Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStillwater-Houlton Draft Environmental Impact Study 1990State Trunk Highway 36 Minnesota S.P. 8214 -92 Minnesota S.P. 8217 -10 State Trunk Highway 64 Wisconsin S.P. I.D. 1550 -0 -0220 From Jct. T.H. 36 and Co. Rd. 15 in Washington County, Minnesota to A point on S.T.H. 64 two and one -half miles east of the St. Croix River, in St. Croix County, Wisconsin March 1990 Prepared by. District 3485 Hadley Avenue No. Oakdale, Mn. 55128 F] FHWA- MNWI- EiS- 90 -02 -D Minnesota Project BRF 084-1 (69) Federal Highway Administration Wisconsin Project BRF 11 ( ) Minnesota State Projects 8214-92 and 8217 -10 Wisconsin State Project I.D. 1550 -0-02 Trunk Highway 36 in Washington County, Minnesota and State Trunk Highway 64 in St Croix Count y Wisconsin. From the junction of Trunk Highway 36 with Washington County State -Aid Highway 15 to point on State Trunk Highway 64 in St. Croix County, two and one -half miles east of the existing bridge over the St. Croix River. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT and DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATIONS Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. (433212)(c), 49 U.S.C. 303, 23 U.S.C. 128(A) and Minnesota Statutes 116.0113 at seq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and the MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION with the WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COOPERATING AGENCIES U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural 7- Date of Approval Eugene E. Ofsteall Assistant Commis over for Technical Services Minnesota Departbent of T ation z -23 -q o Gir� Date of Approval Thomas M. McCarthy Acting Director, Bureau of E ronmsntal and Data Analysis Wisconsin Department of ransportetion Date of Approval Charles E. Foellen Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: William W. Crawford District Engineer Alan J. Friesen, District Engineer Minnesota Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Metro District Suits 490 3485 Hadlay Avenue North Metro Square Building Box 9050 St. Paul, MN 55101 Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Tel: (612) 290 -3236 Tat: (612) 779-1178 Table of Contents STUDY SUMMARY i INTRODUCTION............................. ............................... PROCESS OVERVIEW ...................... ............................... i DESCRIPTIONS OF THE STUDY ALTERNATIVES ............................... BUILD ALTERNATIVE NORTH CORRIDOR CENTRAL CORRIDOR SOUTH CORRIDOR NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY OF MAJOR BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE IMPACTS .................... iv ' POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES ...::::....... iv PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON DRAFT EIS ANALYSIS .. v PURPOSE AND NEED FOR STUDY 1 1 I - I 1 HISTORY /STUDY STATUS .................... ............................... 1 SYSTEMLINKAGE .......................... ............................... 2 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS ............... ............................... 4 ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES /CAPACITY .......... ............................... 4 SAFETY................................... ............................... 7 FUTURE TRAFFIC DEMAND .................. ............................... 10 SOCIAL DEMANDS /ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT . ............................... 11 ALTERNATIVES DISMISSED ALTERNATIVES AND REASONS FOR DISMISSAL .................... 13 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE STUDY ALTERNATIVES ............................... 15 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT TOPOGRAPHY AND GENERAL LAND USE .... ............................... 39 POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY, POPULATION, AND PLANNING ........................ 39 GENERAL SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS ........ ............................... 48 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................. 50 PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS ............ ............................... 52 HYDROLOGY.............................. ............................... 52 WILDLIFE................................. ............................... 53 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES LANDUSE IMPACTS ........................ ............................... 54 NORTH CORRIDOR 54 CENTRAL CORRIDOR 54 SOUTH CORRIDOR 55 NO -BUILD 55 FARMLAND IMPACTS ....................... ............................... 55 IMPACTS 56 MITIGATION 57 SOCIALIMPACTS .......................... ............................... 58 SUMMARY 58 COMMUNITY COHESION 59 CHANGES IN TRAVEL PATTERNS AND ACCESSIBILITY 63 IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES 66 13 39 54 IMPACTS ON SAFETY 69 SOCIAL GROUPS SPECIALLY HARMED OR BENEFITED 69 RELOCATION............................................................. AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS AND BUSINESSES SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RELOCATED POPULATION 70 71 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE 72 ECONOMIC IMPACTS ....................... ............................... COMMERCIAL IMPACTS 73 74 FISCAL IMPACTS 77 JOINT DEVELOPMENT ...................... 80 ............................... CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS ................ AIR QUALITY IMPACTS .................... ............................... 81 83 OVERVIEW CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 83 88 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 84 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 85 NOISE IMPACTS .......................... ............................... INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 88 NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA 88 88 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL 88 NOISE IMPACTS IN THE STUDY CORRIDORS 89 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 92 WATER QUALITY AND FISHERIES ............. ............................... IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC LIFE 93 93 MITIGATION 94 NO -BUILD DECISION 94 PERMITS AND APPROVALS .................. ............................... 95 FEDERAL STATE OF MINNESOTA 95 95 STATE OF WISCONSIN 95 LOCAL 95 WETLAND IMPACTS ........................ ............................... 95 THE UTILITY AND PROTECTION OF WETLANDS 95 WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE STUDY AREA 96 MITIGATION 96 WATER BODY MODIFICATION AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS ......................... 99 WILDLIFE IMPACTS ......................... 99 ............................... WILDLIFE HABITAT AND IMPACTS 100 MITIGATION 100 FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS ............... ............................... 101 WILD AND SCENIC RIVER IMPACTS ........... ............................... NO -BUILD 104 104 BUILD 105 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .... ............................... 107 FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 107 SPECIAL STATE -LEVEL CONCERNS 109 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS ... ............................... 110 OVERVIEW OF STILLWATER - HOULTON AREA HISTORY 110 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE STILLWATER - HOULTON AREA 111 HISTORIC SITES /STANDING STRUCTURES CURRENTLY LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER 112 KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 113 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 113 MITIGATION 114 CONTAMINATION SITES ..................... 114 ............................... 1 J Ll 1 UST OF POTENTIALIEXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES 115 LEAKJSPILL SITES 115 VISUAL IMPACTS ........................... ............................... 117 NORTH CORRIDOR 117 CENTRAL CORRIDOR 118 SOUTH CORRIDOR 119 NO -BUILD 119 MITIGATION 119 ENERGYUSE .............................. ............................... 120 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .................. ............................... 122 NOISE 122 AIR 122 WATER QUAUTY 122 VISUAL 123 TRAFFIC 123 THE RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY .... 123 -TERM EFFECTS .123 ISHORT LONG -TERM EFFECTS 124 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE SELECTION OF A BUILD ALTERNATIVE ....................... 125 LIST OF PREPARERS 126 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THIS DRAFT EIS ARE SENT 128 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 129 SCOPING ACTIVITIES ...................... ............................... 129 STILLWATER- HOULTON BRIDGE TASK FORCE .. ............................... 129 COMMUNITY RESOLUTIONS ................. ............................... PETITIONS AND MAIL -IN COMMENTS .......... ............................... 129 130 NEWSLETTERS AND PUBUC INFORMATION MEETINGS ............ 131 COOPERATING AGENCIES AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ........ 131 INDEX 132 APPENDIX 135 SECTION 4 (F) EVALUATIONS 199 J Ll 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Lower St. Croix River Crossings .... ............................... 2 2. Key Regional Highway Corridors ..... ............................... 3 3. Opening Schedule: Stillwater Bridge ............................... 5 4. Capacity Reduction Resulting From Lift Opening ...................... 6 5. Study Area and State -wide Accident Rates ........................... 7 6. Early Corridor Alternatives ....................................... 13 7. Present Study Corridors .......... ............................... 15 8. North Corridor Bridge Profile ......... .............................22 9. North Corridor Tunnel Profile ........ .............................23 10. Central Corridor Bridge Profile ....... .............................25 11. Central Corridor Bridge Profile ...... .............................25 12. Central Corridor Bridge Profile ....... .............................25 13. Central Corridor Bridge Profile ...... .............................25 14. South Corridor Bridge Profile (North Alignment) ......................27 15. South Corridor Bridge Profile (North Alignment) ......................27 16. South Corridor Bridge Profile (Central Alignment) ....................29 17. South Corridor Bridge Profile (Central Alignment) ....................29 18. South Corridor Bridge Profile (Central Alignment) ....................29 19. South Corridor Bridge Profile (South Alignment) .....................31 20. South Corridor Bridge Profile (South Alignment) .....................31 21. South Corridor Bridge Profile (South Alignment) .....................31 22. South Corridor Tunnel Profile ....... .............................32 23. Downtown Stillwater .............. .............................34 24. Residence of Andersen Corporation Employees .....................38 25. Steep Slopes in Study Area ........ .............................40 26. Corridor and Jurisdictional Locations . .............................41 27. Metropolitan Council's Geographic Policy Areas .....................47 28. Census Tracts in Study Area (1980) .. .............................49 29. Major Affected Neighborhoods: Houlton and Oak Park Heights .........51 30. Community Cohesion Between Study Area Census Tracts .............59 31. Rural and Urban Population Trends in St. Croix County: 1960 -1980 ......61 32. 1980 Minneapolis -St. Paul Commutershed: St. Croix County ...........64 33. Selected Community Facilities ...... .............................68 34. Major Business Concentrations in Study Area .......................74 35. Interstate, Federal, and State Highways Entering Twin Cities Metro Area .76 36. Corridor Alternatives .............. .............................90 37. Bridge Sound Envelope ........... .............................91 38. Residential Noise Impacts By Alternative ...........................92 39. Wetland Location Map ............ .............................98 40. Floodplain Boundaries ............ ............................103 41. Selected Riverway Recreation Areas . ............................106 42. Historical and Archaeological Sites .. ............................112 43. Contamination Sites .............. ............................116 1 1 1 f 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 LIST OF TABLES 1 -4. Accident Types By Year .......... ..............................9 5. STH 35/64 Commutershed into the Twin Cities ....................... 11 6. Study Area Population Change, 1970 -2000 ..........................42 7. Changes in Study Area Households, 1970 -2000 ......................43 8. Young and Old Age Groups in the Study Area ........................50 9. Estimated Relocations, By Corridor ... .............................70 10. Estimated Fiscal Impacts in Minnesota and Wisconsin Combined .......80 11. CO Emission Rates in Grams per Vehicle Mile ......................84 12. Background (Ambient) CO Concentrations (PPM) ....................84 13. State and Federal CO Air Quality Standards ........................85 14. Year 1994: Predicted CO Concentrations (Peak Hour) ................86 15. Year 1994: Predicted CO Concentrations (Eight Hour) ................86 16. Year 2004: Predicted CO Concentrations (Peak Hour) .................87 17. Year 2004: Predicted CO Concentrations (Eight Hour) ................87 18. MPCA and FHWA Noise Standards and Criteria .....................88 19. Wetlands in Study Area By Type and Size ..........................97 20. Wetlands Characteristics By Corridor . .............................99 21. Potential Floodplain Crossings ...... ............................102 22. Fuel Use Summary ............... ............................121 1 1 r 1 t l 1 r lei Il 1, R .ol w'Mm }!' :a#'t „'. #, # t / # •#'Alin I: 9'z ► #�. # Is � ;. r. ^ ±t, 1.•' „ }.} # M 1 #} ,¢ # �. :.:a i ,:�;.... #, i .,i...Y9 to W11FIll�'04rA' •'i ! } -#; #': +"t 1 ` t ' '+• 'd3 t ' # } +” i # ! e }_a .:k #' �.. 9. Y.: t -d tiA�;. -.i= : t €f # # # i ♦4't rm t r -' ` 4 t S.`' #' }! +'.! 4'# S 'st 1 # # ":.# 4 +'A:# Eft. i k d+i I •i'i3: } �- #; .. } ":.. ! # Ak..M• - #`} t`l.•. }! {''9. i t A '.#f tAA1. #; #. ? € #'! : t.,4 F U-Mo NNIM-lottl s i- t '. i." M -i ah # A ! # A ' is : ! }' ! i YB A vk rF.a At ? { 1 *+Vra ,} € k R ` id '- # -W #P : i+.A S2 "� #'; < . -9 A;d fi' i:l. .::9 #t +r.51d# at i•`Yi M! -!'f !# .s _ •f i� Aa: t #,'i #' # 4!' r. A!{ ! i,.'.:1 As` t:`,. } M ! €.. t+Sti iM #. �t r },. # "# #. ,+s. # "" M# A °3tii..•! # sit I- t #! # Ems^:.' t ". t ±kt ' i l }e' aha A ! - 1i - : i#+ _ ” +�9 a. {'Ai :,}.# '•dt #' • - 18 +A i., t _. ki!A >. 4:... x.i } .# } a ± !. ,v'a+4k • #.. •.;,� ..a t : 3 , .. } :. t `. i.,{Af R � ! k #:. "." ! A i,l.M 3t +- E A- t a # -1 � a. #' # #' # # -« '.4.G* ir•1 !; # - ## # # R FA,' i #'.i-}. AA t ?x # _•.: #ih. # # Y: !! � # 4s 'c # *k'i.g t_s ,<# 1 ,! °. component of the National Scenic Rivetway system, tation will make the BUU D/NO -BUILD decision. Mile Long Island, and Kolliner Park. According to Their charge is that: the Federal Register, responsibility in dealing with Alternative courses of action be evaluated and decisions be these properties is as follows: made in the best overall public interest based upon a balanced 1. The (Federal Highway ) Administration may not approve consideration of the need for safe and efficient transportation; the use of land from a significant publicly owned public park, of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any proposed transportation improvement; and of national, state, significant historic site unless a determination is made that: and Loral environmental protection goals. A.) There is no feasible and prudent atiersiative to the use of If the decision is BUILD, then the location of a land from the property; and preferred corridor Will also be identified for con- tinued detailed development and analysis. B) The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such tae. The report that will Maw, the final EIS, will discuss 2. Supporting information must demonstrate that there are Substantive comments received on the draft EIS, and unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of document the decision. If a BUILD decision is alternatives that avoid these properties or that the cost, social, reached, the final EIS will also provide detailed economic, and environmental impacts, or community disrvp- design level information pertaining to the preferred tion resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary mag- nitudes r corridor alternative, and describe mitigation measures that are to be incorporated into the Following publication of the draft EIS, information- proposed action. al meetings will be held in both Minnesota and Wisconsin, followed by formal public hearings to Bef= any construction could begin on a new river solicit public comments and recommendation& crossing, the following Federal permits would need After the comments and recommendations are to be obtained: reviewed and addressed, the Commissioner of the * Section 9, US. Coast Guard Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Tramspor- * Section 10, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers * Section 404, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DESCRIPTIONS OF THE STUDY ALTERNATIVES BUILD ALTERNATIVE NORTH CORRIDOR There are three basic BUILD location alternatives The North Corridor BUILD Alternative contains under consideration in the draft EIS: the North Cox- two potential river crossing construction options on ridor, which bypasses the city of Stillwater, Min- different alignments. They consist of a 2,500 foot nesota and Houlton, Wisconsin to the north; the long river bridge with a clearance of 185 feet over Central Corridor, which uses existing approach the St. Croix, and an estimated construction cost of roadways in Minnesota and Wisconsin, but bypas- $56 million, including approach highways; and an ses the Stillwater central business district; and the 8,200 foot long tunnel under the St. Croix at an South Corridor, which bypasses Stillwater and estimated construction cost of $129 -179 million, Houlton to the south. The following concept design including approach highways, but not including tun - descriptions are provided as general information to nel support facilities. illustrate the range of river crossing variations that are available within each corridor. 1 Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 167, August 28, 1987. 2 Ibid. �� Stiltwater-Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 I 7 CENTRAL CORRIDOR The Central Corridor BUILD Alternative consists of a single river crossing construction option involving a bridge, with four potential design variations: 1.) a 3,300 foot long river bridge with a 2,990 foot long elevated roadway section over TH 95 in Min- nesota, a river clearance that varies between 60 and 70 feet, and an estimated cost of $86 million; 2.) a 2,975 foot long river bridge with a 3,100 foot long elevated roadway section over TH 95 in Min- nesota, a river clearance that varies between 41 and 74 feet, and an estimated cost of $83 million; 3.) a 2,650 foot long river bridge with a 3,100 foot long elevated roadway section over TH 95 in Min- nesota, a 3,050 or a'4,600 foot long land tunnel beneath the Wisconsin bluff, a river clearance that varies between 19 and 41 feet, and an estimated cost of $109 to 126 million; and 4.) a 4,175 foot long combination river and approach bridge with an integrated TH 95 roadway design in Minnesota, a river clearance that varies between 52 and 65 feet, and an estimated cost of $68 million.. SOUTH CORRIDOR The South Corridor or BUI D Alternative consists of three poowitial bridge crossing alignments, involv- ing eight different design variations. An additional South Corridor alignment consists of an 8,800 foot long tunnel under the St. Croix River. With ap- proach h highways, this option < would cost an es- timated $123 -173 million, not including tunnel support facilities. The various South Corridor bridge options include the following: South Corridor, Noirthem Alignment: 1.) a 4,900 foot long bridge with a river clearance that varies between 53 and 105 feet, and estimated cost of $76 million; and 2.) a 4,900 foot long bridge, a 900 foot long land tunnel beneath the Wisconsin bluff, a river clearance that varies between 53 and 105 feet, and an es- timated cast of $86 million. South Corridor, Central A : 1.) a 5,100 foot long bridge with a river clearance that varies between 70 and 157 feet, and an es- timated cost of $79 million;- StillwaW- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 2.) a 4,925 foot laxtg bridge witbi a river trance that varies between 45 and 113 feet, aced an es- timated coat of $78 million; and 3.) a 4,925 foot long Midge, a 920 foot long land tunnel beneath the Win bluff, a river clearance that varies between 45 and 113 feet, and an es- timated cast of $88 million.' South Corridor, Southern 1.) a 5,900 foot long bridge with a river clearance that varies between 60 and 100 feet, and an es- timated cost of $87 million; 2.) a 5,900 foot long bridge with a river clearance that varies between 31 and 108 feet, and an es- timated oast of $86 million; and 3.) a 6,200 foot long bridge with a river clearance that varies between 1261 and 143 feet, and awes- timated vast of $98 million. NCI - BUILD ALTERNATIVES� There are three basic variations of the NO -13IJO Alternative under consideration in the draft— 1.) No- Action The No- Action option consists of allcxating no resources to address the existing or future r tation problems, other than continued maintervitice of the highway facility. It is used basisDf com- parison for all of the BUILD altanudive o ptkm. ' It projects existing conditions and {heir effects.to a point in time 20years into the future. 2.) Transportation System Management (17SM): The TSM option describes a range of partial solu- tions designed to optimize the safety and service capabilities of the existing roadway system at rela- tively low cost. 3.) Replacement -On -Site: The Replaceruent -On -Site option is, in cswncc,, a location decision without action. Selection of this NO -BUILD option would defer replacement or rehabilitation of the existing river erasing until the bridge becomes' unsafe for continued transportation use. Since the remaining useful life of the bridge is estimated to be 5 to fifteen years, this option o outside the scope of this environmental documenta- tion process. "Therefore, when the bridge becomes unsafe, an additional environmental prod will be initiated that-will evaluate bridge replacement and rehabilitation options at its existing location. iii • •- t r • r - In addition to major transportation service, safety, and congestion improvements that will occur with the construction of any of the BUILD Alternatives, there are several beneficial social, economic, and environmental impacts which will also result. The most important of these is resolving what the future area transportation network consists of, and where it will be located. Eleven study area communities and political jurisdiWm are seeing the results of outdated and overcrowded transportation facilities causing haphazard and misdirected growth and development in many parts of the area. With a BUILD decision and timely commitment of capital investment funds in the regional transportation in- frastructure, the St. Croix Valley communities will be able to plan and design their integrated futures in an informed and meaningful manner. The selection of a BUILD decision is especially important to the city of Stillwater, the most popu- lated community and urban hub of the region. The city has depended on the existing highway for con- tinued social and economic viability from the early 1900s until about the late 1960s, when increasing ingestion precipitated the first major study to ex- amine replacement river crossing locations. Now, through the Stillwater Downtown Plan, adopted in October, 1988, the city has identified that its future viability is connected to removing interstate traffic from its downtown streets and concentrating efforts on reviving its historic connections. A number of envir3nmental benefits will occur as a result of constructing new facilities to handle the large volumes of interstate traffic. Included among the advantages are improved air quality, less energy use, reduced traffic noise, and better water quality as a result of constructed sedimentation ponds to filter out pollutants before entering the river. There are also adverse effects that will occur with the selection of a BUILD Alternative. In addition to the commitment of a large amount of public funds, there will also be negative social and environmental consequences. The most important . negative social consequence will result from the displacement of between 30 and 60 households, depending on the corridor selected and final roadway alignment. There will also be a substantial loss of productive agricultural land. The most important negative environmental cxmsc:- quence will result from the addition of a new bridge or tunnel in the St. Croix River Valley, a component of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers program. A North Corridor bridge would puss over Mile Long Island, a popular remmion site on the Lower St. Croix. The tunnel alternatives would result in short - term water quality impacts in the St. Croix River. A North Corridor tunnel would also have a serious adverse impact on the lower portion of Brown's Creek, which flows through a scenic valley north of Stillwater. An additional concern with all the alter- natives is the Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel, a species of clam found in the St. Croix River which is in- cluded on the Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List. POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES During the EIS study process, considerable concern efficient interstate transportation services between has been expressed by several agencies, environ- Minnesota and Wisconsin. The focus of the en- mental and historic preservation concern groups, vironmental goal is to preserve the St. Croix River and individuals regarding the potential construction and its environs, as a component of the National of a new major river crossing of the St. Croix River. Scenic Riverway System. The focus of the historic Primarily, these concerns involve potential conflicts preservation goal is to preserve historic structures among national and state transportation, environ- and archaeological sites located in the Stillwater and mental, and historic preservation goals. The focus Houlton area, including the existing drawbridge, of the transportation goal is to provide safe and iv Stillwater- Houdton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 D t HI 1 i which was recently listed on the National Register the transportation agencies have proposed- mitiga- of Historic Places tion to be included with any of the BUILD Alterna- No study alternatives are being considered which tives. The mitigation includes a commitment to would require the removal of historic structures, initiate a participatory ptocess to select a compatible although a North Corridor bridge could affect at and cost effective river crossing type and design least one archaeological site. The transportation which will minimize aesthetic and recreational im- agencies are not proposing to remove the existing pacts. bridge as a part of this EIS the future of the Nome of the potentially Conn" , goals have ab- draw bridge is a separate issue which will be decoded solute precedence over the others. It is the respon- when the structure becomes unsafe for further sibility of the proem decision-makers, to arrive at a transportation use. solution which refits a reasonable balance of them Alternatives which comprehensively address the important public goals.. Coordination and dish- transportation problem without constructing a new sion With concerned environmental ,agencies, crossing of the St. Croix River have not been iden- gets, and individuals will continue throughout the ti fied. The BUILD Alternatives will cause varying remainder of the EIS prods. degrees of,negative riverway impacts. Therefore, PRELAWLAW REMMMENDAMONS BASED ON DRAFT EIS ANALYSIS l.) No ISM option, or combination of ISM options inforniaiion analyzed for the preparations of the, draft that have not previously been incorporated into the EIS indicates that the North Corridor bridge and existing system, has been identified that would ade- tunnel options, the Central Corridor land tunnel quately address the transportation problems. options, and the South Corridor river tunnel would 2.) A BUILDINO -BUILD decision has not been not rent reasonable selections for further made, and will not be made until after public and development. Significant new information would agency reviews, additional informational meetings, have to be presented during the remaining public formal public bWmA and after an written and oral and agency review period before these optima comments presented at the hearings are addressed. would be selected for further development. However, the UmSpOrt8tim agencies feel that the Sti1twater4i0L*t Rives' Crossing Daft EtS y , PURPOSE AND NEED FOR STUDY HISTORY /STUDY STATUS Preliminary planning for a new St. Croix river cross- ing at Stillwater - Houlton began in the late 1960s. Both Mn/DOT and Wise/DOT began studies to identify feasible locations for a new, upgraded facility. By 1972, Mn/DOT had prepared a rough draft corridor study, and Wisc/DOT finished a cor- ridor location study. However, funding was un- available and the studies were discontinued; no documents were ever published. Congestion at the bridge continued to increase, and citizens and elected officials in St. Croix and Washington Counties voiced their concern to their legislators and respective DOTS about the need for a new river crossing and improved highway cor- ridors. As a result, the current studies on a new river crossing were initiated in 1984. The project is a cooperative effort between Minnesota and Wiscon- sin, with Mn/DOT assuming lead agency respon- sibilities. In October, 1985, the Draft Study Outline and &&p- ing Document was released. This report discussed the justification for the project, and outlined its proposed schedule and development path. Addi- tionally, it introduced potential location alterna- tives, as well as environmental concerns which might require further study. Sniping meetings were held shortly after the report was released. This activity was followed by the release of the Scoping Decision Document Final Study Outline in January, 1987. This report represented a record of the decisions which had been reached (through the previously discussed process) about the scope of the draft EIS. Since then, special reports have been completed on major social, economic, and environ- mental issues related to the three major river cross- ing corridors which were selected for study. These studies form the basis for much of the information which is in this document; in general, the analysis in the special studies is more technical and detailed than that which is presented here. In addition to the special studies, three Section 4 (f) documents have been completed, and are included as part of this draft EIS. Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS All of the special studies have been reviewed by the Stillwater - Houlton Bridge Task Force, a citizens' committee appointed by communities which could be directly affected by a BUILD decision. After meeting at various intervals over a several year period, the Task Force recommended a South Cor- ridor bridge BUILD decision. In addition, the City of Stillwater, the Town of St. Joseph, the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors, and the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (WCWRPC) have passed resolutions supporting a new river crossing and /or approach corridors. A number of state and Federal governmental bodies with special interest in and /or jurisdiction over par- ticular facets of the project have acted as cooperat- ing agencies during the environmental study process. These agencies have reviewed project documents, and provided comments and informa- tion in their areas of expertise. Cooperating agen- cies include the following: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the National Park Service; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Coast Guard; the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Of these, the National Park Service and the two State Departments of Natural Resources have been the most active in their participation. In addition to these agencies, a large number of other Federal, state, regional, and local governmental bodies, as well as various private organizations, have played roles in the study process. Public hearings and informational meetings will be scheduled for early in 1990, with a BUILD/NO- BUILD decision expected from the two Transporta- tion Departments later in the year. Should a BUILD decision be the preferred alternative, a Final EIS will be produced in order to more thoroughly analyze specific corridor impacts. After publication of the Final EIS, the remaining steps of the process will include the following: Final EIS /type and design public hearing; Record of Decision; Design Report publication; final design approval; right -of -way ac- quisition; contract letting; and construction. SYSTEM LINKAGE The Stillwater - Houlton drawbridge is one of five crossings on the lower 52 mile reach of the St. Croix River. The other bridges are located between Taylors Falls, Minnesota and St. Croix Falls, Wis- consin; at Osceola, Wisconsin; between Lakeland, Minnesota and Hudson, Wisconsin; and between Point Douglas, Minnesota and Prescott, Wisconsin. Lower St. Croix crossing locations are illustrated in figure 1. The five crossings function interdependently in terms of the traffic volumes that each carries. Loss of the Stillwater - Houlton bridge, or its diminished N 1 TAYLORS FALLS U.S. 8 U. S. 8 ST. CROIX FALLS MINN. 243 STILLWATER MINN.38 1-94-- - LAKELAND OSCEOLA WISC. 84 HOULTON 1 -94 HUDSON PT. DOUGLAS U.S. 10 � �. U.B. 10 PRESCOTT Figure 1 Lower St. Croix River Crossings attractiveness during peak congestion times, would result in increased traffic pressure at other crossings; this would be especially true for the I -94 bridge. To maintain interstate mobility and a healthy economy in the region, it is important that the interrelationship among the river crossings not be dramatically dis- torted. The existing Stillwater - Houlton bridge was built in 1931, and connects Minnesota's TH 36 with STH 64 in Wisconsin. The crossing is a 1,053 feet long Parker through -truss bridge, with a 760 foot earthen causeway connecting it to the Wisconsin shoreline. The bridge provides one lane of traffic in each direction, has a vertical clearance of 12.7 feet, and includes a lift span which can be raised. There is a sidewalk cantilevered outside the main truss struc- ture on the south side. There are a number of key highway corridors which link the study area to the larger regional transporta- tion system (see figure 2). Minnesota TH 36 is a major four -lane, east -west thoroughfare going from the northern suburbs of St. Paul east to Stillwater. At the south end of Stillwater, TH 36 merges with TH 95 and becomes a two -lane road until it reaches the bridge. TH 36 is part of the Metropolitan Council's Metro Highway System, and is classified as a major arterial, meant to serve medium to long distance trips at moderate to high speeds. TH 36 functions as an important recreational gateway-for Twin Cities residents traveling to the St. Croix River. In conjunction with STH 35/64, TH 36 also provides access to recreational opportunities on the Apple River near Somerset, and the numerous lakes in northwest Wisconsin. Furthermore, TH 36 serves as an interregional and interstate commuter route, with most workers headed west in the morn- ing and east in the evening. In addition to the above functions, TH 36 plays a major role in the distribu- tion of commercial goods between the Twin Cities, Stillwater, New Richmond, and points beyond. Mn/DOT classifies TH 36 as part of its Market Artery System, a network of high priority truck routes. TH 95 is a two-lane, north -south highway which generally follows the western shore of the Lower St. Croix, and functions as an important connecting link between communities scattered along the Min- nesota side of the river. Together with other high- 2 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 f t ways in the area, TH 95 serves as a commuter road and as a route for local shopping or service- related trips. The highway is also a popular route for sight- seers and people headed to various state parks along the river. TH 95 is classified as a Minor Arterial, meant to complement and support the Interstate and Major Arterial systems, and oriented toward travel within a sector of a larger region STH 64 is a two -lane, east -west highway which traverses Wisconsin; beginning at Houlton in the east, the road runs east as far as Marinette, Wiscon- sin, on the shore of Lake Michigan. Although Wis- consin classifies STH 64 as a Principal Arterial- Expressway (designed for long trips, with full or partial control of private access), it mainly serves shorter excursions between rural com- munities, and has numerous access points in the study area. The stretch of STH 64 from Houlton to New Richmond has been designated a multi -lane connector under Wisc./DOT's recently introduced Corridors 2020 Highway Economic Development Plan. Approximately 23 miles east of the existing St. Croix drawbridge, STH 64 joins U.S.H. 63, which serves the northwestern Wisconsin lakes area. West of this juncture, STH 64 plays a major role as an interstate transportation corridor, functioning joint- ly with TH 36 in Minnesota. Because of growing exurban development in western St. Croix County, STH 64 has become an important commuter route to jobs in the Twin Cities and the Lower St. Croix Valley. STH 35 is a two -lane, north -south Minor Arterial extending from the Illinois- Wisconsin state line to the City of Superior in northern Wisconsin. Follow- ing the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers for much of its length, STH 35 serves short trips between neigh- boring communities, recreational excursions, and commuting. Within the vicinity of the study area, STH 35 provides access to recreational oppor- tunities along the Wisconsin shore of the St. Croix, serves as a route from Houlton to Hudson, and funnels traffic toward the lift bridge into Minnesota. TH 36, TH 95, STH 64, and STH 35 work together as important parts of a regional transportation sys- tem. Because they are closely interdependent, any changes in one component must be viewed from the perspective of the entire system. Figure 2 Key Regional Highway Corridors Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 3 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS There are a number of limited interrelationships between private vehicular transportation on TH 36 /STH 64 and other modes of transportation in the area. The Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) provides scheduled bus service between St. Paul and Stillwater, with 17 return trips on weekdays. The buses arrive in Stillwater on TH 5 and segments of TH 36; they complete their journey in downtown Stillwater, and turnaround at the block defined by Chestnut, Water, Myrtle, and Main Streets, near the existing bridge. In addition to MTC, the St. Croix Valley Transit Company provides bus service within Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, and Bayport, with 18 trips every weekday. Combined with MTC service, there are 35 scheduled weekday bus trips within 1 block of the lift bridge, with 18 more on Saturday and 4 on Sunday. The potential exists for a relationship between mass transit and local interstate highway transportation. Conceivably, residents of the Houlton area could arrive at a Stillwater bus stop by foot, bike, or shuttle; Wisconsin car commuters could leave their vehicles in a special lot in Stillwater and catch a bus to the Twin Cities or other communities. Mn/DOT currently operates a park- and -ride lot at the junction of TH 36 and County Road 15, several miles west of downtown Stillwater. Presently, there are no scheduled commercial bus routes over the existing lift bridge, either long -dis- tance or local. Intercity highway buses operate on I -94 seven miles to the south, and have a terminal in Hudson. Commercial railroad operations near the river in Minnesota are limited, and not closely related to interstate highway transportation. In addition to commercial tracks between Main Street and the waterfront, a privately owned "dinner train" is lo- cated several blocks north of the lift bridge. After pulling out of downtown Stillwater, the dinner train proceeds north along TH 95, then follows TH 96 west to the city of Mahtomedi; it returns along the same route. Privately owned excursion boats also operate from Stillwater. Two sternwheelers and a smaller boat are moored at docks just south of Lowell Park; they cruise under the lift bridge and proceed upstream before returning to the docks. Like the train, the excursion boats indirectly affect vehicle transporta- tion in the area in that they are tourist attractions which draw people into Stillwater. In addition, the boats affect vehicular traffic by going under the lift bridge. There is a very limited amount of commercial barge traffic in the study area. The Stillwater Barge Ter- minal is located downstream from Lowell Park and receives about two barges a year. These barges interact with the area's interstate transportation net- work only because the fertilizer which is shipped in is distributed by truck over the TH 36 /STH 64 corridors. Finally, the City of Stillwater provides a seawall with boat moorings in Lowell Park, as well as a municipal courtesy dock. Business from recreation- al watercraft moored at Stillwater provides an im- portant source of revenue for some local businesses. There is a minor relationship between this recrea- tional water traffic and local highway transportation to the extent many watercraft owners use roads in the study area to get to marinas or launches. In addition, the presence of Stillwater and its docking facilities attracts watercraft to the area around the lift bridge. ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES /CAPACITY The existing lift bridge and approach roadways in Minnesota and Wisconsin do not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current traffic during peak periods. Major deficiencies affecting traffic flow on the existing bridge and approach corridors include a traffic light and other impediments in downtown Stillwater, the bridge lift and the narrowness of its roadway, and numerous intersections and access points along TH 36 and STH 35/64 in Wisconsin. An additional problem results from the merging of the four -lane TH 36 with the two -lane TH 95; the result is a heavily used two -lane facility squeezed through a narrow stretch of land between the Stillwater bluffs and the river. 4 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 , 1 6 According to a survey done by the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in April, 1984, nearly 90 percent of the traffic flowing over the bridge between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. on a weekday morning was westbound; between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m., at least 70 percent of the bridge traffic was eastbound. On weekends, eastbound traffic predominates in the morning, while westbound vehicles dominate by late afternoon. Peak flows in both directions throughout the week are higher during the summer than they are in winter. One of the most serious problems with the existing traffic flow system in the study area is that all vehicles using the lift bridge must pass through crowded downtown Stillwater, whether they have business there or not. In particular, through traffic is slowed by the red phase of the signal at the intersec- tion of Chestnut and Main; in addition there are conflicts with pedestrians and local traffic. The major geometric problems and heaviest traffic flows at this intersection involve northbound traffic attempting to turn right on Chestnut towards the bridge, and westbound traffic coming off the bridge trying to turn south on Main. Although there is a special lane for both of these turns, the utility of each is limited by their short length. On Main Street, 1 12 11 MIDNIGHT WEEKDAYS on- street parking begins 175 feet south of Chestnut, eliminating the turn lane. Traffic which is backed up beyond the point where on- street parking begins can not utilize the turn lane. The problem is similar for motorists coming from Wisconsin who wish to make a left turn at the intersection. The lift bridge - -which carries only one lane in each direction - -is located 420 feet cast of the intersection, eliminating the turn lane. As a result, only those cars between the intersection and the bridge are able to use the turn lane. Through the years, various Traffic System Manage- ment (TSM) initiatives have been tried in order to facilitate the flow of traffic through the intersection, but the basic difficulty remains. Compounding the problem is the large amount of pedestrian traffic in downtown Stillwater, along with motorists attempt - ing to sightsee or locate scarce parking. The lift schedule on the existing bridge creates an additional bottleneck for interstate traffic. From May 15 through October 15, an established lift schedule is in effect. As illustrated in figure 3, the lift goes up every half -hour or hour from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays, and from 8 a.m. to 12 mid- night on holidays and weekends. During the night P.M. A.M. 6 NOON it 12 i i 12 11 MIDNIGHT WEEKENDS HOLIDAYS Figure 3 Opening Schedule: Stillwater Bridge Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS 5 5 6 P.M. I t 1 According to a survey done by the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in April, 1984, nearly 90 percent of the traffic flowing over the bridge between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. on a weekday morning was westbound; between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m., at least 70 percent of the bridge traffic was eastbound. On weekends, eastbound traffic predominates in the morning, while westbound vehicles dominate by late afternoon. Peak flows in both directions throughout the week are higher during the summer than they are in winter. One of the most serious problems with the existing traffic flow system in the study area is that all vehicles using the lift bridge must pass through crowded downtown Stillwater, whether they have business there or not. In particular, through traffic is slowed by the red phase of the signal at the intersec- tion of Chestnut and Main; in addition there are conflicts with pedestrians and local traffic. The major geometric problems and heaviest traffic flows at this intersection involve northbound traffic attempting to turn right on Chestnut towards the bridge, and westbound traffic coming off the bridge trying to turn south on Main. Although there is a special lane for both of these turns, the utility of each is limited by their short length. On Main Street, 1 12 11 MIDNIGHT WEEKDAYS on- street parking begins 175 feet south of Chestnut, eliminating the turn lane. Traffic which is backed up beyond the point where on- street parking begins can not utilize the turn lane. The problem is similar for motorists coming from Wisconsin who wish to make a left turn at the intersection. The lift bridge - -which carries only one lane in each direction - -is located 420 feet cast of the intersection, eliminating the turn lane. As a result, only those cars between the intersection and the bridge are able to use the turn lane. Through the years, various Traffic System Manage- ment (TSM) initiatives have been tried in order to facilitate the flow of traffic through the intersection, but the basic difficulty remains. Compounding the problem is the large amount of pedestrian traffic in downtown Stillwater, along with motorists attempt - ing to sightsee or locate scarce parking. The lift schedule on the existing bridge creates an additional bottleneck for interstate traffic. From May 15 through October 15, an established lift schedule is in effect. As illustrated in figure 3, the lift goes up every half -hour or hour from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays, and from 8 a.m. to 12 mid- night on holidays and weekends. During the night P.M. A.M. 6 NOON it 12 i i 12 11 MIDNIGHT WEEKENDS HOLIDAYS Figure 3 Opening Schedule: Stillwater Bridge Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS 5 5 6 P.M. I hours when the schedule is not in effect, a 2 hour notice is required. Unfortunately, peak use of both the bridge and the river often occur simultaneously, generally on sum- mer weekends and holidays. This is especially true during Sunday afternoons and evenings, when a large number of motorists return home to the Twin Cities after recreational trips to Wisconsin, and watercraft operators are heading back to marinas or public launches. It is during these peak periods that the longest lift times tend to occur, averaging eight to ten minutes instead of five minutes, which is more typical. In addition to the sheer volume of watercraft, lift duration is affected by water levels and the height required by the waiting vessels; the higher the ves- sels, the longer it will take the lift to open and close. At normal water elevations there is an available vertical clearance of 57 feet with the draw fully raised, while approximately 10 feet of freeboard is available when the draw is closed. According to Mn/DOT data, the number of lift open- ings grew from 621 in 1980 to 1,473 in 1985, with considerable variation in between depending on weather. The number of vessels passing under the 1.3 1.25 1.2 w 1.18 z a J Z 1.1 C 0 1.05 U w 0.85 0.9 0.85 bridge increased from 936 in 1980 to over 3,800 in 1985. Since 1970, boating traffic on the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway as a whole has more than doubled. In addition to the lift, a key factor restricting the capacity of the existing bridge is the limited lateral clearance caused by bridge trusses on both sides of the roadway. The current bridge has two twelve foot lanes. According to a 1985 study by the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (WCWRPC), having no clearance on either side of road reduces the capacity to 72 percent of what it would be with no lateral obstructions. Assuming that each lane of a two -lane highway with adequate lateral clearance can handle 1,800 vehicles per hour (VPH) per lane under ideal conditions, the lift bridge's maximum one -way capacity would be ap- proximately 1,296 VPH per lane. Under average to good conditions, a normal two -lane highway's capacity is reduced to 1,500 VPH per lane; for the lift bridge, capacity under these conditions would be 1,080 VPH per lane. These estimates do not include the impact of a raised lift on the bridge's capacity. As illustrated in figure 4, one five minute lift opening per hour would reduce the bridge's capacity to 1,180 VPH per lane MINUTES OPEN 8 9 10 11 12 ❑ IDEAL CONDITIONS L AVERAGE CONDITIONS DOES NOT INCLUDE DELAYS IN STILLWATER SOURCE: CONGESTION AT THE STILLWATER BRIDGE. WEST CENTRAL WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION. JULY. 1985 Figure 4 Capacity Reduction Resulting from Lift Opening 6 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS ii under ideal conditions, and 990 VPH per lane under Smooth traffic flow on both TH 36 in Minnesota and average conditions. This capacity would be further STH 64 in Wisconsin is impeded by numerous in- reduced by the effect of the traffic signal at Chestnut tersections, access points, and other geometric fac- and Main, which has the greatest impact on tors. The traffic signals which line the east -west westbound traffic attempting to turn left at the sig- section of TH 36 in Oak Park Heights and Stillwater, nal. for example, detract from the road's ability to serve as a Major Arterial for medium to long -range trips. As a result of these factors, maximum capacity of the eastbound lane on the bridge is somewhat over In Wisconsin, traffic projections indicate that the capacity of a two -lane STH 64 from Houlton to 850 VPH, while the westbound lane is 650 VPH. New Richmond will be exceeded by the demand in Demand often exceeds capacity, particularly during the near future. Wisc/DOT is currently studying the ' the summer months; the result can be severe conges- feasibility of upgrading this stretch of STH 64 to tion on and around the bridge. For a more detailed analysis of this data, consult Congestion at the four lanes so that it can meet its designation as a Stillwater Bridge, a report published by the multi -lane connector. 1 WCWRPC in July, 1985. S/F EW According to data collected during the seven year have higher accident rates than roadways with period from 1980 to 1986, study area segments of similar designs (see figure 5). On the four -lane TH 36 in Minnesota and STH 64/35 in Wisconsin stretch of TH 36 (from TH 15 to TH 95), the rate was 8 7 3 v5 s y� STUDY:: AREA:< i 5 W 7.8 J U W i > z 4 :.STATE' STUDY'. STUDY 3 �• AVG. AREA AREA W 3 •, 49 48 4.9 6 2 STUDY ; STATE AREA STATE: STATE,. AVG.. 2.8 AVG. 2V9 2.5 , 2.9 1 TH 98 (TH 15- TH 95) TH 38 (TH 95- ST. CROIX RIVER) STH 84 (ST. CROIX RIVER- STH 35) STH 84 (STH 95- ANDERSON SCOUT CAMP) 4 -LANE 2 -LANE 2 -LANE WISCONSIN 2 -LAN E MINNESOTA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN Figure 5 Study Area and State -wide Accident Rates i Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 7 2.8 accidents per million vehicle -miles (acc /mvm), compared to a statewide average of 2.5 acc /mvm for suburban expressways. On the stretch of TH 36 from TH 95 to the lift bridge, the accident rate was 7.6 acc /mvm, compared to a statewide average of 4.3 acc /mvm for two lane urban/suburban roadways. In the Wisconsin portion of the study area, STH 64 and STH 35/64 also have higher accident rates than the respective state average for rural state trunk highways. From the lift bridge to the junction of STH 35, the accident rate on STH 64 was double the state average, 4.6 acc /mvm compared to 2.3 acc /mvm. On the stretch of STH 35/64, from the junction of STH 35 to the Anderson Scout Camp intersection, the accident rate for the seven year period was 4.3 acc /mvm, compared to the statewide average of 2.3 acc /mvm. Tables 1 -4 illustrate fatalities, personal injuries, property damage, and average daily traffic (ADT) for the four stretches of road discussed above. During the period from 1980 to 1986, there were ten fatalities on the existing study area river crossing corridor. As indicated by the tables, traffic along all of the stretches has grown substantially, with in- creases ranging from 20.4% to 54.7 %. It is interest- ing to note that, in general, the high accident rates along these roads did not increase during this period. In fact, in many cases, accident rates declined be- tween 1980 and 1986. Accident rates on a given stretch of road are affected by a number of factors in addition to traffic volumes, including speed limits, geometric design /safety features, weather, and chance; these and other factors interact in a complex fashion to produce a given accident rate in a certain year. Between 1986 and the year 2014, ADT over the existing bridge is expected to more than double under a NO -BUILD situation. It is impossible to know for certain how traffic increases on and around the bridge are going to affect future accident rates, but it is reasonable to assume that the already high rates are unlikely to improve substantially as the transportation system is placed under further stress. 