bridge painting project or for culvert work in the other two projects. I have not circulated these ENMs to DNR field staff as the work proposed does not appear to impact other nearby rare features. A Public Waters Work Permit will not be required as long as the project does not impact Public waters. Though be aware that the Minnesota River does contain rare species (native mussels and fish species), and there are nearby trout streams, calcareous fens, and Fort Snelling State Park. All work should have stringent contaminant containment measures to prevent these resources from adverse impact. As proposed, we do not believe the project(s) will negatively affect any Public Waters or known occurrences of rare features. The NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. If information becomes available indicating additional listed species or other rare features, further review may be necessary. As proposed, adherence to natural resource regulations under other agencies authority, such as the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and MPCA programs such as the Regulated Waste Management Program and the Stormwater Program for Construction Activity (General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MNR100001)] will suffice for DNR concerns. Should plans change to include additional work within the project area, or the project area be expanded, please contact me as further review may be required. Contact me if you have questions peter 1

40

41 Bunde, Deb (DOT) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Alcott, Jason (DOT) Tuesday, October 04, :44 AM Bunde, Deb (DOT) Dalton, Rick (DOT); Ross, Jennie (DOT) S.P , ESA (Section 7) - Determination of No Effect Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended Section 7 Determination of No Effect S.P , Trunk Highway 77, Painting of Bridges 9600N/9600S/9600F, Cities of Bloomington/Eagan, Hennepin and Dakota Counties S.P , Trunk Highway 100, Re Decking of Bridges 27038/27041, City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin 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 Alcott Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Services Mail Stop John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, MN Phone: jason.alcott@state.mn.us 1

42

43 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Prather, Dan (DOT) Dalton, Rick (DOT); Solberg, Jon P (DOT) Stenberg, Paul (DOT); Bunde, Deb (DOT); Gombold, Brigid (DOT) FW: (TH 77/Mn River - #9600X) - navigational envelop and US Coast Guard permit Friday, March 28, :37:55 PM Additional note from Eric Washburn Original Message----- From: Eric.Washburn@uscg.mil [mailto:eric.washburn@uscg.mil] Sent: Friday, March 28, :55 AM To: Prather, Dan (DOT) Subject: FW: (TH 77/Mn River - #9600X) - navigational envelop and US Coast Guard permit One note: any containment system must follow the contours of the bridge so it never hangs down below the approved distance at any point under the bridge span. Thanks. Eric -----Original Message----- From: McCaskey, Rob E Sent: Thursday, March 27, :55 PM To: Prather, Dan (DOT) Cc: Knutson, William F CIV; Washburn, Eric CIV Subject: RE: (TH 77/Mn River - #9600X) - navigational envelop and US Coast Guard permit Mr. Prather, After consulting with representatives from local towing interests, a 5' encroachment in the navigation channel would not adversely impact navigation. Very Respectfully Rob McCaskey Bridge Management Specialist USCG District Eight Bridge Branch Desk -----Original Message----- From: Washburn, Eric CIV Sent: Thursday, March 27, :11 AM To: McCaskey, Rob E; Knutson, William F CIV Cc: Prather, Dan (DOT) Subject: FW: (TH 77/Mn River - #9600X) - navigational envelop and US Coast Guard permit Importance: High Rob: pls get with Lee Nelson - Cedar Ave Bridge on MNR to be painted. Is a 5' containment system below low steel feasible? Not sure for how long - whether one or two navigation seasons. If an issue, what number would they prefer to get their vsls under. Discuss with Bill and then reply to Dan.

44 Dan: this is a CG permitted bridge. Does not require a bridge permit amendment. Before work can commence, we would need a work plan for our approval - describe in-river equipment, how long the project is, if have a containment system - how low are you proposing. Then, we can issue an approval ltr and get word to navigation. Thanks. Eric

45 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN MEMO DATE: May 13, 2013 TO: FROM: Nick Schreurs, Design Engineer Deb Bunde, Report Writer Gina Mitteco, Metro Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator SUBJECT: Early Notification Response: SP (TH 77) COPY: Tim Mitchell, Bicycle and Pedestrian Section Director Todd Grugel, ADA Design Engineer Please see the comments below regarding the bridge rehabilitation project on TH 77 over the Minnesota River. Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts and Coordination during Construction The bridge carries a pedestrian and bicycle trail across the Minnesota River. Trails leading up to the bridge are unpaved (gravel). The Black Dog Road trail is paved. Agencies that operate and maintain trails leading up to the bridge should be contacted early in the process to discuss potential impacts to trail users. Agencies include: Minnesota DNR (Fort Snelling State Park trail), Dakota County Parks and Recreation (Black Dog Road trail), and the cities of Bloomington and Egan. If detours or trail closures cannot be avoided, work with the MnDOT pedestrian and bicycle section and the agencies listed above to provide advanced notification to trail users and the general public about the detour and/or closure. The following checklist is used to identify ADA needs early in the project development process. ADA NO YES NO YES NO New curb ramps and/or new sidewalk/trail will be added as part of the project. There are existing curb ramps within the project limits. Will work be done on the existing curb ramps: YES / NO If there are curb ramps and intersections within project limits: Enter the number of each type of intersection: 0 Signalized intersections 0 Un-signalized intersections There are sidewalks within the project limits. (trails, not sidewalks) Will there be work on sidewalks (independent of curb ramps)? 1