0 An important factor in accident generation are the summer backups which occur on either side of the existing bridge when the lift is up. On warm Sunday afternoons, traffic can backup from 3 to 5 miles on the Wisconsin side of the bridge, sometimes extend- ing halfway from Houlton to Somerset. Motorists caught in these long lines can wait from one to two hours to get across the river; impatient drivers are often seen jumping the queue and swerving around waiting vehicles. The abrupt stopping of traffic can generate a high number of rear -end accidents, par- ticularly around curves and on the steep hill leading down to the St. Croix. Numerous access points and limited passing opportunities also contribute to the high accident rate along this stretch. According to a 1988 report by the WCWRPC, 63 percent of STH 35/64 between the bridge and Somerset (8.7 miles) is marked for no passing. Because of the high accident potential along this stretch, the St. Croix County Sheriff's Department assigns one officer along STH 35/64 in the vicinity of the lift bridge on summer holidays and Sundays. This constrains the resources the Department can devote to other areas of the County. Long lines of traffic waiting to get over the lift bridge also frequently occur on the Minnesota side of the river, especially during shift changes at Bayport's Andersen Corporation on weekday after- noons, and on Friday evenings and Saturdays during the summer. Special events in Stillwater can also cause considerable traffic jams. This congestion increases the risk that accidents will occur. An additional safety issue which is discussed in the social impacts section of the draft EIS is the problem the lift and resulting traffic jams cause for emergen- cy vehicles. Emergency medical service in the Wis- consin portion of the study area often comes from Lakeview Memorial Hospital in Stillwater; conges- tion at the lift bridge can prolong the time it takes to pick up patients in Wisconsin and bring them to the Hospital. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS CD O c 0 CD n O ca 0 m U) ACCIDENT TYPES BY YEAR MINNESOTA WISCONSIN TABLE 1 TABLE 3 TH 36 FROM CSAH 15 TO TH 95 STH 64 FROM THE ST. CROIX RIVER TO THE II IAI(`TInAI \A /ITI..I CTW 4G TRAFFIC VOLUME (ADT) w cr ° rn rn m v_ C6 r If r L C r 0) TABLE 2 TH 36 FROM TH 95 TO THE ST. CROIX RIVER OCCURRENCE YEAR 1980 81 82 83 84 85 86 w FATAL 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 a >- PERSONAL INJURY 27 19 22 28 22 15 12 �j PROPERTY DAMAGE 49 37 45 46 44 38 50 Q TOTAL 78 57 67 74 67 53 62 TRAFFIC VOLUME (ADT) w cr ° rn rn m v_ C6 r If r L C r 0) TABLE 2 TH 36 FROM TH 95 TO THE ST. CROIX RIVER `r° w o COS o 1°n rn cl U-) N co et � O O r r' r O r r r r r TABLE 4 STH 35/64 FROM THE JUNCTION WITH STH 35 T(1 TWI= ANIIFRSFN q('011T CAMP ROAD OCCURRENCE YEAR 1980 81 82 83 84 85 86 w w FATAL 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 a >- PERSONAL INJURY 15 11 9 13 14 17 7 PROPERTY DAMAGE 14 6 3 12 8 8 5 U Q �j PROPERTY DAMAGE 30 44 28 32 24 27 33 TOTAL 45 57 37 45 38 44 40 `r° w o COS o 1°n rn cl U-) N co et � O O r r' r O r r r r r TABLE 4 STH 35/64 FROM THE JUNCTION WITH STH 35 T(1 TWI= ANIIFRSFN q('011T CAMP ROAD OCCURRENCE YEAR 1980 81 82 83 84 85 86 w FATAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a } H PERSONAL INJURY 18 4 11 8 5 3 1 cj PROPERTY DAMAGE 14 6 3 12 8 8 5 U Q TOTAL 32 10 14 20 13 11 6 `r° w o COS o 1°n rn cl U-) N co et � O O r r' r O r r r r r TABLE 4 STH 35/64 FROM THE JUNCTION WITH STH 35 T(1 TWI= ANIIFRSFN q('011T CAMP ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m 0 o co ch o cp N O 10 r j c0 '' to O to o to a? TRAFFIC VOLUME (ADT) c T cq r L r m 0 co I- r. w 00 00 OCCURRENCE YEAR 1980 81 82 83 84 85 86 w FATAL 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 a PERSONAL INJURY 11 6 5 7 5 5 6 �j PROPERTY DAMAGE 11 13 10 5 12 9 8 U a TOTAL 23 20 15 12 17 14 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m 0 o co ch o cp N O 10 r j c0 '' to O to o to a? TRAFFIC VOLUME (ADT) c T cq r L r m 0 co I- r. w 00 00 FUTURE TRAFFIC DEMAND Traffic forecasts for the area indicate that the con- gestion will continue to increase in the future if no improvements are made. During the past two decades, traffic on the bridge and approach corridors has been steadily mounting. According to Wisc/DOT, for example, traffic on STH 35/64 on the Houlton Hill east of the lift bridge increased by 123 percent between 1970 and 1985. On the stretch west of Somerset, the increase for this time period was 83 percent. In the 1980s St. Croix County has had one of the fastest growth rates of any county in Wisconsin, a trend which is likely to continue. Population forecasts project an increase from 48,655 people in 1988 to 59,250 in the year 2000, a jump of nearly 22 percent. Many of these new residents will be com- muting to jobs in Minnesota. In addition, growing numbers of Minnesotans are likely to utilize recrea- tional areas in Wisconsin which are accessible by using the current lift bridge. Furthermore, since the 1970s boat traffic on the Lower St. Croix has been increasing at an average rate of over 5 percent a year. This growth rate is expected to continue in the future, increasing conflicts with vehicle traffic at the lift bridge. Mn/DOT has calculated current (1986) average daily traffic volumes (ADT) for the study area (see appendix 1). In addition, it has used the Metropolitan Council's Regional Traffic Forecasts Model to estimate average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) volumes for the design year 2014. (Traffic volume forecasts which are based on a seven -day week are not available from the Regional Traffic Forecasts Model, although it is anticipated that AWDT forecasts for the study area would be very similar to ADT predictions.) In 1986, the ADT over the lift bridge was 12,400 vehicles. Under a NO -BUILD scenario, AWDT levels for the design year 2014 are predicted to more than double, with traffic demand rising to 28,200 vehicles. One consequence of this would be an increase in the duration and frequency of the times when traffic demand exceeds the capacity of the bridge, resulting in growing congestion in both Stillwater and Houlton. In order to avoid increasing congestion levels at Stillwater - Houlton, some motorists would choose new destinations and /or decide to take different routes. This would result in economic impacts in certain areas and increased demand on other highway facilities (e.g., the I -94 bridge). If a new river crossing is constructed in the North Corridor and the current bridge is retained, the new crossing would have a AWDT level of 15,725 vehicles in design year 2014, while the old bridge would carry an AWDT volume of 12,475. If the existing bridge is removed, the AWDT level in the North Corridor would rise to 28,200 vehicles. Assuming that the old bridge is retained with a Central Corridor BUILD decision, there would be an AWDT volume of 22,250 on the new crossing and a 10,575 AWDT level on the lift bridge in the design year 2014. If the existing bridge was removed, the AWDT estimate for the new Central crossing would be 32,825. If a South Corridor BUILD decision becomes the preferred alternative, AWDT volumes in 2014 are forecast to be 23,250, with a 10,575 vehicle level on the lift bridge. Should the existing structure be removed, AWDT projections for the new structure would rise to 33,825. As indicated by the estimates in the appendix, traffic levels on a number of road stretches in the vicinity of the existing bridge will roughly double between 1986 and the year 2014. Under the NO -BUILD scenario, for example, traffic on TH 36/95 south of the lift bridge in downtown Stillwater will rise from 17,400 ADT in 1986 to 31,250 AWDT in 2014. On STH 64 just east of the lift bridge, traffic will in- crease from 7,800 ADT in 1986 to an estimated 18,920 AWDT in 2014 under a NO -BUILD decision. On TH 95 immediately south of the TH 96 intersection, the 1986 ADT of 5,000 vehicles will rise to 10,000 AWDT by 2014 with the NO- BUILD option. Traffic on TH 95 just north of the lift bridge will jump from 7,100 ADT in 1986, to 18,750 AWDT under NO -BUILD in design year 2014. 10 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 J fl n I u t 1 1 1 II P, SOCIAL DEMANDS/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The social and economic ties between Minnesota's Twin Cities/Stillwater area and west - central Wis- consin have grown steadily over the years, yet the transportation links between the two regions have not increased commensurately. St. Croix County Wisconsin is classified as part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and contains a high percentage of residents who commute to jobs in Minnesota, in addition to going there for shopping and entertainment pur- poses. Between 1970 and 1980 there was a 107 percent increase in the number of workers in St. Croix County who commuted to jobs in Minnesota (see table 5). Rapid residential growth is forecast to continue in and around the study area, although not necessarily at the high rates of the 1970s. According to forecasts by the Wisconsin Department of Ad- ministration and State Data Center, population growth between 1988 and the year 2000 will be 73 percent in St. Joseph Township and 24 percent in Somerset Township. (For more detailed informa- tion about study area growth, see the affected en- vironment, and social and economic impact sections of the draft EIS.) In addition to serving the needs of a growing popula- tion in west - central Wisconsin, improved transpor- tation in the study area is required to meet the economic development goals in the region. Busi- nesses interested in locating in west - central Wiscon- sin frequently require good transportation to the Twin Cities. It is probable that the transportation problems associated with the lift bridge and the TH 36 and STH 35/64 corridors are inhibiting economic development in and around the Wisconsin portion of the study area. Compared to communities located on I -94 (e.g., the City of Hudson and the Village of Woodville), Wisconsin settlements along the STH 35/64 corridor such as the City of New Richmond and the Village of Somerset have not been par- ticularly successful at attracting new industry. As already mentioned, one of the largest factors affecting the flow of traffic through the study cor- ridor and over the existing bridge are the numerous recreational opportunities in north -west and west - central Wisconsin. Somerset is a major destination, offering inner tube float trips on the Apple River and other attractions such as a waterslide. It is estimated that on hot summer weekends, tiny Somerset gets an Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS influx of between 10,000 and 15,000 people per day, many of which use the Stillwater bridge. Tourism in Somerset is a huge business, and continued con- gestion along TH 36 and STH 35/64 would likely have important implications for future growth in the area. In the winter, a number of downhill ski areas TABLE 5 STH 35/64 COMMUTERSHED INTO THE TWIN CITIES * (Number of Workers Over 16 Years of Age Commuting to the Twin Cities) % CHANGE LOCALITY 1970 1980 1970 -1980 St. Croix County Town of Cylon 17 42 147.1 Town of Emerald 22 28 27.3 Town of Erin Prairie 15 46 32.6 Town of Forest 15 33 206.7 Town of Richmond 30 144 380.0 Town of St. Joseph 227 730 221.6 Town of Somerset 200 394 97.0 Town of Stanton 69 92 33.3 Town of Star Prairie 52 204 292.3 Village of Deer Park 9 15 66.7 Village of Somerset 106 197 85.8 Village of Star Prairie 26 60 130.8 City of New Richmond 176 312 77.3 St. Croix County Total 964 2,297 138.3 Polk County Town of Alden 47 157 234.0 Town of Black Brook 15 30 100.0 Town of Clear Lake 8 9 12.5 Town of Farmington 115 134 16.5 Town of Garfield 44 32 -27.3 Town of Lincoln 28 54 92.9 Village of Clear Lake 19 25 31.6 City of Amery 7 23 228.6 Polk County Total 283 464 64.0 Two County Total 1,247 2,761 121.4 s Source: Current Problems and Conditions on the Stillwater Bridge -STH 35/64 Travel Corridor, St. Croix County Highway Committee/West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commis- sion, 1984. For this data, the "Twin Cities" includes workplaces in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington Counties. 11 are accessible to Twin Cities residents via the Stillwater - Houlton bridge. A major recreational attraction which affects traffic in the study area are the lakes, rivers, and forests of northwestern Wisconsin. Many Minnesotans own second homes in this area, and commute to them on STH 35/64. According to a 1984 report produced by the St. Croix County Highway Committee and the WCWRPC (Current Problems and Conditions on the Stillwater Bridge - -STH 35/64 Travel Cor id r), the number of seasonal homes in seven northwestern Wisconsin counties grew by nearly 98 percent between 1970 and 1980, with a 217 percent increase in Sawyer County. In addition to lake cottages, many Twin Cities residents travel over the lift bridge on their way to campgrounds and resorts in northwestern Wisconsin. The closest of these Wisconsin recreational areas have greater proximity to the Twin Cities than similar areas in Minnesota. However, this advantage is partially offset by the traffic delays at Stillwater - Houlton, with potentially adverse economic ramifications for the regional tourist industry. 12 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ALTERNATIVES DISMISSED ALTERNATIVES AND REASONS FOR DISMISSAL In 1984, the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation identified several broad corridors to address the highway safety and congestion con- cerns found in the Stillwater and Houlton areas. Important factors in the identification and later refinement of the corridors were: avoidance of populated areas and commercial concentrations where possible; the use of existing transportation corridors where possible; and the avoidance of his- toric sites, parks, public facilities, cemeteries, wet- lands, inland water bodies, steep slopes, hardwood forest areas, and operating farmsteads. Four corridors that involved the construction of replacement river crossings were originally iden- tified: the North Corridor, the Central Corridor, the Central Corridor Alternate, and the South Corridor (see figure 6). In addition to these alternative cor- ridors, Bridge Replacement -On -Site, and NO- BUILD were also identified in the study proposal document entitled Scoping Document/Draft Study Outline, dated October, 1985. CENTRAL CORRIDOR SOUTH CORRIDOR CENTRAL CORRIDOR ALTERNATE CENTRAL AND SOUTH CORRIDORS COMBINED Figure 6 Early Corridor Alternatives Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 13 During the following scoping process- -which in- volved considerable discussion with interested Federal and state agencies, the Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Task Force, and other public groups and individuals- -the study alternatives were further refined. The results of this public process were reported in the document entitled Scoping Decision Document/Final Study Outline, dated January, 1987. Important conclusions of this scoping process were as follows: 1. The Central Corridor Alternate was dismissed from further consideration. The consensus of the general public and repre- sentatives of participating agencies was that construction in this fully developed urban cor- ridor would result in unacceptably severe im- pacts to the city of Stillwater. Dividing the city with a controlled access highway would necessitate large scale residential displace- ments, and would cause severe social and economic disruption. 2. The construction of a replacement drawbridge, whether located in the existing or in alternative corridors was dismissed from fur- ther consideration. A replacement drawbridge on the site of the existing bridge does not address the transporta- tion problem which is caused, in part, by the drawbridge operation itself. (See the Replace- ment -On -Site option under the NO- BUILD Al- ternative.) Analyses of potential river crossing locations in each of the three remaining study corridors have supported the conclusion that drawbridges would not be appropriate alterna- tives. Riverside elevations in Minnesota, and the high bluffs in Wisconsin provide for the construction of replacement crossings with adequate navigational clearances in all of the potential bridge crossing locations. 3. For the purpose of the draft EIS, the Bridge Replacement -On -Site option will be evaluated under the NO -BUILD Alternative. If this op- tion is the final conclusion of the EIS study process, it would then be appropriate to evaluate rehabilitating or replacing the exist- 14 ing bridge at its present location when the bridge becomes unsafe for travel. The es- timated remaining useful life of the existing bridge is five to fifteen years. 4. The construction of a tunnel under the river was identified as a potential alternative to a bridge in the North and South Corridors. 5. Several potential partial solutions to the transportation problems were also identified for additional review and analysis. Encom- passing a range of measures designed to op- timize the safety and service capabilities of the existing roadway system at relatively low cost, this group of alternatives is referred to as Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies. These options were added to the NO -BUILD Alternative. After the Scoping Decision Document/Final Study Outline was published, an additional series of agen- cy and public discussions were held. Additional refinements and modifications of the study resulted. The following is a summary list of the alternatives and options which have been evaluated during the draft EIS study process: I. BUILD Alternative (see figure 7). A. North Corridor 1.) River Bridge 2.) River Tunnel B. Central Corridor 1.) River Bridge, including Land Tunnel Op- tions C. South Corridor 1.) River Bridge, including Land Tunnel Op- tions 2.) River Tunnel H. NO -BUILD Alternative A. No- Action B. Replacement -On -Site C. TSM Strategies, including Mass Transit Op- tions Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS F� 1� r. u fl 1 1 I' _l C GRANT TOWNSMP STILLWATER TOWNSHIP N r NORTH CORRIDOR CENTRAL CORRIDOR SOUTH CORRIDOR ��■ SOUTH TUNNEL NORTH TUNNEL Figure 7 Present Study Corridors DESCRIPTIONS OF THE STUDY ALTERNATIVES This section provides a descriptive overview of both the BUILD and NO -BUILD Alternatives. The BUILD Alternative includes a set of options that incorporate major new construction or reconstruc- tion of approach highways, and the construction of a replacement crossing of the St. Croix River. They involve a substantial commitment of public funds and resources. In this draft EIS, analysis of the BUILD Alternative options addresses the issue of which major action would best meet the combined transportation, social, economic, and environmental needs of the study area through major construction. The analysis of the NO -BUILD Alternative in the draft EIS provides additional elements to the evaluation process, represented by the following question: Is the total effect of investing in a BUILD Alternative more or less beneficial (or more or less costly) than the total effects of NO- BUILD? Put another way, is there a less complex solution (or combination of such solutions) which provides an acceptable balance of reduced funding investment; social, economic, and environmental effects; and an adequate level of transportation improvement? The BUILD Alternative- -which will he discussed first - -can be broken down into three broad corridors, composed of seven distinct alignments and fifteen different design options. They are as follows: I. BUILD Alternative A. North Corridor 1.) River Bridge (see figure 8/yellow insert). The North Corridor bridge option follows an alignment traveling west and north of Stillwater, Minnesota, and north of Houl- ton, Wisconsin. Its total roadway length is 9.44 miles, and its estimated construction cost is $56,771,000. Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 15 The corridor alignment begins in the vicinity of TH 36 and County Road 15, where it travels north along County Road 15 to its junction with TH 96. It then travels east along TH 96 to the vicinity of Twin Lakes, where it separates from the ex- isting highway and travels northeasterly and easterly on a new alignment to the St. Croix River. The new 2,500 foot long bridge crosses the river at an elevation of 185 feet, extending from bluff top to bluff top at a level grade. From the touchdown point in Wisconsin, the roadway continues along new alignment to its junction with ex- isting STH 64. Potential interchange loca- tions are at TH 36 /County Road 15, County Road 15 /County Road 12, County Road 15[M 96, the vicinity of County Roads 55 and 82, and at STH 64 in Wisconsin. 2.) River Tunnel (see figure 9). The river and land tunnel options were added to the analyses of the corridors in response to the perception that construction of a new bridge and approaches would sig- nificantly affect the scenic and recreational values of the St. Croix River as a com- ponent of the National Scenic Riverway System. The North Corridor tunnel option also fol- lows an alignment traveling west and north of Stillwater, Minnesota, and north of Houl- ton, Wisconsin. Its total roadway length is 9.16 miles, and its estimated construction cost is between $128,716,200 and $178,716,000, depending on final design considerations. Considerable additional costs would be incurred for tunnel support facilities, such as ventilation, drainage, and lighting. The corridor alignment follows the same route as the bridge option, but continues to travel easterly adjacent to TH 96, beginning its descent below grade approximately 1,000 feet west of the river. At that point, it travels underground, beneath the river, and rises above ground approximately 4,000 feet east of the river in Wisconsin, where it continues until its junction with STH 64. The 8,200 foot long tunnel has a descend- ing grade of 4% (4 feet of drop every 100 feet), and an ascending grade of 5 %, travel - M ing west to east. Potential interchange loca- tions are at TH 36 /County Road 15, County Road 15 /County Road 12, County Road 15[M 96, TH 96 /vicinity of tunnel entrance, and at STH 64 in Wisconsin. B. Central Corridor River Bridge The Central Corridor follows various poten- tial alignments traveling south of Stillwater, Minnesota, and through Houlton, Wiscon- sin. Its total length varies between 6.78 and 7.07 miles, depending on location. Es- timated construction costs vary between $67,819,450 and $126,073,500, depending on location and features. The corridor alignment begins in the vicinity of TH 36 and County Road 15 where it travels east along existing TH 36 to the junction with TH 95. The Central Corridor then veers north along the TH 36[M 95 common section to a point just south of the Stillwater central business dis- trict where the new river bridge crosses the St. Croix River. It then rejoins the existing roadway alignment, STH 64 in Wisconsin. At the top of the Houlton hill, optional alignments exist which either follow exist- ing STH 64, or travel on new alignment to the point of the eastern study termini. Potential interchange locations are at Coun- ty Road 15, TH 5 /County Road 5, Oasis Avenue, TH 95, STH 35, and STH 64. Four river crossing options have been iden- tified consisting of various river clearances, grades, and approach roadway connections, as follows: 1.) This option consists of a 2,990 foot long elevated roadway section over TH 95 in Minnesota, a 3,300 foot long river bridge over the St. Croix, and river clearances varying from 60 feet at the Minnesota shore to 70 feet at the Wis- consin shore. River bridge grade is flat, except for a 3% rise near the eastern end. Estimated total construction cost of this option is between $85,990,800 and $86,057,600, depending on STH 64 alignment around or through Houlton (see figure 10). 2.) This option was added to the analysis of the Central Corridor to address visual concerns relating to the river clearance Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 u 1 1 1 heights of option one. The request to ex- plore a lower river crossing option was made by an environmental concern group participating in a review of pre - draft EIS environmental studies. Mn/DOT requested the U.S. Coast Guard to re- evaluate its 60 foot mini- mum clearance requirement over navigable waters at this location. The Coast Guard response was favorable. This option consists of a 3,100 foot long elevated roadway section over TH 95 in Minnesota, a 2,975 foot long river bridge over the St. Croix, and river clearances varying from 41 feet at the Minnesota shore to 74 feet at the Wis- consin shore. The river bridge grade is almost flat until the center of the river, where the crossing begins to ascend the Wisconsin bluff at a 3% grade. Es- timated total construction cost is be- tween $82,849,300 and $83,180,300, depending on whether the STH 64 align- ment goes around or through Houlton (see figure 11). 3.) This option was added to the analysis of the Central Corridor to address addi- tional visual impact concerns related to widening the existing STH 64 bluff cor- ridor to accommodate the new four -lane highway alignment. This option consists of a 3,100 foot long elevated roadway section over TH 95 in Minnesota and a 2,650 foot long river bridge above the St. Croix. Also in- cluded is a land tunnel beneath the Wis- consin bluff of 3,050 feet (5% grade) or 4,600 feet (3% grade). River clearances vary from 41 feet at the Minnesota shore to 19 feet on the Wisconsin side. The river bridge grade is almost flat. Es- timated total construction cost of this op- tion is between $109,111,400 and $126,073,500, depending on tunnel grade and whether the STH 64 align- ment goes around or through Houlton (see figure 12). 4.) This option was added to address addi- tional visual impact concerns relating to the elevated Central Corridor roadway over TH 95 on the Minnesota shoreline, which would partially block views of Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS the Minnesota bluff. This option consists of a 4,175 foot long combination approach and river bridge, with an integrated, single level roadway design in Minnesota along TH 36[FH 95. River clearances vary from 52 feet at the Minnesota shore to 65 feet at the Wisconsin shore. The river bridge grade is almost flat until the eastern shore where it begins to ascend the Wis- consin bluff at a grade of 3 %. Es- timated total construction cost of this option is between $67,819,450 and $68,150,250, depending on the STH 64 alignment in Houlton (see figure 13). In order for this integrated roadway op- tion to handle future traffic volumes, it is required that the existing bridge remains in operation to handle local traf- fic. In addition, the integrated design re- quires some cutting back of the Minnesota bluff, and fill to be placed in the St. Croix River to provide enough corridor width. C. South Corridor The South Corridor follows various poten- tial alignments traveling south of Stillwater, Minnesota, and south and east of Houlton, Wisconsin. Its total length varies between 6.72 and 6.94 miles, depending on location, and its estimated construction cost varies be- tween $75,727,000 and $98,069,200, depending on location and features. The corridor alignment begins in the vicinity of TH 36 and County Road 15 where it travels east along existing TH 36 to the junction with TH 95. It continues east across the St. Croix River, and touches down on the Wisconsin bluff at one of three location options. It then travels cast and north on the alignment options, and then reconnects with existing STH 64. Potential interchange locations are at County Road 15, TH 5 /County 5, Oasis Avenue, TH 95, STH 35, and STH 64. 1.) River Bridge The three river bridge alignments (con- sisting of various clearances, grades, ap- proach roadway connections, and Wisconsin roadway alignments) are as follows: 17 a. Northern Alignment (a.1.) This alignment was moved in response to environmental concerns re- lated to Wisconsin bluff impacts. The alignment was moved approximately 1,000 feet north in order to take ad- vantage of an existing ravine. After crossing STH 35, the alignment travels north along a section line to minimize farm impacts, proceeds east of Houl- ton, and then reconnects with STH 64. The alignment consists of a 3,200 foot river bridge over the St. Croix, with a 1,700 foot on -land approach bridge. River clearances vary between 53 feet at the Minnesota shore to 105 feet at the Wisconsin shore. River bridge grade is 2.5 %. Estimated total con- struction cost of this alignment is $75,727,000 (see figure 14). (a.2.) An additional option was iden- tified which would further reduce bluff impacts. While bridge length, grade, and height would be identical to the crossing discussed above (a.1.), this op- tion would include a 900 foot land tun- nel through the Wisconsin bluff. Estimated total construction cost of this alignment option is $86,140,000 (see figure 15). b. Central Alignment (b.1.) This alignment was developed to touchdown on the Wisconsin bluff. After crossing STH 35, it travels easter- ly between a cemetery and an existing farmstead, continues on new alignment selected to minimize farm severances, connects with a relocated STH 35, and then travels north to reconnect with STH 64. The alignment consists of a 3,400 foot long river bridge, and a 1,700 foot on- land approach bridge. River clearances vary between 70 feet at the Minnesota shore to 157 feet at the Wisconsin shore. River bridge grade is 3.0 %. Es- timated total cost of this alignment is $78,712,200 (see figure 16). (b.2.) This option was developed to in- vestigate a lower level river crossing in 18 order to reduce long range visual im- pacts from the river surface. Tradeoffs include a slightly steeper approach grade in Minnesota, and a much greater bluff cut in Wisconsin. The option consists of a 3,425 foot long river bridge and a 1,500 foot on- land approach bridge. River clearances vary between 45 feet at the Minnesota shore to 113 feet on the Wisconsin side. River bridge grade is 3 %. Es- timated cost of this alignment option is $77,560,200 (see figure 17). (b.3.) This option was added to the analysis to explore reducing impacts to the Wisconsin bluff, while retaining the lower level crossing height. Bridge length, grade, and height would be similar to the option above (b.2.). However, it adds a 920 foot long land tunnel which goes through the Wiscon- sin bluff. The total estimated construc- tion cost of this alignment option is $88,204,600 (see figure 18). c. Southern Alignment (c.l.) This alignment was developed to touchdown on the Wisconsin bluff, and take advantage of the existing east - west segment of STH 35 to minimize property impacts. The new alignment would be constructed adjacent to STH 35. It would travel easterly to the end of the STH 35 east -west segment where it would turn north along new alignment to reconnect with existing STH 64. The alignment consists of a 3,900 foot long river bridge and a 2,000 foot on- land approach bridge. River clearances vary between 60 feet at the Minnesota shore to 100 feet at the Wisconsin shore. River bridge grade is flat for slightly more than half its length, then 3% up to and through the Wisconsin bluff. Estimated total cost of this align- ment is $86,737,000 (see figure 19). (c.2.) This option was also developed to investigate a lower level river cross- ing at this location to reduce long range visual impacts from the river surface. Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS it I'] fl 11 fJ 1 1 [1 Fi 1 1 1 1 Features include a slightly reduced bridge grade, which is consistent across the entire structure. The option also consists of a 3,750 foot long river bridge and a 2,150 foot on- land approach bridge. River clearances would vary between 31 feet at the Min- nesota shore to 108 feet on the Wiscon- sin side. River bridge grade is 2.6 %. Estimated total cost for this alignment option is $86,167,600 (see figure 20). (c.3.) This option was developed to in- vestigate a high crossing parallel to the river surface to further reduce river and Wisconsin bluff impacts. Tradeoffs in- clude a flat bridge grade, less traffic noise, less bluff impacts, but increased long -range visibility. The option consists of a 6,200 foot long river bridge, with a river clearance that varies from 126 feet at the Min- nesota shore to 143 feet at the Wiscon- sin shore. River bridge grade is 0.5 %. Estimated total cost for this alignment option is $98,069,200 (see figure 21). 2.) River Tunnel The South Corridor tunnel option also follows an alignment south of Stillwater, and south and east of Houlton in Wiscon- sin. Its total roadway length is 6.85 miles, with an estimated construction cost between $122,888,600 and $172,888,600, depending on final design considerations. Considerable additional costs would be incurred for tunnel sup- port facilities, such as ventilation, drainage, and lighting. The alignment travels east along existing TH 36 until a point approximately 1,000 feet west of the river, where it begins its descent below grade. It continues beneath the river and rises above ground approximately 4,000 feet into Wisconsin. It then goes east of Houlton in a norther- ly direction, following a section line to minimize farmland impacts, and recon- nects with STH 64. Th 8,800 foot long tunnel has a descend- ing grade of 3.7 %, and an ascending grade of 5.0 %, traveling west to east. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS Potential interchange locations are at TH 36 /County Road 15, TH 36 /Oasis Avenue, tunnel entrance/TH 95, and at STH 64 in Wisconsin.(see figure 22). II. NO -BUILD Alternative The NO -BUILD alternative includes three main options, which can be defined as No -Ac- tion, Replacement -On -Site, and Transporta- tion System Management Strategies. Mass transit implications will also be discussed in this section. A. No- Action The No- Action option of the NO -BUILD Alternative provides the basis of com- parison, or benchmark, for all of the other alternatives. In transportation planning and impact assessment, this option is defined as meaning: 1. The maintenance of existing facilities and services in the study area and the region; 2. The completion and maintenance of' committed projects in the study area and the region; and 3. The continuation of existing transporta- tion policies. The above can be further explained as fol- lows: Maintenance includes activities such as fill- ing potholes, repainting pavement mark- ings, replacing worn pavement sections, curbs, signs, signals, etc. It includes all routine activities which do not increase capacity or improve the level of service and are not intended to meet future travel demand. Existing facilities and services include all roads and transit services in the study area and region which will serve travel demand if a BUILD alternative is not constructed. This network of impacted roads often ex- tends well beyond the immediate study area, particularly in urban areas where in- creasing congestion causes traffic to divert to alternate corridors. Committed projects refer to planned projects in the study area and the region which are under construction or reasonably sure to begin construction in the near fu- 19 ture, and which will be operational in the period being studied. Transportation policy continuation refers to continued maintenance as the most prob- able course of action in the case of delay, restudy, or rejection of the BUILD alterna- tives. This action is implied by the need to protect previous investments and preserve a minimum level of service and safety. B. Replacement -On -Site Selection of this NO -BUILD Alternative op- tion is, in essence, a location decision without immediate action. It is, however, it commitment to perpetuate the existing transportation corridor through downtown Stillwater and Houlton, and to replace or rehabilitate the existing drawbridge. This will occur when the bridge can no longer safely carry traffic. The remaining useful life of the bridge is estimated to be between five and 1.5 years. This option is considered as it NO -BUILD Alternative because replacement within the existing corridor, and rehabilitation do not address the existing or future transportation problems identified in this document. The Replacement -On -Site option differs from the No-Action option in that it repre- sents a conscious decision that the future transportation network will be limited to what is existing. It also represents the fu- ture commitment of an undetermined amount of public funds for bridge reconstruction or rehabilitation, which will not provide increased capacity or level of service improvements. This decision will result in future traffic being diverted to other river crossings be- cause of high congestion levels. Sub- sequently, this will necessitate additional safety and service improvements to the diverted roadway network. During the con- struction period, all traffic will have to be diverted to other crossings, which would result in adverse economic impacts to some businesses in the study area. C. Transportation System Management (TSM) Strategies The TSM option of the NO -BUILD Alterna- tive investigates a range of partial transpor- tation solutions that concentrate on obtain- ing optimum use of present facilities at rela- tively low cost. Examples of TSM options include: upgrading existing roadways with minor widening, reconstruction, or added turn lanes; designation of high occupancy or transit lanes; fringe parking; rideshar- ing/carpooling; and traffic signal refine- ments. Limited opportunities arc availahle to im- prove the safety and efficiency of the exist- ing roadway network because of the nature of the area, and because of the nature of the transportation problems. The TH 36/95 ap- proach corridor into downtown Stillwater is severely constricted by steep bluffs to the west, and by the St. Croix River to the cast. Primary obstacles include topography, limited available open land, and several his- toric buildings in the downtown area. After entering downtown Stillwater, the cor- ridor is further constricted by narrow traffic lanes along Main Street, with limited street parking opportunities . In the center of the central business district, eastbound highway traffic must make a right turn at a signal- ized intersection. Pedestrians crossing Main Street at and between intersections add to the safety and service problems. The traffic continues along a two -lane city street, and then crosses the St. Croix River on it two - lane, fifty -eight year old through -truss drawbridge. The bridge allows a maximum lane height of 13 feet, 2 inches. In Wiscon- sin, the two -lane roadway climbs the restricted width bluff draw through Houl- ton, connects with STH 35, and continues east. In spite of these restrictions, a number of op- tions have been studied, and some refine- ments and partial solutions have been implemented over the previous thirty years, as follows: 1960/61 The City of Stillwater commissioned the development of a comprehensive plan which provided for it new bypass route around the city. It also identified it new interstate bridge crossing. The legisla- ture failed to act on the proposal to designate a new Trunk Highway route. The City Council also rejected the 20 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stillwater- Houlton Draft EIS Bridge and Tunnel Corridor Location Maps and Profiles Figures 8 -22 Stillwater- Houiton.River Crossing Draft EIS 21 1 Minnesota VII - i / Wisconsin i O� --,% _a^^ I t �.M.95 I I 0 500 1000 15100'2010d 2500 Figure 8. 22 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS 23 Minnesota Stillwater ------- - - - - -- , , , Wisconsin r r � 24 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Central Corridor Bridge Profiles i �-STH 64 f -750 -5 I /' 1 0� 1 -750 1 500- 1000! 15C 2000' 2500' Figure 11. f- STH 6,4"" +Itl�• . - i 3000 �::::>::::>::>::>::>>:<:>::>;::>::>::>::;>::»::>:;::< : >; >:: »:: » >::: >:: >:: »:: >::;:: >: , -650 i t 0 500 1000 1500 2000 .25i 00 3000 3500. 4000 Figure 12. Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 25 Minnesota `N" 23 D95 I Stillwater Oak Park Heights .V.• IVVVI IV11 1 26 Stillwater- HouRon River Crossing Draft EIS South Corridor Bridge Profiles - North Alignment -900 0l 105%1' 53 1 t I I I i I 0 1000, 2000' 3000, Figure 14. Figure 15. ■ Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 27 j 4,r Stillwater 1 0 " -MOO so 0000 0" 36 Oak Park Heights k 28 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS South Corridor Bridge Profiles Central Alignment M1 Figure 17. 0 1000' 2000' 3000, Figure 18. ...................:::::: ::.:: Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 29 1 \ �I 36 Stillwater or 36 21 Oak Park Heights 30 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS South Corridor Bridge Profiles - South Alignment Figure 20. 126' 143 ; 0 1000' 2000' ' ' 3000' 4000' 5000' ' 6000' Figure 21. Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 31 Minnesota 3 Stillwater 23 e Z L°'_l 36 O , \! n I W� I Houlton \'a�!o.. > \ Wisconsin "'South C 0 �\ Tun Loca Base South Corridor Tunnel Profile n Ip Q —600 I 2 4 7000 I 0 10010' 000 3000 000 5000 6000 Figure 22. 32 Stillwater- HouRon River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 proposal because of poor city acces- $ibility. The city did agree to incorporate addi- tional traffic controls, including parking restrictions, in order to improve existing traffic flow. 2.1960s A new TH 212 alignment was developed and designed to connect St. Paul's east side with Stillwater. Part of the proposal included developing TH 95 into a four -lane, divided roadway from Bayport, through Stillwater, and north to TH 96. It also included the construc- tion of a new river crossing at ap- proximately the same location as the Central Corridor alignment. Even though the portion from TH 120 to Jamaca Avenue in Lake Elmo was con- structed, lack of support from the City of St. Paul as well as funding difficulties forced the proposal to be dropped. 3.1966 A City Council resolution requested signing to be developed which directed north and southbound traffic to bypass Stillwater via County Road 15 and TH 96. This signing is still in place. The City also agreed to evaluate addi- tional traffic control measures such as parking bans and providing a double left turn movement from the bridge south- bound along Main Street (see figure 23). This suggestion was not implemented because of traffic merge difficulties and the loss of parking in the downtown area. Other suggestions that were considered involved directing westbound bridge traffic south onto Water Street, west onto Nelson Street, then south onto Main Street. Twin Cities and Bayport traffic was to be directed straight west up the Chestnut hill after crossing the bridge, then south on Fourth Street, three blocks west of Main. The sugges- tions were not incorporated because of merge difficulties, parking losses, and the adverse effects of routing highway traffic through residential neighbor- hoods. Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS 4.1969 The St. Croix Valley Area Chamber of Commerce Committee on Parking and Traffic developed a three point plan in cooperation with local and state authorities: a.) City Traffic Flow An intricate signal system was developed to improve traffic flow within and through the city. The signal featured pedestrian walks, a left -turn arrow for westbound bridge traffic, a right -turn arrow for eastbound bridge traffic, and other timing provisions at the Main and Chestnut intersection. The plan also included an information program designed to educate the public in the proper use of the new traffic con- trol features. b.) Area Traffic Flow The Committee concluded that, even with recent refinements, the existing in- terstate bridge and Minnesota approach network were inadequate to handle modern traffic. The group requested that the state transportation agency speed up efforts to design, fund, and construct a replacement crossing. c.) Stillwater Core Area Parking The Minnesota Mercantile Company and the Stillwater Hardware Company warehouses would be acquired and demolished to beautify the waterfront, and to provide for additional downtown parking. The spur track of the Northern Pacific Railroad would also be removed and blacktopped. 5.1972 The Minnesota Highway Department and the Stillwater City Council agreed to incorporate the following additional system modifications: a.) Stillwater removed all parking on Chestnut between the bridge and Main Street. b.) Stillwater removed two parking spaces on west side of Main Street, south of Chestnut. 33 \J o � Z Co. S� •� C!f r�\ tJ� O�r Ic D Figure 23 Downtown Stillwater e 34 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS c.) Stillwater removed four parking spaces on east side of Main Street south of Chestnut. d.) The Highway Department provided and installed "No Parking" signs. e.) The Highway Department provided turn -lane delineations and signing. f.) The Highway Department provided signing which banned left -turns from Chestnut to Riverside parking lot. g.) The Highway Department agreed to evaluate system operation after the above provisions were implemented. If problems remained, an additional left- turn ban would be implemented to prohibit turns from Main Street to Chestnut. 6.1972 A Concept Plan for Downtown Stillwater was prepared to organize and plan the downtown area to maximize shopper and visitor interest, and mini- mize traffic and pedestrian conflicts. The plan included the following provisions: a.) A pair of one -way streets, consisting of southbound only on Main Street, and northbound only on Water Street through downtown. b.) Close secondary streets of Nelson be- tween Second and Water, and Nelson Alley between Second and Main. Study three possibilities: 1.) Second Street south of Nelson; cul- de -sac at top and bottom of hill. 2.) Olive Street between Third and Second. 3.) Mulberry Street between Third and Main. c.) Develop directional graphics for downtown, including a uniform system of signing and banners. d.) Policy of requiring future parking addi- tions to be ramps in areas indicated by detailed surveys. Design modifications were not imple- mented because of anticipated impacts to downtown business community, and tral= fic merge and signalization problems. 7.1974 Mn/DOT developed and analyzed a Stillwater bypass study initiated by city request. Alternatives considered in- cluded the following: a.) A two -way, two -lane roadway east of Water Street and west of the railroad tracks, from south of the central busi- ness district to Chestnut Street. b.) A two -way, two -lane roadway east of the railroad tracks and west of Lowell Park. This option would require addi- tional right -of -way, but no businesses would have to be displaced. However, the roadway would cross all existing railroad tracks and is located over the existing interceptor sewer. c.) Same as above, except northbound would be a one -way, and southbound would still use Main Street. Study was discontinued in 1979 because of high construction and acquisition costs. In addition, one of the buildings identified for acquisition (the Freight House) was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. 8.1976 The City of Stillwater acquired the old auditorium theater on Second Street be- tween Chestnut and Olive. The building was removed and replaced with a park- ing ramp to ease downtown parking pressures. 9.1980 In the early 1980s, the City of Stillwater constructed and landscaped a parking lot south of downtown, adjacent to TH 95. This lot was also incorporated into the traffic network to replace parking lost through accumulated TSM measures. 10.1981 The Main /Chestnut signal was modified to provide a southbound left turn with green arrow movement. This was neces- sary to further protect pedestrians cross- ing at the Main/Myrtle intersection. 11.1985 A study entitled, Congestion at the Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 35 Stillwater Bridge, prepared by the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, included the following conclusion: "There are only two basic ways in which the congestion problems could be eased. First, the physical transporta- tion facilities could be modified to in- crease traffic carrying capacity. The other way is to reduce the volume of traffic needing to use the congested transportation facilities. The long - range solution is to construct a new bridge and approach highways. This measure has started, but is 6 -8 years away at the least. Any interim measures to reduce congestion would, therefore, only be temporary which fur- ther reduces the effort and money that would be spent to implement. This im- poses a limitation on a short -term easing of the congestion." Three specific interim measures were proposed for consideration: a.) Adjusting the drawbridge lift schedule The report suggested that the 2:30 PM weekday lift be discontinued. This was evaluated and it was determined that this change would have no noticeable effect on congestion levels. b.) Main /Chestnut Traffic Signal Modifications Suggestion to also allow left - tuming, westbound traffic during the green cycle, and to add green -time to the turn- ing phases. This suggestion was imple- mented. c.) Traffic Diversion Signing Suggestion to install traffic congestion ahead signs, and to identify alternate routes along STH 35/64. Wise/DOT and the St. Croix County Highway Commission developed a diversion plan, and conducted a pilot study to evaluate effectiveness. The proposal did not significantly affect congestion levels at the bridge, and safety con- cerns were expressed concerning the safety of the alternate routes, which were not designed to handle the addi- tional traffic volumes. The pilot study 36 was discontinued. 12.1988 A traffic actuated signal was added at Main Street and Nelson to aid pedestrian crossings and to assist access to off - street parking areas. D. Mass Transit Implications Some mass transit opportunities are avail- able in the study area. The Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) provides scheduled bus service between St. Paul and Stillwater, with 17 return trips on week- days. The buses arrive in Stillwater on TH 5 and segments of TH 36, and complete their journey in the downtown area near the lift bridge. In addition to MTC, the St. Croix Valley Transit Company provides bus service within Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, and Bayport, with 18 trips every weekday. Combined with MTC service, there are 35 scheduled weekday bus trips within 1 block of the lift bridge, with 18 more on Saturday and 4 on Sunday. Cur- rently, there are no scheduled commercial bus routes over the existing lift bridge, either long - distance or local. Intercity high- way buses operate on I -94 seven miles to the south, and have a terminal in Hudson. Mass transit will not be able to significantly reduce congestion in downtown Stillwater in the foreseeable future. One reason for this is that the worst congestion often oc- curs on weekends, when people are driving on recreational trips to Wisconsin. With the possible exception of trips to the Apple River in Somerset, mass transit (or ride shar- ing) would not be able to effectively reduce interstate recreational traffic. Encouraging people bound for the Apple River to park in Minnesota and take a shuttle to Somerset could reduce some of the weekend conges- tion at the bridge. However, it is unlikely that enough people would be willing to go along with this idea to make it viable. Mass transit holds limited potential for reducing commuter traffic. Conceivably, Wisconsin residents could park on the cast side of the bridge, walk, bike, or take a shut- tle into Stillwater, and ride the bus to work in the Twin Cities or the Andersen Corpora- tion in Bayport. If NO -BUILD becomes Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS L 1 �l 1 t 1 I [i the selected alternative, the possibility of locating a park and ride lot near the Wiscon- sin side of the lift bridge will be inves- tigated. (Currently, Mn/DOT operates a park- and -ride lot at the junction of STH 36 and County Road 15.) In large metropolitan areas, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes have become an in- creasingly common technique for reducing congestion on major roads. However given the geometric configurations of TH 36 and STH 35/64, as well as the low population density in the Wisconsin portion of the study area, HOV lanes are not a reasonable answer to the congestion problems in downtown Stillwater. Even though HOV lanes are not feasible, ride sharing is popular at the Andersen Cor- poration, one of the largest employers in the region. There are a large number of Ander- sen employees who live in or near the Wis- consin portion of the study area and commute to Bayport over the lift bridge; well over 1,000 Andersen workers use the lift bridge every day. As depicted in figure 24, there are large concentrations of Ander- sen employees in Somerset, New Rich- mond, River Falls, Hudson, Osceola, and Stillwater. Andersen currently owns seven, eleven pas- senger commuter vans. These vehicles are loaned out to employees willing to function Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS as designated drivers. All of the vans are used by employees living in Wisconsin, car- rying a total of 77 people. In addition, 6 privately owned buses transport a total of 525 Andersen employees to work. All of the buses operate in Wisconsin, beginning in River Falls, New Richmond, Clayton, Balsam Lake, and Glenwood City. Four of the buses use the existing Stillwater-Houl- ton bridge, with the other two crossing on I- 94 at Hudson. In total, more than 600 of the Andersen employees who live in Wisconsin get to work via a bus or company -owned van. In addition, many of the Wisconsin employees belong to car pools. Andersen has a shortage of parking, and actively promotes car pooling as a means of freeing up space in company lots. Because Andersen's space shortage is not going to be resolved at any point in the near future, the company has an incentive to con- tinue encouraging employees to utilize vans, buses, and car pools as a means of get- ting to work. However, even further reduc- tions in single - person commuting at Andersen will have no significant impact on the congestion problem in downtown Stillwater. Contrary to popular perception, traffic generated by Andersen is only a rela- tively small percentage of the total transpor- tation problem at Stillwater - Houlton. 