46

47 Bunde, Deb (DOT) From: Sent: To: Subject: Boben, Carolyn (DOT) Friday, June 08, :51 PM Bunde, Deb (DOT) M TH 77 SP BR Painting River ENM Response M TH 77 SP BR Painting River Deb, The Environmental Investigative Unit (EIU) reviewed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) databases to check for known contaminated sites in the project area. The databases searched included: leaking underground storage tank facilities, landfill, salvage yards, voluntary investigation and cleanup (VIC) sites, Superfund sites and dump sites. A review of these files is a component of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA). A complete Phase I ESA includes at least two other components: research on historic land use, and site reconnaissance. It should be noted that the database files are continually being updated. Although this information is the most up to date available, some of the information may be incomplete or inaccurate. Based on the database review, there is one, closed petroleum release site located within 500 feet of the project corridor. Given the nature and location of the project area, and based on the HPDP threshold criteria, as summarized below, the project has a low risk for impacting a potentially impacted site. 1. The project does not involve acquisition of new right of way. 2. The project involves possible limited excavation associated with guardrail improvements., all within the existing right of way. The assumed shallow/limited nature of these excavation activities are not expected to increase the chances of encountering contaminated soil/groundwater. 3. The project work is restricted to bridge paining and guardrail improvements, thereby decreasing the chance of encountering contmainants that may have originated from an off site source and migrated into the right of way. 4. The project does not appear to require groundwater dewatering. No additional assessment is needed at this time. If information is obtained that indicates a contaminated site may be impacted by the project, the property will be evaluated, and soil and groundwater testing completed, as appropriate. Special provision 1717 should be added to the project specifications if any contamination is encountered as poart of the project. If necessary, a plan will be developed for properly handling and treating contaminated soil and/or groundwater during construction in accordance with all applicable state and federal requirements. Carolyn L. Boben, MS, PG Hydrogeologist Office of Environmental Stewardship (MS 620) Environmental Investigative Group Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN

48

49 Bunde, Deb (DOT) From: Sent: To: Subject: Klein, Jackie (DOT) Thursday, March 29, :03 AM Bunde, Deb (DOT) RE: ENM Deb: Doesn t appear that I responded to this ENM review request. It appears that only the guardrail posts may need to be handled special. If they are made of treated wood, they must be disposed of at an MPCA permitted sanitary or industrial waste landfill. Please have the documentation from the landfill put in the project file. Thanks, Jackie. From: Bunde, Deb (DOT) Sent: Friday, September 16, :39 PM To: Leete, Peter (DOT); Alcott, Jason (DOT); Hudak, Joseph (DOT); Liverseed, David (DOT); Klein, Jackie (DOT); Mitchell, Tim (DOT); Molnau, Keith (DOT); Sorenson, Deb (DOT) Subject: ENM Hi, Please see the attached (for sure attached ) early notification memo. Due November 23, Thanks, Deb 1

50

51 Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Stewardship Office Tel: (651) Mail Stop 620 Fax: (651) John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, MN April 23, 2014 Ms. Brigid Gombold MnDOT Metro District 1500 W. County Rd. B-2 Roseville, MN Re: S.P , TH 77 Bridges 9600S, 9600N and 9600F, Dakota and Hennepin Counties Dear Ms. Gombold, We have reviewed the above-referenced undertaking pursuant to our FHWA-delegated responsibilities for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (36 CFR 800), and as per the terms of the applicable Programmatic Agreements between the FHWA and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The Section 106 review fulfills MnDOT s responsibilities under the Minnesota Historic Sites Act (MS ), the Field Archaeology Act of Minnesota (MS ); and the Private Cemeteries Act (MS , Subd. 9 and 10). The MnDOT Metro District is proposing to paint Bridge Nos. 9600S, 9600N, and 9600F, which carry TH 77 and an associated pedestrian walkway over the Minnesota River, in order to provide corrosion protection. The project also includes guardrail improvement/upgrading and new guardrail end treatments. Based on our existing programmatic agreements with various tribal groups, there are no tribes that want to be consulted on projects in this area of the state and/or projects with the proposed scope of work. The area of potential effects (APE) for the project consists of the proposed construction area. Because all work will occur within areas disturbed by the original construction of the bridges, it is unlikely that the APE contains intact, significant archaeological resources. The bridges are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and no other historic structures are located within the APE. The finding of this office is that there will be no historic properties affected by the project as currently proposed. If the project scope changes, please provide our office with the revised information and we will conduct an additional review. Sincerely, Renée Hutter Barnes Historian Cultural Resources Unit cc: Mn/DOT CRU Project File