37 • LUCK 6 GUSHING S WISCONSIN COMSTOCK M�� MINNESOTA V AL 2 2 BALSAM LAKE TURTLE LAKE TAYLORS FALLS 32 32 CENTER CITY 2 STACY T ST. CRDUL FANS SO 1 L1N06T110M 66 SHAFER ; ,((n1� 10 DRESSER GNISAGO CITY Q AMERY CLAYTON 6 OSCEOLA • BS 50 a DERONDA O FOREST LAKE SCANDIA / 12 11 • CLEA ±LAKE FARM PRAIRIE AN2KA 6 CIRCLE PINES • MARINE > - DEERPARK ,QCo- 32 NEW BRIGHTON, HUGO STAR PRAIRIE 1 0 13 n • �� K SHOREVIEW w • / � U SOMERSET NEW RICHMOND • BOYCEVILLE 15 �. 220 EMEIAID • ' WHITE BEAR LAKE t2 F 30 STILLWATER n 11 N 622 G1131W00D CRY N L: CANADA WILLENWIE MOULTON 26 DONNING P �H 6 '""P`13 BAYPORT HUDSON ROBERTS Ro 14 E / 1 NO. $T. PAUL 27 HA AOND KNAPP 11 14 N BALDWMI ST. PAUL OAKDALE IAKELAND SB WILSON WEST ST. PAUL VYOODBURY }� • 2 M040MOME AFTDN -) WVER FANS 14 SOUTH y�� SPRING VALLEY 6 COTTAGE GROVE ��J 15 6 L • • BELDONILLE Fll/WOOD 14 2 i EAGAN y�P PHESCOTT 3 oil, 3 HASTBNQS ELLSWORTH �T 2 13 MAIDEN NOG( CANNON FALLS HALER CRY BAY CRY 1 Figure 24 Residence of Andersen Corporation Employees Source: Andersen Corporation Employee Newsletter, May, 1989 i Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 38 1� 1 l 1 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT TOPOGRAPHY AND GENERAL LAND USE In both Minnesota and Wisconsin, the topography in the upland portions of the study area is charac- terized by gently rolling, glaciated terrain. There are scattered patches of hardwood forest, including a protected forest in Wisconsin. Land use in the upland areas consists mainly of commercial farms, hobby farms, and low density residential develop- ment. There is also a large apple orchard northwest of the junction of TH 36 and County Road 15, in Minnesota. East of Houlton, there is a ski area which is not in current use. Commercial development is concentrated in a few areas, mainly in downtown Stillwater, along TH 36 in Stillwater /Oak Park Heights, and - -to a lesser degree - -in Houlton. Along the river, the predominate natural features are steep, forested bluffs (see figure 25). Hardwoods predominate, with a scattering of coniferous trees. On the Wisconsin side, the bluff line generally begins close to the river, although there are small pockets of beach and flood plain areas. A number of small, steep ravines have been incised into the ridge in places. Houlton is set back from the river, on top of the bluff. Throughout the Wisconsin portion of the study area, scattered residences are perched on the bluff, some of which are quite visible from the river. In Minnesota, the bluff line is more irregular, pulling back from the river in central Stillwater and, to a larger extent, in Oak Park Heights and Bayport. Significant portions of Oak Park Heights and Bayport are located below the bluffline, although the TH 36 commercial strip is located on top of the ridge. While the core of downtown Stillwater is located along the river, the town long ago began climbing the hills to the west, and much of the community is now on the bluff. From the north end of Stillwater south, development covers much of the Minnesota shoreline in the study area. In general, the St. Croix Valley north of Stillwater - Houlton is much wilder and more scenic in ap- pearance than the southern portions of the study area. North of downtown Stillwater, Brown's and Silver Creeks have carved two of the larger ravines in the study area, with steep forested slopes on each side. East of these valleys and north of Stillwater are a series of forested islands in the St. Croix; Mile Long Island, in particular, is used extensively for recreation during warm weather. Opposite of Mile Long Island on the Minnesota shore is the Boomsite Wayside, which is on the National Register of His- toric places. There are public boat landings on the Minnesota and Wisconsin shores in the vicinity of Mile Long Island. POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY, POPULATION, AND PLANNING All of the affected cities and townships in the Min- nesota portion of the study area are located in Washington County, which is included in both the seven county jurisdiction of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, and the eleven county Twin Cities Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). In Wis- consin, the affected towns of St. Joseph and Som- erset are part of St. Croix County. (In Wisconsin, towns are equivalent to a township in Minnesota.) St. Croix County is part of the Twin Cities MSA, but outside the Metropolitan Council's jurisdiction; rather, it is part of the seven county planning area covered by the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (WCWRPC). See figure 26 for a depiction of the corridor and jurisdictional locations. Grant Township, Minnesota Grant Township is an unincorporated community with a town board system of government and a 1988 population estimated to be 3,680 (population figures for Minnesota communities are from the Metro i I I Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 39 40 Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS i i t i Figure 26 Corridor and Jurisdictional Locations CORD. E Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 41 NORTH STILLWATER TOWNSHIP kY N SOUTH CORRIDOR � cp[ cc S NORTH TUNNEL g ci V 86 5.. s6 I .� CORD. 64 84 80th ST. N. a. ,.:.:STILLWATER TOWNSHIP, — I C.S. AA 12 I STILLWATER 36.:.h j 64 GRANT ul 85 TOWNSHIP f- � �-� a F� • Q.• o a i BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP OAK (� PARK HEIC Figure 26 Corridor and Jurisdictional Locations CORD. E Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 41 NORTH CORRIDOR CENTRAL CORRIDOR TOWNSHIP SOUTH CORRIDOR ��■ SOUTH TUNNEL TOWNSHIP A NORTH TUNNEL Figure 26 Corridor and Jurisdictional Locations CORD. E Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 41 SOMERSET TOWNSHIP - - :., u ST. JOSEPH TOWNSHIP A Figure 26 Corridor and Jurisdictional Locations CORD. E Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 41 Council). Like all the jurisdictions in the study area, the township grew more rapidly during the 1970s than it has so far in the 1980s. Between 1970 and 1980, population growth was nearly 72 percent, but was under 20 percent from 1980 to 1988 (see table 6). The number of households in Grant Township and other study area communities have increased at a faster rate than the population during both the 1970s and 1980s (see table 7). This is a result of a long -term decline in the persons per household ratio. Because the average household has fewer people than it did previously, a given increase in population today will result in a higher demand for housing than it would have in the past. Grant Township is attracting scattered, low density (exurban) development from the Twin Cities. How- ever, the township's comprehensive plan places a high priority on conserving its natural environment and rural character, and it strongly endorses agricul- tural preservation. The township's zoning code con- trols population density by requiring single family residences, with a minimum lot size of 10 acres. Individual residences are frequently large, estate - type homes; some commercial and hobby farms are also present. Grant Township aims to ensure that any new commercial development is compatible with its rural character. The Town Board foresees no future need for services such as public sewers or water. The North Corridor alternative is the only BUILD option with the potential of directly impacting the township; the new route would follow the present County Road 15 corridor, along the Stillwater Township boundary. Stillwater Township, Minnesota Stillwater Township is an unincorporated com- munity with an estimated 1988 population of 2,015. The township's population increased by 63 percent during the 1970s, and 26 percent between 1980 and 1988. Historically, the township has been a rural agricul- tural community, but there has been an influx of non -farm residents from the Twin Cities during the last twenty years and agriculture has been declining. In the study area, commercial agriculture has now largely receded to areas north of Minnesota TH 96, although some small -scale and hobby farms remain south of the highway. Single- family housing units on relatively large lots predominate; some of these include horse stables. Minimum lot size in much of the township is be- tween two and one -half and five acres, with a special zone along the St. Croix River. In the steep, environ- TABLE 6 STUDY AREA POPULATION CHANGE, 1970 -2000 JURISDICTION 1970 1980 PERCENT 1988 PERCENT 2000 CHANGE, 70 -80 CHANGE, 80 -88 MINNESOTA Oak Park Hgts. 1,256 2,591 106.3 3,751 44.8 3,900 Stillwater 10,208 12,290 20.4 13,485 9.7 13,300 Bayport 2,987 2,932 -1.8 3,106 59 2,800 Baytown Twp. 723 851 17.7 913 7.3 1,100 Grant Twp. 1,797 3,083 71.6 3,680 19.4 3,600 Stillwater Twp. 979 1,599 63.3 2,015 26.0 2,300 Washington Co. 83,003 113,571 36.8 138,246 21.7 148,860 Seven - county Metro Council Area 1,874,612 1,985,873 5.9 2,200,321 10.8 2,310,000 WISCONSIN St. Joseph Twp. 1,357 2,180 60.6 2,436 11.7 4,210 Somerset Twp. 1,185 1,833 54.7 2,074 13.1 2,578 St. Croix Co. 34,354 43,262 25.9 48,655 12.5 59,250 Sources: Minnesota and Wisconsin 1970 and 1980 figures were taken from the U.S. Census. Minnesota estimates and projections for 1988 and 2000 were supplied by the Twin Cities Metro Council. Wisconsin figures for 1988 are from the Wisconsin Department of Administration. Wisconsin forecasts for the year 2000 are from the Wisconsin State Data Center's 1986 Small -Area Baseline Population Projections. 42 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS a 1 ri 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 7 CHANGES IN STUDY AREA HOUSEHOLDS, 1970 -2000 JURISDICTION 1970 1980 PERCENT 1988 PERCENT 2000 CHANGE, 70-80 CHANGE,80 -88 MINNESOTA Oak Park Hgts. 372 868 1333% 1,313 51.3% 1,400 Stillwater 3,035 4,065 33.9 4,711 15.9 4,800 Bayport 655 677 3.4 738 9.0 775 Baytown Twp. 184 237 28.8 278 17.3 350 Grant Twp. 438 831 89.7 1,113 33.9 1,150 Stillwater Twp. 245 448 82.9 625 39.5 700 Washington Co. 21,314 35,001 64.2 45,880 31.1 51,600 Seven - county Metro Council Area 573,634 721,357 25.8 853,172 18.3 931,000 WISCONSIN , St, Joseph Twp. 272 668 145.6 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Somerset Twp. 217 530 144.2 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- St. Croix Co. 10,234 14,159 38.3 - - - -- - - - -- 20,848 Sources: Minnesota figures supplied by the Metropolitan Council. Wisconsin figures for 1970 and 1980 are from the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (WCWRPC). St. Croix County projections for the year 2000 were produced by the Demographic Services Center, Wisconsin Department of Administration. Complete data for the affected areas in Wisconsin are not available. mentally sensitive areas around Brown's and Silver Creeks (located north of the City of Stillwater), the minimum residential lot size is twenty acres. Stillwater Township desires to balance a staged and orderly urban expansion north from the City of Stillwater against the protection of existing agricul- tural operations. Stillwater Township, the City of Stillwater, and Washington County have entered into Orderly Annexation and Joint Powers Agree- ments. A joint board has authority over zoning decisions in areas near the City of Stillwater, and administers the orderly annexation of developing areas of the township by the city. The township would like to avoid highway strip development, and urban -scale growth in scattered, outlying areas lo- cated away from existing concentrations. The North Corridor routes would be the only BUILD alternatives which would pass through Stillwater Township. The North Corridor options are unique among the BUILD alternatives in Min- nesota in that they would cut across a large amount of rural land, rather than following a currently used road. Baytown Township, Minnesota Baytown is another unincorporated community, with an estimated 1988 population of 913. Its growth rate since 1970 has not been nearly as rapid as most Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS of the other political jurisdictions in the Minnesota portion of the study area, and it has no public sewer or water system. Septic systems have substantial limitations in Baytown Township, as the bedrock lies near the surface, with a relatively high water table, numerous wetlands, and a slow percolation rate. Consequent- ly, the township is careful about issuing new build- ing permits. The township desires to protect existing agricultural operations and prevent excessive subdivision and sprawl. The zoning code permits only single and two family residences, which are required to have a minimum two and one -half acre lot size. Commer- cial development is primarily concentrated along TH 36; there is virtually no industry. Over the years, annexation by the cities of Bayport and Oak Park Heights has reduced the township's original area by 25 percent. Currently, the Baytown Town Board opposes piecemeal annexation, al- though it favors a 1968 recommendation by the Metropolitan Council to consolidate the three com- munities into a single municipality. The South and Central Corridor options would skirt the northern boundary of the township; a North Corridor route could touch the extreme northwest corner. 43 City of Stillwater, Minnesota Stillwater is the Washington County seat and the first European settlement in the region. It is an incorporated city, with an estimated 1988 popula- tion of 13,485. Stillwater's population increased by over 20 percent during the 1970s, but slowed to approximately 10 percent between 1980 and 1988. Along with the cities of Oak Park Heights and Bayport, Stillwater offers urban services such as a municipal sewer system. The Stillwater Waste- water Treatment Plant also receives waste from Oak Park Heights, and is located close to where the South Corridor river crossings would leave the Minnesota shoreline. Squeezed between bluffs to the west and the St. Croix on the east, downtown Stillwater has a wealth of well - preserved historical sites, and is a popular tourist destination. Newer development in Stillwater has occurred back from the river, on top of the bluffs. Currently, there is little vacant land remaining for new residential construction, al- though adequate property exists for various non- residential uses within the city limits. The city plans to accommodate new residential growth though an- nexation of adjacent land from Stillwater Township. Stillwater has a policy of not extending municipal services beyond its boundaries, unless such territory has been formally annexed. Physically, Stillwater would be most directly af- fected by a Central Corridor route, but all of the BUILD alternatives - -as well as the NO -BUILD op- tion-- would have potentially important impacts on the municipality. City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Oak Park Heights is an incorporated city which had an estimated 1988 population of 3,751. Between 1970 and 1988, the population of Oak Park Heights increased by nearly 2,500 people, posting the largest percentage increase in the study area during that period. Growth during the remainder of the twen- tieth century is likely to be much slower; according to Metro Council forecasts, the city's population will increase by less than 150 people during the 1990s. Without future annexation, there will be rela- tively little vacant land for new residential develop- ment in the community. Single family homes predominate in Oak Park Heights. Existing multiple family dwelling units in the city are mainly located north of TH 36. In the northeast corner of the city on the river is an ex- 44 elusive condominium complex with a large private marina for residents. The city is severed into three sectors by trunk high- ways. Several small sections of Oak Park Heights are divided from the main portion of the community by TH 36. In addition, the north -south TH 95 separates the industrial and vacant land in the river flats area from the western sections of the municipality. Northern States Power's (NSP) Allen S. King Power Plant represents most of the Oak Park Heights' industrial development, occupying nearly 27 per- cent of the city's total acreage. The plant is located along the river, approximately a half -mile downstream from the southernmost South Corridor alignment; NSP presently utilizes a large adjacent land parcel as a waste disposal site. Across TH 95 from the power plant is the sprawling Minnesota Correctional Facility, which is situated on the Oak Park Heights - Bayport boundary. The Central and South Corridor BUILD alternatives would pass through Oak Park Heights. A North Corridor decision would likely have an important adverse economic effect because it would divert through traffic north of the city. City of Bayport, Minnesota The City of Bayport has experienced the lowest percentage population increase of any community in the study area. Its population declined by -1.8 percent between 1970 and 1980, before experienc- ing a modest 59 percent increase between 1980 and 1988, making a total of 3,106 people. Its population includes over 1,000 inmates housed in the Min- nesota Correctional Facility. Bayport is close to being completely developed. The city has its own wastewater treatment plant, and provides public sewer and water services. None of the study corridors would have a direct, physical impact on Bayport. However, the city is an integral part of the lower St. Croix Valley, and has close ties to the communities which would be direct- ly affected by the alternatives. In particular, the city is an important employment center for the region: more than 3,500 people work at the Andersen Win- dow Company, while the prison employs ap- proximately 480 persons. Many of Bayport's employees live in and /or commute through other communities in the study area, with a large number residing in Wisconsin. Conversely, Bayport resi- Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS I f' 1] 1 11 1 1 I 1 n dents travel through and depend on shopping oppor- tunities in adjacent communities, especially the TH 36 commercial area in Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. Houlton, Wisconsin Houlton is located across the St. Croix River from Stillwater, at the junction of STH 35, STH 64, and County Road E. As an unincorporated community, Houlton has no definite political boundaries or governing body of its own, and it is represented by the St. Joseph Town Board. Recent census data are not available for Houlton. However, the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission ( WCWRPC) estimated Houlton's 1970 population at 448 people. In 1976, the WCWRPC projected a 1980 population of 499 and a 1990 population of 604. Dwelling units in Houlton tend to be modest, single - family homes and older farm houses. A small num- ber of business are located in the area. On the outskirts of the settlement are a school, trailer park, and drive -in theater. Houlton has no public sewer or water facilities, although these may be needed at some point in the future. A Central Corridor route is the only BUILD alterna- tive which would directly pass through the area generally considered to be Houlton. Town of St. Joseph, Wisconsin The Town of St. Joseph is an unincorporated com- munity featuring a town board system of govern- ment. In 1988, the Wisconsin Department of Administration estimated its population to be 2,436. During the 1970s, the population of the town grew by over 60 percent, a rate which slowed to under 12 percent from 1980 to 1988. According to the 1980 St. Croix County Farmland Preservation Plan, land use in St. Joseph was clas- sified as follows: agricultural or vacant, 68 percent; forested, 18 percent; water, 6 percent; and residen- tial, 4 percent. Commercial, industrial, and other land uses were relatively minor. Rural non -farm residences outnumbered farm residences by more than 7 to 1; the township has become an attractive place to live for persons employed in the eastern half of the Twin Cities and on the Minnesota side of the St. Croix Valley. Since this land use data was col- lected, it is highly probable that the percentage of agricultural land has experienced further declines, Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS while the relative share of residential land has in- creased. Like Somerset, St. Joseph has adopted St. Croix County's zoning ordinance, with some variations. Partially as a result of the Stillwater - Houlton river crossing studies, the Town of St. Joseph has made an increasing effort to address future development issues. All of the proposed BUILD alternatives would directly affect portions of St. Joseph. Town of Somerset, Wisconsin The Town of Somerset is located north of St. Joseph, and had an estimated 1988 population of 2,074. (Somerset Township and the Village of Somerset are distinct political entities; the latter is outside the project study area.) Somerset grew by nearly 55 percent during the 1970s, reflecting the area's at- tractiveness as an exurban residential center. As in St. Joseph, the growth rate has fallen off during the 1980s. Land use in Somerset is roughly similar to that in St. Joseph. According to the source mentioned above, approximately 69 percent of its land was either agricultural or vacant, 19 percent was in forests, 6 percent was water, and 3 percent was residential. Acreage dedicated to commercial and industrial uses was less than 1 percent. Rural non -farm residences outnumbered farm residences by more than 3 to 1. Somerset would be most directly affected by the North Corridor Bridge alternative. St. Croix County, Wisconsin While the towns of St. Joseph and Somerset encom- pass all of the Wisconsin portion of the study area, neighboring portions of St. Croix County would also be affected by a BUILD decision. The main reason for this is increased accessibility to the large number of jobs and other economic opportunities in Min- nesota. According to projections by the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission ( WCWRPC), St. Croix County is among the fastest growing in the state, and is expected to increase its estimated 1988 population of 49,000 to nearly 60,000 by the year 2,000. Between 1984 and 1986, St. Croix County issued over 1,600 new housing permits, the most among the four Twin Cities' MSA counties not included in the seven county jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Coun- 45 cil. (The other three MSA counties include Wright, Chisago, and Isanti in Minnesota.) St. Croix County's increasing share of the Twin Cities' exur- ban development is reflected in its growing percent- age of housing permits issued in the four non - Metropolitan Council MSA counties. In 1970, St. Croix County accounted for 24 percent of the new housing permits in these counties, a figure which had climbed to 41 percent by 1986, when more than 700 new permits were issued. An important reason for the rapid growth in St. Croix County was the completion of the I -94 cor- ridor west of the Twin Cities, a facility which puts Hudson and other parts of the county within relative- ly easy commuting distance of the Twin Cities. A replacement river crossing is likely to accelerate this trend. St. Croix County has adopted a zoning code and the previously mentioned farmland preservation plan to help manage development, but implementation is largely left to the discretion of the local units of government. Regional Planning As indicated earlier, the Minnesota portion of the study area is within the seven county jurisdiction of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council. Among the Council's many responsibilities is the review of local comprehensive plans in order to ascertain whether they are compatible with regional land use policies, as detailed in its Metropolitan Develop- ment and Investment Framework The Council has been involved in reviewing the various corridor options, and is interested in seeing that any BUILD decision be consistent with Metro -wide policies. In a 1989 Council ranking of Metro Area major river crossing priorities, a new Stillwater crossing ranked third. For planning purposes, the Council has broken the seven county area into a number of geographic policy areas, including a Metropolitan Urban Ser- vice Area (MUSA), a Rural Service Area (RSA), and Freestanding Growth Centers (see figure 27). The MUSA is the area within which the Council is willing to support new urban services such as municipal sewers, water, and highways capable of supporting urban- density traffic. New development is encouraged to occur inside the MUSA line in order to avoid the high economic costs of extending or developing new urban services in outlying areas 46 Within the boundaries of the MUSA are several sub - sectors, including the Metro Centers, Regional Business Centers, the Fully Developed Area, and the Developing Area. The western border of the study area is located nearly five miles beyond the eastern edge of the MUSA Developing Area. The RSA is composed of three sub - sectors, includ- ing Rural Centers, General Rural Use Areas, and Commercial Agricultural Areas. Rural Centers are towns which originated primarily as retail and transportation centers for the surrounding agricul- tural area. Now many of these towns have become homes for residents who commute to locations within the MUSA, as well as industries with few ties to agriculture. The Council wants development in these areas paced according to local ability to supply services, without relying on the construction of regionally financed facilities. There are no Rural Centers in the study area, although Lake Elmo (to the southwest) and Lakeland (to the south) are only several miles away. The General Rural Use Area contains a heterogeneous mixture of uses. The Council sup- ports both agriculture and low density residential development in this area, but not at densities exceed- ing one house per ten acres; housing densities or business concentrations should not reach the point where urban services such as sewers are required. Much of the Minnesota portion of the study area is classified as a General Rural Use Area. The North Corridor Alternatives would be in direct conflict with the aims of this policy area, as a new highway along current County Road 15 and TH 96 would likely encourage new development at densities beyond those intended by the Council. Council policy does not approve of new roads or road im- provements in rural areas which facilitate urban - density development. The Commercial Agricultural Area includes land that has been covenanted or certified as eligible for the Metro Agricultural Preserves Program (see Mn/DOT's special study on agricultural issues). Urban densities and services are prohibited, and local zoning restrictions must allow no more than one house per forty acres of land. A relatively small portion of Washington County's agricultural land is included in the Commercial Agricultural Area, with little, if any, in the study area. Freestanding Growth Centers include eleven inten- sively developed areas located outside the MUSA; within the study area, the cities of Stillwater, Oak Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS I 1 11, 1 1 e s i w t t r GENERALIZED GEOGRAPHIC POLICY AREAS Fully Developed Area Developing Area ■ Freestanding Growth Centers © Commercial Agricultural Aroa General Rural Uso Area ■ Metropolitan Centers A Regional Business Concentrations . ■ Rural Centers r r MUSA U ne .l r/, IlI� I � I 4-- . 1. 11 io 11 SOURCE: Metropolitan Council, 1966 Noio:Aroas are shown as o! Dec 1& 1906. 1 , Figure 27 Metropolitan Council's Geographic Policy Areas Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 47 Park Heights, and Bayport are considered to be one Freestanding Growth Center. The Council is com- mitted to providing services to the older parts of the centers, and to new developments elsewhere within the boundaries providing they are planned, orderly, and contiguous to existing developed areas. Essen- tially, the Freestanding Growth Centers can be con- sidered to be outlying or detached portions of the MUSH. In Wisconsin, the WCWRPC provides planning ser- vices to St. Croix County and six other contiguous rural counties. The Commission was established in 1970 to assist in coordinating area -wide planning and development, and to help solve inter- governmental problems. The WCWRPC is com- posed of a staff of ten, with a board of commis- sioners appointed by the respective county boards. Unlike the Metro Council, the WCWRPC does not possess any statutory development control authority. The Commission's work encompasses such issues as transportation, land use, economic development, environmental protection, and solid waste. Since 1985, it has done research on the congestion problems at the existing Stillwater bridge and on issues pertaining to the STH 35/64 highway im- provement proposal. GENERAL SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS All of the six census tracts in the project study area have a population which is more racially homogeneous than the Twin Cities Metro Area. The MSA as a whole is nearly 95 percent white, while the census tracts in the study area range between 98 and 99 percent white. The largest minority in the study area is the Asian/Pacific Islander group, which ranges between .2 and .9 percent of the population. According to the most recent census, there are 147 people from this minority category scattered through the study area. There are no important con- centrations of this or any other minority group in any of the study census tracts (see figure 28). One notable social characteristic of the study area population is the high number of people of German descent. In the Twin Cities MSA as a whole, 33 percent of the population is of German heritage; by contrast, at least 34 percent of the study area popula- tion claims German ancestry, with highs of 45 per- cent in tract 706.01, and 43 percent in tract 705 (both mainly in the City of Stillwater). Other significant variations from MSA averages include a high per- centage of people with French ancestry in Wiscon- sin tract 1204 (14 percent, compared to an MSA average of 2 percent), and a comparatively large number of individuals of Irish descent in tract 706.01 (18 percent, compared to an MSA average of 7 percent). For other ancestries, the variation between the MSA average and the study tracts is less than 10 percent. Age distribution in the study area is generally com- parable to the Twin Cities MSA, although there are some variations. The study area as a whole, for example, has a higher percentage of persons under the age of 20 than the MSA (see table 8). This relatively large percentage of children and young adults is reflected in a persons per household ratio which is higher than in the MSA as a whole, espe- cially in the more rural portions of the study area such as St. Joseph, Somerset, Stillwater, and Grant Townships. Some census tracts have a relatively high percentage of elderly people. In tracts 705, 706.02 (both mainly in the City of Stillwater), and 707.02 (most of Oak Park Heights and Bayport), for example, between 12 and 17 percent of the population is older than 64 years of age, compared to an MSA average of 10 percent. In the mid -range age category, only one tract varies significantly from the MSA norm - -18 percent of the people in tract 704.01 (Grant and .Stillwater Townships) are between the ages of 20. and 24, compared to an MSA average of 29 percent. 48 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Grant Stillwater Twp 704.0♦ City of Ti I Somerset Twp LISOMERSET b I ILLWA IER -1204 70511 --? S 706. 706. t. Joseph I D36 -- 707.02 0 ,) -7 \A SOURCE: 1980 U.S. CENSUS Figure 28 Census Tract in Study Area (1980) Stillwater-Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 49 TABLE 8 YOUNG AND OLD AGE GROUPS IN THE STUDY AREA CENSUS TRACT /AREA UNDER 20 OVER 65 704.01 43% 3% 705 32% 17% 706.01 43% 4% 706.02 35% 12% 707.02 32% 13% 1204 40% 6% MSA 32% 10% Source: 1980 U.S. Census NEIGHBORHOODS There are two relatively well- defined neighbor- hoods which could be seriously affected by a BUILD decision (see figure 29). The largest poten- tial direct impact would be in a residential section of Oak Park Heights, located on the hillside east of TH 36 and west of the Stillwater Sewage Treatment Plant. This area would be affected by both a Central and South Corridor BUILD decision. Less directly affected would be the Sunnyside waterfront development, just north of the sewage treatment plant. A Central Corridor decision would also directly affect a number of residences in and around Houlton. The effects would be especially acute where the settlement pattern is most dense, near the junction of the current STH 64 and STH 35. In other portions of the study area, the corridors would affect rural or exurban areas, or the fringes of developed areas. The entire North Corridor route and the Wisconsin corridors outside of Houlton would affect areas with scattered residences and farms. The Central Corridor alignments would af- fect a few houses and a business in Stillwater. How- ever, these properties are either at the base of the bluff or at the top of it; damage to the residential neighborhood on top of the bluff would be mini- mized because the affected properties are at the edge of the developed area, unlike the situation in Oak Park Heights. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The presence of a rich supply of natural resources in the Lower St. Croix Valley has contributed to an abundance of archaeological and historical sites in the area. The river valley provided hunting and fishing grounds for Native Americans, as well as a means for transporting logs and other goods during the early days of European settlement. The river's large clam population supplied the raw material for an important button manufacturing industry which flourished for a time. The St. Croix Valley was one of the first areas of the state to be settled by Europeans; consequently, towns such as Stillwater, Bayport, Afton, Prescott, and Marine on St. Croix have many sites which are of local, state, or national historical importance. Most of the known historic and archaeological sites in the study area are on the Minnesota side of the river, including eighteen standing structures which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Minnesota study area also has five known archaeological sites, one of which is listed on the NRHP. In the Wisconsin portion of the study area, there are no properties currently included on the NRHP, although several structures in Houlton have been identified as being worthy of evaluation for NRHP eligibility. There is a potentially impor- tant archaeological site near the Wisconsin shore, in the North Bridge Corridor. Within the context of this study, one of the most notable historic features is the existing lift bridge, which was completed in 1931. The structure was recently added to the NRHP, and is one of the last remaining original examples in the Upper Midwest of a tower - and -cable lift bridge with truss spans. The City of Stillwater has numerous historical at- tractions. In particular, the town was powerfully influenced by the late nineteenth century logging industry, as well as river transportation. Logs har- vested from the vast forests to the north were floated down the St. Croix River to the Boomsite above Stillwater, where they were sorted and sent to the town's sawmills, or made into rafts for flotation to points as far south as St. Louis, Missouri. When the logging industry began to decline in the early twentieth century, Stillwater was saved from a precipitous economic decline by growth in other industries. Many of the local entrepreneurs involved in lumber turned their attention and capital to manufacturing, banking, wholesaling, and flour 50 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS I 1 t 1 n 1 a 1 J' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H F95 OAK PARK HEIGHTS HOULTON River FE I Figure 29 Major Affected Neighborhoods: Houlton and Oak Park Heights Stillwater-Houtton River Crossing Draft EIS 51 to cli U) CD r ni 19E CORD. 64 80th ST. N. STILLWATER C.S.A.H. 12 t N Ui z Ui H F95 OAK PARK HEIGHTS HOULTON River FE I Figure 29 Major Affected Neighborhoods: Houlton and Oak Park Heights Stillwater-Houtton River Crossing Draft EIS 51 milling. Historic industrial firms, of which few traces remain today, were located on the Stillwater riverfront, where river and rail transportation routes came together. In recent years, Stillwater has placed a high priority on preserving its historical heritage. A survey was recently undertaken to determine the potential eligibility of much of the downtown commercial area (including the lift bridge) as a National Historic District. Because of Stillwater's historical associa- tions and its picturesque setting, tourism has become an increasingly important industry in the area. PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS The major parklands which could be affected by one of the potential corridors are on the St. Croix River, and are discussed in detail in the Section 4 (f) documents (attached to the back of this draft EIS). This land includes Lowell and Kolliner Parks, and state and Federal property included in the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Lowell Park is a developed park on the west side of the St. Croix in central Stillwater. Kolliner Park - -which is also owned by Stillwater but is currently undeveloped - -is located on the east side of the river, just across the lift bridge from Lowell Park. North of Stillwater on both sides of the river are scattered parcels owned by the National Park Ser- HYDROLOGY The most significant hydrological feature in the study area is the St. Croix River, which is part of the National Wild and Scenic River Program. Originat- ing in northwestern Wisconsin, the river is charac- terized by very good water quality and abundant recreational opportunities. Salient characteristics of the river are discussed in detail in other portions of the draft EIS and the Section 4 (f) study on Riverway impacts. In addition to the St. Croix, the study area is well - endowed with streams, lakes, and wetlands. Streams in the vicinity include the previously mentioned Brown's and Silver Creeks, both of which are very small. The major lakes in the study area are also in Minnesota: these include Lily Lake, Long Lake, Lake McKusick, and Twin Lakes. The only lakes which are close to any of the proposed corridors are the Twin Lakes, which are currently separated by the existing TH 96 corridor. As detailed in the natural resources special report, more than fifty wetlands have been identified in the vice (NPS), in addition to private holdings for which the NPS owns scenic easements. Mile Long Island, which would be directly affected by a North Cor- ridor bridge, is jointly administered by the NPS and the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources. There are public boat launches on both sides of the river in the vicinity of Mile Long Island. The only other public park adjacent to any of the proposed corridors is a small roadside area called Otto Berg Memorial Park, located at the junction of TH 96 and Norrel Avenue North. study area, the overwhelming majority being in Minnesota. Most of these are either close to the North Corridor routes, or sufficiently distant from all of the proposed corridors so that they probably would not be affected. Less than half a dozen of the wetlands are in the vicinity of the South or Central Corridors. Of the total wetland acreage in the study area, there are 57.9 acres in the North Corridor, 5.6 acres in the South Corridor, and 2.4 acres in the Central Corridor. Because specific highway align- ments have not yet been determined, it is probable that some or all of the wetlands within a corridor could be avoided. Groundwater is abundant in the study area and is a critical water source for rural residents. Aquifers are located in glacial sand and gravel deposits, and in underlying sedimentary layers (e.g., the Prairie du Chien formation) which are used extensively for private wells. In general, the water table tends to vary with the topography, and is often close to the surface around rivers, lakes, and wetlands. 52 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS i r 1 f 1 I t 1 1 1 [l r i 1 %MLDUFE The study area contains a diversity of wildlife which could occur in or close to the study area habitat, including river and floodplain ecosystems, include the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucoccphalus) lakes, wetlands, forested bluffs and ravines, and and the Peregrine Falcon (Falco ore rinus). upland areas. For the purposes of this study, the most Minnesota and Wisconsin both maintain lists of notable species are those which are on the Federal species which are considered to be threatened or Endangered Species list. Of the species on the endangered within their boundaries, a number of Federal list, the only one which could be directly which are found in the study area. These are dis- affected by any of the proposed corridors is the cussed in detail in the Threatened and Endangered Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel UmpOis higgins' an Species Special Study. Additional discussion of endangered fresh water mussel which has been wildlife found in the study area is included in the found in the St. Croix. There is also a possibility that Natural Resource Impacts Special Study. other rare mussels are living within the boundaries of the study area. Other species on the Federal list Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 53 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES LAND USE IMPACTS As established by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976, all local units of government within the seven - county Twin Cities Metropolitan Arca are required to develop comprehensive plans. These plans are reviewed by the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council in order to determine their consistency with the Council's regional planning goals, as set forth in the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDfF). The policies contained in the MDEF are aimed at guiding growth to ensure that Metropolitan services and infrastructure (e.g., sewers and highways) are used efficiently. Accord- ing to the Council, growth should be encouraged where facilities to support development are already in place, rather than areas where new infrastructure would have to be constructed. The Wisconsin portion of the study area -- which is encompassed by St. Croix County -- is outside the Metropolitan Council's seven- county jurisdiction. St. Croix County, along with six other contiguous counties, is supplied with regional planning services by the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission ( WCWRPC). Unlike the Metropolitan Council, the WCWRPC does not possess statutory development control power. The following sections will briefly summarize the land use impacts of the various corridor alternatives. For more details about the planning efforts of the Metropolitan Council, the WCWRPC, and local governments in the study area, consult the Affected Environment section of the draft EIS. Additional information about land use impacts is found in the economic and farmland impacts draft EIS sections, and the special studies on the same topics. NORTH CORRIDOR In Minnesota, the jurisdictions which would be directly affected by a North Corridor river crossing are Washington County, and Grant and Stillwater Townships. The comprehensive plans of these local governments emphasize the importance of preserv- ing existing agricultural and rural land uses, such as those which occur along the North Corridor. Ac- cording to the Metropolitan Council, land adjacent 54 to the North Corridor is classified as it General Rural Use Area, and is not suitable for intensive develop - mcnt requiring sewers and other urban services. Depending on the effectiveness of local zoning or- dinances, construction of a new highway in the North Corridor could increase development pres- sure and the demand for services along the route. Some of the traffic - sensitive businesses found along TH 36 - -as well as new enterprises- -would have an incentive to relocate along the new corridor. As it result, a North Corridor decision would he contrary to the development plans of both the Metropolitan Council and the affected local governments. The jurisdictions in Wisconsin which would be directly affected by a North Corridor decision are St. Croix County, St. Joseph Township, and - -to it lesser extent -- Somerset Township. With some variations, both St. Joseph and Somerset Townships have adopted the St. Croix County zoning ordinance. As with all the Wisconsin BUILD alternatives, there would be an adverse effect on local agriculture due to right -of -way acquisition, and increased residen- tial and commercial development pressure. Since 1980, St. Croix County has had a Farmland Preser- vation Plan, which functions as it general guide to help local governments direct commercial, in- dustrial, and residential development away from prime agricultural land. CENTRAL CORRIDOR The Minnesota jurisdictions directly affected by it Central Corridor river crossing include Washington County, Stillwater Township, Baytown Township, and the cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights. A Central Corridor location would conform with the comprehensive plans of these localities in that it would provide a strong incentive lbr future develop- ment to locate along the TH 36 commercial strip, rather than in rural areas. Traffic - sensitive busi- nesses currently on TH 36 would he unlikely to move elsewhere. While a Central Corridor crossing would avoid the Stillwater downtown area, its presence would jcop- Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 J 1 1 I� i.l ll I 1 1 1 ardize future plans that the City has for the waterfront south of Lowell Park, and could affect its utilization of Kolliner Park on the other side of the river. In general, both the Central and North Cor- ridor crossings would be less compatible with Stillwater's long -range plans than a South Corridor decision. In addition to agricultural impacts and increased development pressure in Wisconsin, a Central Cor- ridor decision would affect the small, unincor- porated community of Houlton. Although congestion caused by the current lift bridge would be relieved, relocations and the presence of a new, limited access highway would have a negative im- pact on the settlement. As with the South Corridor, all Central Corridor impacts in Wisconsin would be limited to St. Joseph Township in particular and St. Croix County in general. SOUTH CORRIDOR The South Corridor alignments would affect the same local units of government as the Central Cor- ridor options. In Minnesota, the land use impacts would be similar to the Central Corridor, as both routes would follow the already developed east -west TH 36 route. The South Corridor would require more relocations in Oak Park Heights, but would avoid the impacts to Stillwater which would be necessary with a Central Corridor decision. In Wisconsin, the South Corridor would avoid Houl- ton, but has the potential for the most serious agricultural impacts of any of the BUILD alterna- tives. Some of the land use implications of a BUILD decision in the South Corridor - -or any of the other corridors- -will be determined by whether or not the existing bridge remains in place. If the lift bridge is kept in operation in conjunction with a new crossing, there will be better access between Stillwater and the Houlton area. The existing bridge is an impor- tant element in Stillwater's plan for its downtown area, and will affect how it is able to use its FARMLAND IMPACTS During the last two decades, there has been growing recognition that American farmland is a resource which should not be taken for granted, however abundant it is perceived to be. Governments at the national, state, and local level have increasingly taken measures to insure that the benefits of Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS waterfront. Removal of the old bridge would reduce Stillwater's access to Kolliner Park, but could make the park more appealing for certain types of recrea- tional activities. NO -BUILD In Minnesota, a NO -BUILD decision would provide an incentive for businesses to remain along the TH 36 commercial strip. However, as local and through traffic increases on TH 36, there will be growing congestion at the intersections, with local vehicles mixing with through traffic. Conversely, if either the South or Central Corridors became the preferred alternative, signals would be removed along TH 36, with ramps and overpasses constructed at key inter- sections. The most serious land use consequences of a NO- BUILD decision would be in downtown Stillwater, which is already suffering from serious traffic con- gestion problems. Conflicts between auto traffic and pedestrians would increase, and the downtown's historical rivertown flavor would be diminished with growing traffic volumes. Reduc- ing the amount of through traffic entering downtown Stillwater is an integral component of the City's long -term plan. The success of this plan would be jeopardized by a NO -BUILD decision. In Wisconsin, a NO -BUILD decision would help conserve agricultural land. In general, the rural characteristics of portions of west - central Wiscon- sin would be more easily preserved under a NO- BUILD decision. On the other hand, access to the Twin Cities would be reduced as traffic congestion increases. For some, this will make portions of' western St. Croix County a less attractive place to live or do business than under a BUILD decision. It is probable that the current bottleneck at the Stillwater - Houlton bridge has inhibited economic development in portions of St. Croix County, com- pared to areas with better access to the Twin Cities such as Hudson. farmland conversion be balanced against the costs, and that farmers near the developing fringe are not severely disadvantaged by comparatively high urban tax rates. 55 Both the Minnesota and Wisconsin portions of the study area have farmland preservation programs which offer tax incentives and other benefits to farmers who commit to a long -term interest in con- tinuing to farm their land. St. Croix County adopted a Farmland Preservation Plan in 1980, the same year the Minnesota legislature passed the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act for the seven -county Twin Cities Area. For more details about these programs, and agricultural impacts in the study area in general, refer to the Agricultural Impacts and Issues Special Study, as well as the Agricultural Impact Statement (AIS) prepared for the Wisconsin portion of the study area by the Wisconsin Depart- ment of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protec- tion. Required documents for this section (i.e., AD 1006 forms) are included in appendix 2. IMPACTS All of the three study corridors will have adverse impacts on farmland. In Wisconsin, where the potential for impacts is greatest, the South Corridor Bridge alignments would have the most serious adverse effect. In Minnesota, only the North Cor- ridor bridge and tunnel routes would affect agricul- ture. When impacts from both states are combined, the North Corridor would potentially affect the most farmland acreage, and the Central Corridor the least. The NO -BUILD alternative will have no important direct effect on agriculture in either state. According to the criteria established by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, most farmland in the Wisconsin portion of the study area is of "local' or "statewide" importance. There is also a consider- able amount of "prime" farmland in the area, some of which is enrolled in a farmland preservation agreement. Although prime farmland exists in the Minnesota study area, none of it has been certified or covenanted under the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act . Farmland impacts frequently extend beyond the ac- tual agricultural property which is acquired for road construction. Right -of -way acquisition sometimes severs parcels, making them more difficult or im- possible to farm. Because of their small size and irregular shape, severed fields are often less efficient to work; machinery must be turned frequently, and additional costs are incurred because of increased fuel consumption and wear on equipment. In addi- tion, access to fields can become much more dif- ficult. A controlled access highway can increase the 56 difficulty of moving livestock and farm machinery from one field to another, requiring a farmer to spend additional time and money to perform basic farm operations. Because much of the land in the study area is under pressure from residential and commercial develop- ments, it is difficult for farmers in the area to find suitable land to rent or buy. The acquisition of farmland for highway right -of -way could have an important impact on the affected farmers, and diminish the long -term viability of agriculture in portions of western St. Croix County. The impacts discussed in this section are worst -case estimates; the exact corridor alignments have not yet been determined. While actual farmland impacts could vary from the calculations, the figures arc useful in comparing impacts in the various corridors. The land considered to be farmland here does not necessarily have to be cropland; it can also include pasture, woodlands, or wetlands owned by farmers. North Corridor The North Corridor is the only alternative which would have agricultural impacts in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. While portions of the Minnesota North Corridor have been developing rapidly, numerous agricultural operations are still present, including a number of horse and hobby farms. Ac- cording to information supplied by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), a North Corridor BUILD decision could affect 85 acres of Minnesota cropland, 67 acres of which is considered prime. It is probable, however, that some of this acreage will go out of production in the next decade due to residential development, regardless of whether the North Corridor becomes the preferred alternative. If the North Corridor became the preferred alterna- tive, it is likely that strips of right -of -way would he required from several Minnesota firms, with some small parcels acquired in total. Depending on the precise alignment, a number of farms could be seriously affected, although at the larger, county level there would be no discernible effect on produc- tion. As in Wisconsin, a North Corridor tunnel would have less of an agricultural impact than a bridge. According to the worst -case scenario employed in the Wisconsin AIS, a North Corridor bridge would affect two farms in Wisconsin. Approximately 38 acres would be acquired for right- of-way, 13 acres of which is classified as prime and unique farmland. Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS e 1 1 1 Both the affected farms would have fields severed by the right -of -way, and the acquisition of a farm house would be required on one of the parcels. According to the AIS, the North Corridor would have the least overall agricultural impact of any BUILD alternative in Wisconsin. Central Corridor The Minnesota portion of the Central Corridor is largely developed, and there would be no impacts on agricultural land. In Wisconsin, the worst -case alignment evaluated in the AIS would require 28 acres from four farms, three of which would have parcels severed. No farm buildings would need to be acquired. The Central Corridor could affect up to 20 acres of prime and unique farmland. According to the AIS, the Central Corridor would affect the least amount of farmland in Wisconsin, but would be less preferable from an overall agricul- tural perspective than the North Corridor. In addi- tion to the larger number of farms impacted, an important reason for this is that the Central Corridor would affect two parcels which are zoned for ex- clusive agricultural use. One of these is enrolled in a twenty -year farmland preservation agreement, in which the state offers tax benefits to the owner for keeping the property in long -term agricultural use. St. Croix County and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection would have to grant approval before property enrolled in a farmland preservation agreement could be acquired for right -of -way. South Corridor The South Corridor would have no impact on agricultural land in Minnesota. The South Corridor would have the largest potential agricultural impacts of any of the Wisconsin BUILD alternatives. The Wisconsin AIS evaluated two potential worst -case alternatives, the northern and southern bridge alignments. The southern align- ment would require 103 acres of farmland, a quarter of which is considered to be prime and unique. All of the five affected farms would have severances, and a number of buildings on one of the operations would need to be acquired. Two of the impacted farms are zoned for exclusive agricultural use, and would have to be rezoned by St. Joseph Township. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS According to the AIS, the south alignment would have the greatest impact on Wisconsin agriculture of any of the alternatives. The northern alignment of the South Corridor would require 92 acres of farmland, 75 acres of which is classified as prime and unique. Six farms would be affected, two of which would have parcels severed. Farm buildings on two of the farms would need to be acquired. This alignment would have the second most severe agricultural impact of the alternatives evaluated in the Wisconsin AIS. Although the central alignment of the South Cor- ridor was not evaluated in the Wisconsin AIS, its impact would be roughly similar to the other South Corridor alternatives, requiring the acquisition of at least 90 acres of farmland. The South Corridor tunnel would require the least acreage of the South Corridor alternatives, as a significant portion of its route would be underground. MITIGATION The careful selection of an alignment can be an important means for mitigating farmland impacts. When avoiding impacts to fields is not possible, adverse effects can be reduced by following proper- ty lines. Affected farmers in both states will be consulted about how the movement of farm machinery and livestock between fields can be facilitated in ways which are both convenient for agricultural purposes and consistent with highway safety requirements. In some cases, compensation could be appropriate for increased costs incurred as a result of severed farm operations. Additional payments for damages or losses are also possible. Affected landowners must be given advance notice of construction schedules so that agricultural ac- tivities can be adjusted accordingly. To the greatest extent possible, the timing of clearing and construc- tion operations should be coordinated with farmers in order to minimize disruptions to agriculture. If a BUILD decision becomes the preferred alterna- tive, development pressure in portions of west - central Wisconsin is likely to increase. St. Croix County and the affected townships may have to re- evaluate their land use and development plans to ensure they remain adequate for agricultural protec- tion. 57 SOCIAL IMPACTS SUMMARY The major focus of the social impact analysis is on groups of people, and how their interactions within and between specific portions of the study area and region might be altered by the various alternatives. Along with economic impacts, this section and the special study it is based on are of key importance to local governments in the area. Their ability to plan for future growth and development, and meet the safety needs of their constituents are closely tied to the issues discussed here. Major topics covered in this section include the following: social cohesion; travel patterns and accessibility; community ser- vices and facilities; safety issues; and social groups which will be benefited or harmed. If NO -BUILD is the chosen alternative, the prin- cipal social impacts will result from increased con- gestion on both sides of the existing lift bridge. This will make historic downtown Stillwater a less attrac- tive place for residents and tourists. It will also make it increasingly difficult for many St. Croix County residents to commute to jobs in Minnesota. Lack of a new river crossing is, to a certain extent, likely to constrain new residential and commercial development in portions of St. Croix County. If a BUILD decision is made, the most important social impacts in the study area will result from two sets of changes: right -of -way acquisition and the relocation of households, and long -term socio- economic transformations resulting from increased development in previously rural areas. Right -of- way acquisition will affect both those who are re- quired to physically move to another area, as wcl l as people who are left in neighborhoods which could be dramatically altered. Long -term socio- economic changes in rural areas are less predictable, and partially depend on the effectiveness of local land use planning. In Minnesota, the predominate social effects of a Central or South Corridor decision would be the displacement of over thirty homes and at least one business. Most affected properties would be in Oak Park Heights. An entire neighborhood in this municipality would be severely disrupted, and the ambiance for those who remain in the immediate vicinity of the relocations will be very different than before. Construction activities will also make neighborhood life less pleasant for those left in the area. Social impacts along the more rural Minnesota North Corridor route would be very different. This area consists largely of commercial farms, hobby farms, and low - density residential development. While approximately 25 developed properties will need to be acquired, a specific neighborhood would not be affected. However, it new road in this cor- ridor will likely have the effect of stimulating development, possibly affecting the rural life -style which many residents were hoping for when they moved into the area. A new limited access highway in this corridor would be contrary to the regional planning policies of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council. In the Wisconsin corridors, the number of reloca- tions required would be relatively few (between 2 and 11), but all of the proposed BUILD alternatives would contribute to local increases in residential and commercial development in St. Croix County. In so doing, far- reaching, long -term social and economic changes in the county will likely be accelerated, as ties to the Twin Cities are strengthened and the rural agricultural base further diminishes in importance. The most important short -term social impacts in Wisconsin would result from a Central Corridor BUILD decision. The unincorporated hamlet of Houlton would be seriously affected, with ap- proximately 11 relocations probable. For those who remain, the area might seem less peaceful, although congestion from the lift bridge would he reduced or eliminated. It is possible that it new Central Cor- ridor bridge will stimulate new development in and around Houlton. Impacts resulting from a BUILD decision on com- munity facilities and services are likely to be minor in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. Services such as police and fire will benefit from the construction of a limited access highway due to less traffic conges- tion and no traffic signals. However, because there will also be fewer entrance and exit points, access to some areas is apt to be more limited than at present. Overall traffic safety will be improved by it new river crossing. Socially, the study area is relatively homogeneous, with few minorities. In terms of relocation, the most 58 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 important potential impacts would likely result from a number of elderly or low income people being affected, particularly in that portion of Oak Park Heights located in the South and Central Corridors. Large families - -which are likely to be more prevalent in the rural corridors - -could also pose some relocation challenges. In general, the study area has a high percentage of professional married couples making above average household incomes and living in single - family homes. It also has a large number of employees involved in manufacturing, reflecting the impor- tance of Bayport's Andersen Window Corporation as a regional employment center. More detailed information about social impacts is available in the special study on that topic done by Mn/DOT. Refer to the draft EIS affected environ- ment section for more details about the individual municipalities. COMMUNITY COHESION A major aim of community cohesion analysis is to illustrate how affected census tracts are similar or different, both from each other and the larger Twin Cities Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) they are part of. The community cohesion map in figure 30 illustrates the degree of social congruence and dis- similarity between census tracts in the study area. The thicker the line between two tracts, the more shared social characteristic indicators there are. Tracts with thin (or non- existent) connecting lines have fewer common social traits. The social cohesion map does not illustrate the amount of in- // PART OF 704.01 /fir ST. CROIX COUNTY Wisc. STILLWATER TOWNSHIP �Q. ✓r GRANT 6 V 1204 TOWNSHIP (55) r rr r I 705 lr (29) l r 706.01 i 706.0 \ (56) (25) r _ T.HL36 l 707.0 `\ SOURCE: 1980 CENSUS OF POPULATION ! (36) AND HOUSING PHC80 -2 -244 \ rl Figure 30 Community Cohesion Between Study Area Census Tracts Note: The relative thickness of connecting lines between tracts indicates the amount of shared social characteristic indicators. The actual numbers are in parentheses inside circles. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 59 teraction between people in various tracts; rather, it depicts the 12Qtential for interaction. The basic geographic units used are six tracts from the 1980 U.S. Census (shown in figures 28 and 30). The tract boundaries are sometimes- -but not always- - congruent with political jurisdictions in the area. The amount and type of information provided for each census tract in the study area is directly related to the potential for social impacts within its boun- daries. South Minnesota If a BUILD decision is made, by far the most impor- tant short -term social impacts would occur in the residential area of Oak Park Heights affected by the South and Central Corridor alternatives. This area, which is part of census tract 707.02, is located east of where the present TH 36 begins to curve north into Stillwater. Of the various options, the most disruptive social impacts are likely to result from the tunnel and northern bridge alignments of the South Corridor, which would require the acquisition of between 50 and 60 residences. The southern and central align- ments of the South Corridor would affect ap- proximately 40 Minnesota residences, many of which would be the same as under the northern alignment. The affected section of Oak Park Heights is charac- terized by modest, lower - middle to middle class houses which are scattered across the hillside as it slopes down toward TH 95 and the river. It is likely that the most serious impacts in areas adjacent to the construction will be on homes which are located in between the proposed new alignment and the exist- ing TH 36. These houses will lie in a small cluster, isolated between the old and new corridors; they will be affected by noise and a less appealing residential ambiance than existed before construction. Be- tween 5 and 20 homes could be left in this area, depending on the alignment. As depicted in the social cohesion map, Oak Park Heights/Bayport (tract 707.02) has a modest number of connections to other tracts in the study area. Interestingly, the least number of connections are to an adjacent tract (number 706.02). This indicates that a new limited access highway in the TH 36 corridor will not be severing two tracts which have a large degree of potential social cohesion. These areas are quite different, and the existing TH 36 has already been operating as a significant boundary between them for some time. One of the distinguishing characteristics of Oak Park Heights /tract 707.02 is the large percentage of residents who are employed in Washington County. Additionally, a high percentage of residents are employed in manufacturing jobs. According to the census, 45 percent of resident workers (over the age of 16) employed in the selected industries category were involved in manufacturing, compared to 37 percent in the study area and 23 percent in the MSA. Because a significant number of people are employed locally at the Andersen Window Com- pany, it is likely that many of the people who would be displaced in Oak Park Heights would be inter- ested in relocating in the area. Other relevant social characteristics in tract 707.02 include the highest median age in the study area and the lowest percentage of people with college educa- tion in the Minnesota tracts. Wisconsin In Wisconsin, all of the study corridors are located in census tract 1204, which includes the towns of St. Joseph and Somerset, as well as the Village of Somerset. As indicated by the community cohesion analysis, tract 1204 has the most important connec- tions with less densely settled areas (tracts 704.01 and 706.01). In the study area, tract 1204 has the lowest per capita income, the smallest percentage of college graduates, and the largest relative share of workers employed in manufacturing. More than 60 percent of the workers in Wisconsin tract 1204 work in Minnesota, reflecting the historical trend toward non -farm employment in the region (see figure 31). This is further illustrated by the fact that the tract has the highest average travel time to work in the study area - -23 minutes- -more than 2 minutes greater than the MSA average. A new river crossing would likely help reduce this average. The various South Corridor approaches through tract 1204 would traverse farmland, but would not affect any urban areas in the Wisconsin portion of the study area. There would be some social disrup- tion due to the acquisition of several homes and /or farms, a large amount of farmland acreage, and possibly a business, but the total number of im- proved properties directly affected will be relatively 60 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 J t 1 1 small, probably 6 or fewer, depending on the align- ment. An indirect effect which may eventually prove to be more important than initial displacement of people, particularly in the South Corridor, is the degree to which the new road stimulates development in pre- viously rural agricultural areas. Agricultural areas can tolerate a certain amount of low- density residen- tial development, but the two land uses can even- tually become incompatible. Substantial increases in residential and business development hold the potential for a dramatic long- term social impact in western St. Croix County. St. Croix County's shift away from farming towards a more urban orientation has been occurring for decades, but it would likely be increased by a new crossing in any of the proposed corridors. Central Corridor Minnesota A Central Corridor BUILD decision will have a major impact on the same Oak Park Heights neigh- borhood (tract 707.02) discussed in the preceding section. Approximately 30 developed properties in this area would need to be acquired for new highway construction, in addition to several houses and the River Oasis Superette along the cliff in Stillwater (tract 706.02). Aside from the loss of fewer homes, social impacts and mitigation in Oak Park Heights will be roughly similar to those described above under the South Corridor alternative. In spite of the loss of a few homes in Stillwater /tract 706.02, the direct social impacts of a Central Cor- ridor decision on the city are not likely to be major. The houses would be at the edge of the bluff, and the heart of the community they are a part of would not be severed. It is possible that a more important but less predictable effect would be how the changes would alter the way Stillwater is perceived by visitors and residents. Of all the BUILD alterna- tives, the Central Corridor would have the most negative impact on the nineteenth century rivertown atmosphere which is an integral part of Stillwater's heritage and identity. Wisconsin The Central Corridor would likely have the largest short -term social impact of any of the alternatives in Wisconsin. The reason for this is that the concentra- tion of residences in the Wisconsin portion of the study area is greatest in the Houlton vicinity. Both 30,000 Z 25,000 O20,000 ,tttt`t```tt�i���t� J 15,000 ������"' "►tvttt, O. �-�uttrtut►��tt� 10,000 rya " as' a. INS a. MEN a, a, 5,000 0 1960 1970 1980 YEAR m m Rural Farm Urban 111111 Rural Non —Farm SOURCE : We Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 1988 Figure 31 Rural and Urban Population Trends in St. Croix County: 1960 -1980 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 61 1 the north and south alignments would require ap- proximately 11 developed properties, mainly residences. Although Houlton is not incorporated, it does have the identity and appearance of a rural village; be- cause of its small size, the property acquisitions required for a Central Corridor BUILD decision- - especially in the south alignment - -would have an important adverse impact on the community's present atmosphere. If a new river crossing is constructed, Houlton would benefit from the elimination of long lines of idling traffic waiting for the lift on the existing bridge. Even if the old bridge remains under a BUILD decision, traffic problems caused by the lift would be greatly reduced because most vehicles would take the new crossing. With all of the BUILD options, eventual removal of the lift bridge would make access to downtown Stillwater more difficult for those living in the Houlton area, and diminish the historical connection between these two com- munities. North Corridor Minnesota The North Corridor bridge and tunnel approach roads would traverse rural and semi -rural areas. Both the North Corridor bridge and tunnel alterna- tives would require the acquisition of approximately two dozen developed properties in Minnesota, mainly in census tract 704.01 (which includes most of Stillwater and Grant Townships) and, to a lesser extent, tract 706.01 (which is mainly in the City of Stillwater). The impact of the tunnel option could also extend to a number of homes in tract 705, in the northern half of the City of Stillwater. Affected properties would likely include farms, scattered residences, and a garden store at the junc- tion of TH 36 and County Road 15. Although the bridge and tunnel would not require exactly the same properties, social impacts would be similar. Because of the relatively light development in this corridor, community social impacts due to right -of- way relocations would not be nearly as great as with those options which affect more densely settled areas. As detailed in the economic impacts special study, however, traffic - sensitive businesses along the current TH 36 commercial area could be severe- ly affected by a North Corridor route. With through traffic diverted to the North Corridor, some of these businesses might not be economically viable in their current location; this could produce indirect social impacts (e.g., owners are forced to move business and residence, while local consumers must go else- where to shop). Census data indicate that, compared to the study area and the MSA as a whole, census tracts 704.01 and 706.01 have a relatively large share of professional, well - educated, high -income households, living in expensive single - family homes. This area has a high percentage of school age children, and com- paratively few elderly residents. There is a strong employment orientation towards St. Paul and Ram- sey County. Wisconsin On the Wisconsin side of the river (tract 1204), approximately 5 or 6 developed properties would be acquired for both the bridge and tunnel options. General census information would be the same as that described earlier for tract 1204. A relatively small amount of farmland would be affected by a North Corridor bridge, with fewer impacts likely if the tunnel option is selected, as a significant portion of the route would be underground. Overall, the social impacts of a BUILD decision in Wisconsin are likely to be least severe with the North Corridor alternative, as the number of relocations would be fairly small and the corridor length short. In general, a decision to build in the North Corridor will increase bonds between tracts which already have comparatively high readings on the social cohesion index. As illustrated by the social cohesion map, tracts 706.01, 704.01, and 1204 have more in common than any other portions of the study area, and it is likely that all three tracts would experience many of the same changes as a result of the new highway. As with all the BUILD alterna- tives, the St. Croix River would provide a less sig- nificant barrier to development pressure flowing outward from the Twin Cities than it has in the past. A new river crossing would strengthen the social and economic linkages between the Minnesota and Wisconsin sections of the Lower St. Croix Valley, the various parts of which have a long history of interdependency. No -Build The two most important social impacts of a NO- BUILD decision would be caused by two major factors: increasing traffic congestion on both sides of existing the lift bridge (as well as for watercraft 62 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 Ll 1 C Ll Fi A t a [1 [l L I I 1 waiting to go underneath), and constraints on economic opportunities for people living in western Wisconsin. While no people would be displaced by the NO- BUILD option, mobility during times of peak con- gestion would continue to decrease for local residents in the Stillwater - Houlton area. Addition- ally, visitors to downtown Stillwater would be directly affected by growing levels of traffic; the town's attractiveness as a tourist destination would be diminished. In general, it is likely that as traffic volumes continue to increase through central Stillwater, the city will become a less desirable place to live in, pass through, and visit. A NO -BUILD decision is in conflict with the future Stillwater has envisioned for itself, as detailed in the comprehen- sive plan for the downtown area. In Wisconsin, the effects of a NO -BUILD decision would be concentrated in the previously discussed tract 1204. However, social and economic impacts would not be limited to this area. The existing river crossing at Stillwater serves a large area of western Wisconsin, as well as the recreation areas to the north. A NO BUILD decision would make it harder for St. Croix County residents to reach the more abundant employment and shopping opportunities in Minnesota. Similarly, businesses interested in locating in western Wisconsin might be discouraged because of the relative lack of good transportation routes into the Twin Cities. With the continuing expansion of the Twin Cities Metro Area, social and economic ties to western Wisconsin have been in- creasing, but they are likely to be inhibited by a NO -BUILD decision. By contrast, construction of a new river crossing near Stillwater will augment the interaction between the Twin Cities and western Wisconsin. With this increase will likely come an expanding interest in new residential, commercial, and industrial development, and a growing urban orientation. For some residents, the possibility of losing more of the rural ambiance in St. Croix County will outweigh the socio- economic benefits associated with better access to the Twin Cities. Mitigation Mitigation for the effects of relocation is limited, and is discussed more fully in the relocation section of this draft EIS. With the South and Central Cor- ridors, one mitigation measure might include aban- doning the old TH 36 corridor and opening it up to new residential or commercial development. In Oak Park Heights, in particular, an effort will be made to reduce the noise and visual impacts to people remaining in the vicinity of the new corridor, during and after construction. If there is a BUILD decision, every attempt will be made to see that displaced people can find new housing which meets their domestic needs and is within reasonable commuting distance of their place of employment. In rural areas, there will be fewer social effects caused by relocation, although secondary impacts resulting from increased development are likely. If a BUILD decision becomes the preferred alterna- tive, a given level of development in rural areas is not inevitable; to a significant extent, it will depend on local attitudes towards development, and how these values are reflected in zoning, farmland preservation plans, and other manifestations of local planning. Additionally, the location of entrance/exit ramps and frontage roads can play an important role in influencing where development will occur. CHANGES IN TRAVEL PATTERNS AND ACCESSIBILITY South Corridor As with all the BUILD options, a new South Cor- ridor crossing will result in a diminished traffic flow through downtown Stillwater. This will help preserve the historic ambiance of the town, and make the CBD safer and more pleasant for pedestrians. As already mentioned, Minnesotans would have increased accessibility to Wisconsin recreational at- tractions such as the Apple River and northern lakes area. In addition, the overall effect on people travel- ing west from St. Croix County will be easier access to Minnesota in general and the Twin Cities in particular. Many St. Croix County residents who work in Minnesota should find it much easier to commute to their jobs than in the past . Nearly 30 percent of the working residents in census tract 1204 are employed across the river in Washington Coun- ty. Another 30 percent of the workers in this tract are employed in Hennepin or Ramsey County; less than a third of the workers in tract 1204 commute to jobs which are in St. Croix County (see figure 32). Stillwater- Houkon River Crossing Draft EIS 63 1 Major reasons for increased regional accessibility would be the elimination of traffic signals along TH 36, and allowing through traffic to avoid the lift bridge and signals in downtown Stillwater. Along TH 36, accessibility to businesses will be main- tained by a number of ramps, overpasses, and frontage roads. The only notable decrease in accessibility with a new South Corridor crossing would occur if the existing bridge were to be closed at some point in the future. This would make access to downtown Stillwater more difficult for those living in the vicinity of Houlton, near the current crossing. How- ever, it is possible that the new crossing would result in improved accessibility to Stillwater for these people compared to times when traffic is backed up on the old bridge as a result of boat traffic. 