52

53 Appendix D Section 4(f): Temporary Occupancy and De minimis letters U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Temporary Occupancy letter MN Department of Natural Resources Section 4(f) De minimis letter

54

55 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District - Waters Edge 1500 County Road B2 West Phone: (651) Roseville, MN April 7, 2014 Mr. Tim Bodeen, Refuge Manager Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex 3815 American Boulevard East Bloomington, MN RE: Highway 77 over the Minnesota River Bridge Painting Project S.P Temporary Occupancy (use) of Long Meadow Lake Trail Dear Mr. Shimek: As part of the project to paint the Highway 77 Bridges over the Minnesota River, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and its contractor for this project may request temporarily use of the Long Meadow Lake Trail between the Bloomington Visitor Center and the Highway 77 Bridges, to gain access to the bridges (see attached map location details). This access would be for transporting materials and construction personnel during a six-week period in the summer of During our meeting on meeting on February 20, 2014, you indicated that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US F&WS) could grant a special use permits for such access. While transporting materials, sections of the trail might need to be closed, or construction vehicles flagged for the safety of other trail uses. As per Federal Register Rules and Regulations 23 CFR (d), this temporary use of the Long Meadow Lake Trail is considered a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) lands. To proceed with the design and reconstruction of the Highway && Bridge painting project, there must be documented agreement that the officials having jurisdiction over the resource concur with the work to be completed and agree that the following conditions are met. Because the trail is located within the Refuge, this temporary occupancy concurrence is being requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The duration of the trail closure will be temporary in nature and there will be no right of way acquisition necessary for the project. The duration of temporary trail closures and detour routes will be identified as part of the special use permit, in consultation with the US An Equal Opportunity Employer

56 SP Temporary Occupancy (use) of Long Meadow Lake Trail Page 2 F&WS. The duration of trail closures will be minimized to the extent practicable. As explained above, the scope of work to be performed will be minor. There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts to the Long Meadow Lake Trail, nor will there be interference with the activities or purposes of the trail on a permanent basis. The trail being used will be fully restored to a condition that is at least as good as the one that existed prior to the project. Please review the attached map and indicate your concurrence with the work proposed, and that the above conditions are met, by signing below. MnDOT understands that MnDOT and/or its contractor will need to obtain a special use permit form the US F&Ws, Please forward the signed original back to me for our records. We will also forward this information to the FHWA for their concurrence. If you have questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at (651) Thank you. Sincerely,_ ( / : vv fnfre)- Jon S erg U MnDOT- Project Manager Lon :') VV\e. c-. J IJvv' LJU.. U n"' + I concur that the ;:i:work constitutes a Temporary Occupancy of the Long Meadow Lake Trail in the Unit of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge_, "'b1~ovy1;,'1]-la,.,. vy\ i" ()<:_.S\lt"'. Tim Bodeen Refuge Manage Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex Attachments: cc: Rick Dalton, MnDOT

57 /J ~~ t! I 'Inset B..-~... o...,,, '..:... I E.Bfi!hSt. B~~~~:~s~ uo.-oylo n!is.lz E.u!... o '<l,. ~0,:lfr~~ "\ -~ Bass Ponds Area (1 /\. /\ Long ' I \ (1.../.. ;'Q,.,,.t.;l "'''{.~:7"'.t... If\ -,o.1,~ Meadow Lake /\ -.I I ~o~ee :<::-"" <;; o'l:> :... ~I:> ~ _, 0 (0 0. ~ ~.. Mall of America Visitor Center & Long Meadow/ Hillside trail heads (see Inset A._.., : L "'I I~ ~- - :o.s ~ American Blvd E:T ii.u :: f..,. I i -tl Hillside Trail : ! ~ _,.. i ~-a.v.o9 Water C~1 i ~6 <:; I : structure : ~ r /' 0.5 / ) ~.~1.: \\ 1:. ootn 1 ~ J. ' Long Meadow Lake.i..& Trail R!ver. 3 0,/, ~ ewpo nt " r ~.L: Bass Ponds."J ; "',. r ~ (see Inset B) o.s ;!!"' i ~ (tj : 0.6 Oxbow :' r..:,<f- "'.. Viewpoint.-'!!:._w..,.; '.otf,. ~,... ~., ~,. (}-~.. l s- 'tf!. :.~ A llowable Trail Uses: :Q'1) "... / ~&1t -<:-as j bow 0,fr-::-::-::-::-::-::-::-::-::-::-::~::::::::::::::::::::::;~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::~-::-::-::-::~, ~ $' I =====:::: ::::;;;:: :J I lnsel'"' \ \ ~ 1~~~4- A I, - o.65, ', ~ \ & 1.6 ~- j Visitor Center Old edar Ave. ; e ~. :..J Walkway Trail Cedar Ave, South ~ ~, American Blvd. East ,. m ~... r 6liJ!illl ~ Old Shakopee Rd/98th / :. 1m (. :.. ~.~~ p h.i theate r "tl 0.9;. ~ _,- 0 -<..' :± ~ _,. ' ~, ~,. :...:=./ ' ~:~... lti:~s:~~-~,.. ' 11 m D.D7.: ' " 0. e! '. _,. Mound Springs. : -' Spur Trail, ": - ' : ~,.._,[.; ~~8,..,.-'./ Ul E 104th..,. e e ; * Columbu ~> IJj Parker Picnic Area! Columbus Rd. / / :~Pond-Dakota.,...,- ".,.._.A.,.. "' Spur Jet. _,...,.., I.;.,. _, '",...,..,.,. :,.~.,.- '\'..!Lyndale/Russell A. Sorensen Landing. ~.~ Lyndale Ave., South r , C ~ m l.akes ~ R~l'u g e Boundal)l Road,.. rn~a t. or highway Pa li<ing Legend 6 lnformatfon Trail M~eaae point {s egme nt rnll~s) Trail Blcyding (except Bass Ponds & Hillside }!!J Fishing (ba n k fishing o nly) a Hiking FA Snowshoeing (ungroomed) m W ildlife O bservation ~~ Xskf (except Bass Ponds & Hillside) Long Meadow Lake Trail ~(~~'.. -' \)~.. <:>~. o.1.. ~- o.1; : HiiJ~1d e r;;;i..;... m For your safety and to protect and preserve the refuge, please obey all refuge regulations. Pets must be on a leash at all times.

58

59 Minnesota Division April 10, Jackson Street Cray Plaza, Suite 500 St. Paul, MN Fax Larry Peterson Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Acquisition and Development Section Lead Parks and Trails Division 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN Re: Minnesota State Project Number Pedestrian Bridge (Bridge #9600F) on the East Side of the TH 77 Bridges over the Minnesota River DRAFT Dear Mr. Peterson: This letter is regarding the proposed impacts of the bridge painting project for the pedestriantrail bridge over the Minnesota River (Bridge #9600F, as part of State Project ), scheduled for letting in October Hereafter in this letter, this bridge is referred to as the pedestrian-trail bridge. The pedestrian-trail bridge lies along the east side of the northbound Highway 77 Bridge over the Minnesota River. The pedestrian-trail bridge connects trails on the west and east side of the River; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service s Long Meadow Lake Trail on the west side of the River, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) trail along the east bank of the Minnesota River, the Minnesota Valley State Trail. Bridge #9600F is within MnDOT right of way. As a recreational resource, the pedestrian-trail bridge is subject to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of The Section 4(f) process is simplified when there are only de minimis impacts (very minor impacts) to Section 4(f) properties. If the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) makes a de minimis determination of a project s Section 4(f) impacts, the Section 4(f) process is satisfied and no further analysis is needed. The Highway 77 bridge painting project (SP: ) includes painting the pedestrian-trail bridge. The proposed project will close the the pedestrian-trail bridge for the six-week duration of the project. The following mitigation is proposed: 1. Signing will be provided up stream of the closure to inform trail users of the closure and alternative trail routes. The nearest crossing of the Minnesota River is on the I-494 Bridge between Bloomington and Mendota.

60 2. All restricted facilities will be open for use at the completion of the project. Under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, this pedestrian-trail bridge is considered a Section 4(f) resource. A review of the project impacts and proposed construction show that, in FHWA s opinion, the impacts to the trail will be minimal and will not adversely alter or affect the use of the facility. Based on this assessment, FHWA intends to make a de minimis determination. Consistent with Section 4(f) requirements, an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed de minimis finding will be provided as part of the Categorical Exclusion process. The 30-day public comment period is expected to begin in May In order to make the Section 4(f) de minimis finding, your written concurrence that this project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the facility is necessary. To acknowledge that you have been notified of the intent to apply the Section 4(f) de minimis finding, and your agreement that the activities, features, and attributes of the facility will not be adversely affected, please sign below and return the signed copy to Abbi Ginsberg at the letterhead address. Your prompt response is appreciated, no later than 15 days after the close of the public comment period. If you have any questions, please call me at (651) Sincerely, Abigail Ginsberg Area Engineer As the official with jurisdiction over the pedestrian-trail bridge across the Minnesota River, I hereby concur with that the use and impacts to the pedestrian-trail bridge associated with this project combined with the identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the pedestrian-trail bridge for protection under section 4(f). I understand that concurrence with FHWA s assessment of the impacts to the pedestrian-trail bridge will result in FHWA making a Section 4(f) de minimis determination for impacts to the pedestrian-trail bridge. Larry Peterson Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Date AG/alk

61

62

63 \ U.S.Deporlmenl of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Minnesota Division April 14, Jackson Street Gray Plaza, Suite 500 St. Paul, MN Fax Larry Peterson Minnesota Depmtment ofnatural Resources Acquisition and Development Section Lead Parks and Trails Division 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN Re: Minnesota State Project Number Pedestrian Bridge (Bridge #9600F) on the East Side of the TH 77 Bridges over the Minnesota River Dear Mr. Peterson: This letter is regarding the proposed impacts of the bridge painting project for the pedestriantrail bridge over the Minnesota River (Bridge #9600F, as pmt of State Project ), scheduled for letting in October Hereafter in this letter, this bridge is referred to as the pedestrian-trail bridge. The pedestrian-trail bridge lies along the east side of the northbound Highway 77 Bridge over the Minnesota River. The pedestrian-trail bridge connects trails on the west and east side of the River; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Long Meadow Lake Trail on the west side of the River, and the Minnesota Depmtment ofnatural Resources (DNR) trail along the east banl( of the Minnesota River, the Minnesota Valley State Trail. A location map is enclosed. Bridge #9600F is within MnDOT right of way. As a recreational resource, the pedestrian-trail bridge is subject to Section 4(f) of the Department oftranspmtation Act of The Section 4(f) process is simplified when there are only de minimis impacts (very minor impacts) to Section 4(f) properties. If the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) makes a de minimis determination of a project's Section 4(f) impacts, the Section 4(f) process is satisfied and no fmther analysis is needed. The Highway 77 bridge painting project (SP: ) includes painting the pedestrian-trail bridge. The proposed project will close the pedestrian-trail bridge for the six-week duration of the project. The following mitigation is proposed: 1. Signing will be provided up stream of the closure to inform trail users of the closure and alternative trail routes. The nearest crossing of the Minnesota River is on the I-494 Bridge between Bloomington and Mendota.

64 2. All restricted facilities will be open for use at the completion of the project. Under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Depmtment of Transportation Act of 1966, this pedestrian-trail bridge is considered a Section 4(f) resource. A review of the project impacts and proposed construction show that, in FHW A's opinion, the impacts to the trail will be minimal and will not adversely alter or affect the use ofthe facility. Based on this assessment, FHWA intends to make a de minimis determination. Consistent with Section 4(f) requirements, an opp01tunity for the public to comment on the proposed de minimis finding will be provided as part of the Categorical Exclusion process. The 30-day public comment period is expected to begin in May In order to make the Section 4(f) de minimis finding, your written concurrence that this project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the facility is necessary. To acknowledge that you have been notified of the intent to apply the Section 4(f) de minimis finding, and your agreement that the activities, features, and attributes of the facility will not be adversely affected, please sign below and return the signed copy to Abbi Ginsberg at the letterhead address. Your prompt response is appreciated, no later than 15 days after the close of the public comment period. If you have any questions, please call me at (651) Sincerely, //k;..:j ~ _ Abigail Ginsberg 1 ~ rr :59:49-05'00' Abigail Ginsberg Area Engineer Enclosure As the official with jurisdiction over the pedestrian-trail bridge across the Minnesota River, I hereby concur that the use and impacts to the pedestrian-trail bridge associated with this project combined with the identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the pedestrian-trail bridge for protection under section 4(f). I understand that concurrence with FHW A's assessment of the impacts to the pedestrian-trail bridge will result in FHW A making a Section 4(f) de minimis determination for impacts to the pedestrian-trail bridge. Larry Peterson Minnesota Depattment ofnatural Resources Date AG/alk

65