70 70% 50% 50% 30% The degree to which pedestrian and bicycle traffic is affected by a new South Corridor crossing will be partially determined by whether the existing bridge remains open. Should it be left in place, it could continue to serve as a pedestrian and bicycle link between Stillwater and Houlton. The role of the old bridge as a conduit for pedestrians and bicyclists could become more important than it is now if Stillwater develops Kolliner Park. If the old bridge is closed, Stillwater's plans for making better use of Kolliner Park could be jeopardized. In general, diminished through- traffic in downtown Stillwater will facilitate the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists through the area. One potential disadvantage of a new limited access cor- ridor along the present TH 36 will be fewer crossing opportunities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and 20% 10% 30% 20% SOURCE: U.S. Bureau Of The Census dines Indicate the percent of employed individuals that commute to Hennepin, Ramsey, or Washington Counties of Metropolitan Minneapolis —St. Paul. 0% Figure 32 1980 Minneapolis -St. Paul Commutershed: St. Croix County 64 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vehicles. However, the new crossings should be safer than previously. Central Corridor The improvements in accessibility which will occur with a new South Corridor crossing will also hold true with a Central Corridor BUILD decision. If the old bridge is closed, access to downtown Stillwater will involve some back- tracking for those coming from Wisconsin on a new central crossing. The reason for this is that drivers will exit the new highway at an intersection near the Stillwater -Oak Park Heights boundary; once off, they will have to travel back a mile north on TH 95 to get to the downtown area. Except for increased vehicular traffic on the TH 36/95 common section, impacts on pedestrian and bicycle traffic should be toughly the same as with a new South Corridor crossing. Through- traffic on a Central Corridor bridge would not interfere with non- vehicular movement in downtown Stillwater. North Corridor The North Corridor bridge and tunnel options are fundamentally different from the other BUILD pos- sibilities in that they require a wide detour west and north of Stillwater. As with the Central Corridor, travelers going from Wisconsin to downtown Stillwater will not be able to go directly to their destination (unless the existing bridge remains in place). The first interchange that westbound motorists will encounter after crossing the river will be northwest of central Stillwater, necessitating a trip back east in order to get on the north -south TH 95. For travelers going to the Twin Cities from western Wisconsin, the trip is likely to be longer than for the Central or South Corridor BUILD alter- natives, but probably less time- consuming than the present trip over the old bridge and through downtown Stillwater. Among the BUILD options, a North Corridor decision is likely to be the ]cast desirable for the many Wisconsin residents who commute to jobs in the Minnesota portion of the study area. The Ander- sen Window Corporation in Bayport is one of the largest employers in the St. Croix Valley; over 1,000 of its more than 3,600 employees live in Wisconsin. Many of these workers currently use the existing Stillwater lift bridge, and must contend with conges- tion at certain times of the day. While a new North Corridor crossing would eliminate the delays on the bridge, employees living in Wisconsin would he Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS forced to travel a very circuitous route to get to and from work if they wished to avoid traveling through downtown Stillwater. As discussed earlier, traffic along the present TH 36 corridor between County Road 15 and Stillwater would fall dramatically, threatening the vitality of some businesses which are currently located along this strip. Depending upon zoning restrictions and access availability, traffic - sensitive businesses along the TH 36 commercial corridor might have a strong incentive to relocate along the new Min- nesota North Corridor. The impact of a North Corridor decision on bicyclists and pedestrians in downtown Stillwater would be similar to the other BUILD decisions. The major difference between this and the other options is that bicycling along County Road 15 and TH 90 would be much less attractive due to increased traf- fic. Currently, County Road 15 has a designated bike route along its shoulder. No -Build One of the major effects of a NO- BUILD decision will be continued, increasing congestion in downtown Stillwater, with traffic delays on both sides of the lift bridge during the boating season. The accessibility of jobs in Minnesota for people living in western Wisconsin is likely to diminish as traffic increases at the current bottleneck. Increased travel time between this part of Wisconsin and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is likely to dampen the area's desirability as a residential and business location. Because of growing congestion, a NO -BUILD decision would likely diminish the accessibility of popular recreational areas on the Apple River and northern Wisconsin lakes for Twin Cities residents. Although those headed to a lake in northern Wiscon- sin have a number of crossing options further upstream from Stillwater, the Stillwater - Houlton crossing and associated approach roads (i.e., TH 36 and STH 35/64) are by far the most direct for Twin Cities residents headed for a day of recreational inner - tubing on the Apple River. A NO -BUILD decision is likely to have an increas- ingly adverse impact on pedestrians and bicyclists in downtown Stillwater. Any effort to speed the flow of traffic through the central city is apt to conflict with non - vehicular movements in the area. The continued heavy flow of traffic over the current lift bridge is also likely to make this facility less 65 appealing for pedestrians and bicyclists than it would be if a new crossing was available to absorb much of the pressure. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES In general, community services and facilities will not be seriously impacted by any of the BUILD alternatives. A major reason for this is that a special effort was made to avoid these features when the preliminary corridors were drawn. There is a potential, however, for some school enrollment im- pacts, particularly in Oak Park Heights. Another concern is that emergency vehicle routes will be altered by the construction of limited access cor- ridors. In addition, all of the BUILD options would have some impact on recreational areas, particularly along the St. Croix River. A BUILD decision should have little impact on churches, cemeteries, or other community facilities not discussed here. School Districts In Minnesota, all of the proposed new corridors would be located in School District 834. Wisconsin impacts will be divided between the Hudson and Somerset Districts; Vo -Tech District 1 would also be affected. None of the corridors in either state would require the relocation of a school, although the South and Central Corridors would pass within easy walking distance of several schools. In all of the proposed corridors, school impacts are likely to be substantially greater in Minnesota than in Wisconsin. Aside from a greater physical proximity to schools, an important reason for this is the much greater number of households which will require relocation in each of the Minnesota corridors options. In Minnesota, the South and Central Corridor routes would pass within a half -mile of two schools- - Stillwater Senior High with a 1989 enrollment of 1,895, and Oak Park Elementary with 688 students (see figure 33). Within a mile and a half of the South and Central Corridors are a number of other schools, including Stillwater Junior High, Lily Lake Elemen- tary, Stonebridge Elementary, Bayport Elementary, and the Washington Campus of Stillwater Senior High. Stillwater Senior High School should suffer no major adverse impacts from any of the proposed crossing options as a result of student attrition. Be- .. cause the area served is relatively large, it is likely that a substantial number of displaced high school students will relocate within the district and still be able to attend the same school. There are two main junior high schools which could be impacted by a BUILD decision. Junior high students in the Oak Park Heights neighborhood af- fected by the South and Central Corridor alterna- tives attend Oakland Junior High, which is located about a half mile north of the junction of I -94 and County Road 15 (not on the map). A North Corridor decision would also affect students in this school, as its boundaries extend up to the junction of County Road 15 and TH 96. As with Stillwater High, it is likely that a substantial number of displaced stu- dents would relocate within the boundaries of the area served by the school. Current enrollment is 1,002 students, and the number of students lost to the school as a result of any of the corridor options is not likely to have a serious long -term impact on the facility's viability. A small number of Junior High students in the eastern section of the North Corridor and the Stillwater portion of the Central Corridor attend Stillwater Junior High. Current enrollment at this school is 702. A few students could be lost to the school as a result of a North or Central Corridor decision, but the overall impact would be minor. Enrollment impacts on elementary schools as a result of the various BUILD alternatives are more complex, as the study area includes portions of six different elementary jurisdictions. The largest potential short -term enrollment impact would be to Bayport Elementary, which has 356 students. This school serves the Oak Park Heights neighborhood affected by both the South and Central Corridor options. Enrollment impacts on other elementary schools as a result of a BUILD decision will be much less pronounced, with the loss of a few students possible. With one passible exception, school enrollment im- pacts in Wisconsin will be minor, with the Central Corridor alignments having the largest potential ef- fect. Most of the residences potentially affected by a BUILD decision are located within the Hudson School District, with a few possible in Somerset. The greatest potential enrollment impact would he on Houlton Elementary (which has an enrollment of 106 students) with the Central Corridor option. Ap- proximately 11 households in the Houlton area could be affected with this alternative; it is not Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 l t i� t F" fl i r) IJJ f_I 1 known how many - -if any - -of these households ac- tually have children which attend Houlton Elemen- tary. The school is located several blocks east of Houlton on County Road E. Enrollment losses are not the only potential school impacts of a BUILD decision. One effect of con- structing a new, limited access highway in the vicinity of a large number of school children is the increased difficulty of crossing on foot or by bike. This problem - -which would be most acute along the TH 36 corridor - -could be mitigated by the strategic placement of pedestrian ramps over the new high- way; overpasses should be constructed with enough space so that student pedestrians and bicyclists can cross safely and not interfere with traffic. Addition- ally, school bus routes may need to be altered some- what if a BUILD decision is made in any of the proposed corridors. Another potential impact resulting from a BUILD decision would be the loss of school district property tax revenues; this issue is discussed in the fiscal impacts section of the draft EIS. Police, Fire, and Medical Services Police and fire protection in the Minnesota portion of the study comes from four stations: the City of Stillwater Government Center; Washington County Government Offices; Bayport; and Oak Park Heights (see figure 33). The major medical facility in the Minnesota study area is Stillwater's Lakeview Hospital, which is located two- thirds of a mile north of TH 36 near Lily Lake. The overall effect of a BUILD decision on area -wide police, fire, and medical services will be strongly beneficial due to reduced congestion and traffic delays. During summer backup periods, emergency vehicles which ordinarily would go to Stillwater must sometimes avoid the lift bridge and take patients twenty miles east to the New Richmond Hospital, or south to the hospital in Hudson. Am- bulances leaving Stillwater for Wisconsin must cross the lift bridge both going and coming, and contend with heavy traffic in between. Lakeview Hospital should directly benefit from a Central or South Corridor decision. If entrance/exit ramps are constructed at the junction of Oasis Avenue and TH 36 (as anticipated), emergency vehicles will have good access to the highway, and should be able to reach many destinations more quickly than at present. Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS In some cases, a new river crossing corridor would leave emergency vehicles with reduced access. For example, one concern with the South and Central Corridor options is that Oak Park Heights and Washington County police vehicles will not be able to get on TH 36 as quickly if it is converted into a limited access facility. In the Wisconsin portion of the study area, police support is supplied by the St. Croix County Sheriff's Department, with a Main Office in Hudson and a Patrol Division Office in Hammond. In addition, various support staff is scattered around the county, including a constable in Houlton who is based at home. Fire protection in the Town of St. Joseph is supplied by a station located east of Houlton, at the junction of County Roads E and V. The Town of Somerset is covered by a station located east of the Village of Somerset. The basic advantages and disadvantages of a BUILD decision on Minnesota emergency services will also hold true for the Wisconsin portion of the study area. Congestion along STH 35/64 will be substantially reduced, increasing response time. This advantage would be especially apparent in the summer; delays caused by the lift bridge could be avoided, facilitating access to the Stillwater and New Richmond Hospitals, and other areas. On the other hand, limited access along a new corridor will make it more difficult for police and fire trucks to get on and off in some areas. Recreation Areas The most important recreation impacts of each of the proposed corridors are discussed in detail in the Section 4 (f) documents. The resources covered in these reports include the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, Kolliner Park, and Mile Long Island. Recreation areas which could be less direct- ly impacted include Stillwater's Lowell Park (Central Corridor), the Boomsite Wayside (North Corridor Bridge), and small public boat launches east of Mile Long Island in Wisconsin (North Cor- ridor Bridge), and near the King Power Plant in Minnesota (south alignment of the South Corridor). While these areas would not be directly affected, there could be visual and /or noise impacts which would be difficult to mitigate. There are several other potential impacts on existing or planned recreation areas in the study area. First, the North Corridor tunnel corridor runs close to a 67 A STILLWATER SENIOR HIGH B OAK PARK ELEMENTARY C STILLWATER JUNIOR HIGH D LILY LAKE ELEMENTARY E STONEBRIDGE ELEMENTARY F BAYPORT ELEMENTARY G WASHINGTON CAMPUS W HflI 11 TM1 CI cucki mov 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF 2 OAK PARK HEIGHTS POLICE 3 BAYPORT POLICE AND FIRE 4 LAKEVIEW HOSPITAL 5 STILLWATER SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 6 ALAN KING POWER PLANT 7 CITY OF STILLWATER POLICE AND FIRE A QT .U7Q=P14 9I01: QTATIAN Figure 33 Selected Community Facilities 68 Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS 1� 1 1 n L_J L� F1 small wayside (Otto Berg Memorial Park) located near the junction of TH 96, Norell Avenue North, and Stone Bridge Trail North. Further to the east, the tunnel approach road would run through Brown's Creek Valley, which is not a park but includes a designated trout stream. (Impacts on the creek and possible mitigation are discussed in two special studies -- threatened and endangered species, and natural resources.) A North Corridor route would also go past Aamodt's Apple Farm, located on the western edge of the present County 15 align- ment. A relatively small amount of property would likely be acquired along the edge of the orchard if the North Corridor became the preferred alternative. The farm offers apple picking in the fall and cross - country skiing in the winter. Finally, a Central Corridor decision may have an effect on long -term plans the City of Stillwater has for a new riverfront park and /or parking area south of the existing Lowell Park. Churches and Cemeteries There are a large number of churches in the study area, mainly in downtown Stillwater. None of the churches in any of the corridors would be directly affected. There are also three cemeteries located within a few blocks of various North, Central, and South Corridor alignments. None of the corridor options will encroach on cemetery property. IMPACTS O N SAFETY One of the major beneficial effects of a new river crossing would be reduced traffic congestion on Minnesota TH 36 and Wisconsin STH 35/64. Cur- rently, both of these roads have accident rates which are in excess of state averages for similar facilities elsewhere. Geometric deficiencies which contribute to these high accident rates include a bottleneck at the current bridge; traffic signals and pedestrian conflicts in downtown Stillwater; and numerous access points along TH 36 and STH 35/64 which result in the mixing of local and through traffic. With Average Daily Traffic (ADT) levels predicted to roughly double by the year 2014, safety problems can be expected to greatly increase without a new crossing and corridor improvements. Aside from the increased potential for accidents involving motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists, the Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS traffic congestion in this corridor creates problems for emergency vehicles, jeopardizing people's safety. As discussed earlier, the ability of emergen- cy medical vehicles to reach patients quickly would be improved by a new river crossing. While it is likely that a new river crossing would result in an overall improvement in public safety, there is the possibility that some traffic - related dangers will increase. Because access to the new approach roads would be more limited, crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists would be fewer than at present. This could present a danger to younger people, in particular, who may be tempted to dash across the middle of the road rather than walk or ride to an overpass. It is probable that walking or biking along the upgraded highway would be more dangerous at present due to higher speeds, unless protective fencing is added adjacent to the roadway. SOCIAL GROUPS SPECIALLY HARMED OR BENEFITED Socially, the study area is not remarkably different from the rest of the Twin Cities MSA; it is a rela- tively homogeneous locale. There are no large con- centrations of any particular social group which would be disproportionately affected by any of the BUILD alternatives. The greatest potential for an impact on a particular social group is probably in Oak Park Heights census tract 707.02, which has a slightly higher percentage of low income groups and elderly people. A small number of farm families are likely to be displaced by a BUILD decision. As detailed in the agricultural impacts section of the draft EIS, how- ever, impacts on area farmers will involve more than physical relocation. In some cases, farm parcels will be severed, and access to some fields will be made more difficult. In addition, pressures to convert farmland to residential developments will probably increase. As a result of these factors, a BUILD decision in any corridor will have a negative impact on the long -term viability of farming as an occupa- tion and a way of life. .• RELOCATION AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS AND BUSINESSES In all of the corridors, the effects of relocation would be the single most important short -term social im- pact resulting from a BUILD decision. While a few small businesses could be relocated, the dominant effect will be on households, including a relatively small number of farmhouses. The precise number of people required to move in each corridor is not known. What is known is an approximate number of households which will be affected by each corridor, as well as a persons per household ratio for the various jurisdictions. There is no guarantee, of course, that the persons per household ratio in affected areas will be the same as it is for the jurisdiction as a whole. In general, the less developed areas tend to have higher persons per household ratios than cities or towns. According to 1988 Metro Council data, for example, Oak Park Heights and Stillwater had per- sons per household ratios of 2.58 and 2.76, respec- tively, while rural areas such as Baytown, Grant, and Stillwater Townships had ratios which ranged be- tween 3.22 and 3.28. Data supplied by the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission indicates that the persons per household ratio for St. Croix County was approximately 2.88 in 1988. One implication of these differences is that the relocation of a given number of households in a rural or semi - rural area (e.g., the North Corridor) is likely to involve more people and larger families than the same number of households in a more urban locale. Larger families can be more difficult to relocate due to school considerations and the need for more space. Relocation impacts would be greatest under the South and Central Corridor options (see table 9). TABLE 9 ESTIMATED RELOCATIONS, BY CORRIDOR Corridor Affected Persons Affected Affected Persons Affected Total Total Residences Per People Residences Per People Residences Persons Household QdhD (WI) Household (WI) (MN/Wl) (MNM) North Corridor 25 -26 3.221 81 -84 5 -6 2.882 14 -17 30 -32 95 -101 Central Corridor 32 2.583 83 11 2.88 32 43 115 South Corridor North Alignment and Tunnel 55 2.58 142 5 -6 2.88 14 -17 60 -61 156 -159 South and Central Alignments 38 2.58 98 2 -4 2.88 6 -12 40 -42 104 -110 Note: Figures given for relocated residences and Mrsons are only approximations. The precise alignment of each corridor has not been determined. Should one of the corridors listed hem become the preferred alternative, the actual number of relocations could be either more or less than those estimated here. The figures are most useful as a way to compare the relative impacts of the various alternatives. 1 Persons per household ratio (1988) for Stillwater Township, the Minnesota jurisdiction most affected by the North Corridor alignments. Data supplied by the Metropolitan Council. 2 Persons per household ratio (1988) for St. Croix County. Estimated by the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 3 Persons per household ratio (1988) for Oak Park Heights, which includes the majority of Minnesota residences affected by the Central and South Corridor alternatives. Estimated by the Metropolitan Council. 70 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Estimated South Corridor relocations would affect between 40 and 61 households, plus 1 or 2 small businesses in each alignment. Central Corridor relocations are estimated to affect approximately 43 households, in addition to at least 2 businesses. As in the South Corridor, employment losses due to lost businesses would be small, with no major effect on regional employment. A North Corridor decision would affect 30 or more residences and at least one business. (These calculations assume that affected residences are single family dwellings. It is possible a few duplexes or triplexes may be affected, in which case these estimates are slightly low.) SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RELOCATED POPULATION The study area as a whole has a very small number of minorities, and all of the affected individual census tracts have minority populations which are less than 2 percent of the total. Consequently, it is probable that very few - -if any -- minorities will be required to relocate as a result of a Build decision. Three of the census tracts have elderly populations which are above the MSA average percentage of 9.5. More than 17 percent of the population in tract 705 is over the age of 64, while tracts 706.02 and 707.02 have a share which is between 12 and 13 percent. (See census tract map in figure 28.) In terms of relocation impacts, the only tract where a high elder- ly population could be a notable concern is 707.02, in the Oak Park Heights neighborhood affected by the South and Central corridors. Statistically, it is probable that more than a dozen elderly people in Oak Park Heights will require relocation. Extra care is often needed in relocating elderly residents, as they may possess particularly strong ties to an area, have special requirements, and /or be less able to tolerate the rigors of moving. Income is another factor which can affect the ease with which people adapt to relocation. In general, wealthier people have more housing options; they tend to have greater mobility than the poor due to higher income and education levels. The North Cor- ridor route, in particular, would likely affect a sub - stantial percentage of comparatively large, high income families. The only study tract with a median household in- come even slightly below the 1980 MSA average is 705. When mean household income is considered, Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS tracts 705, 706.02, and 707.02 are a little below the MSA average. According to the 1980 census, be- tween 22 and 25 percent of the households in these tracts made less than 10,000 dollars a year, com- pared to a MSA average of slightly more than 21 percent in this income bracket. Per capita income is less than the MSA average in tracts 705, 706.01, 706.02, and 1204. While the data on income do not indicate an excep- tional amount of poverty in the study area, low income people are present in large enough numbers so that they could be a factor in relocation efforts, particularly if a South or Central BUILD decision is made. Assuming that 50 households require reloca- tion in Oak Park Heights /tract 706.02, for example, it is possible that close to a dozen of them were earning less than $10,000 when the 1980 census was taken. If these household incomes have done little more than keep up with inflation since then, new housing options could be fairly limited. These people may need extra assistance from the Min- nesota Department of Transportation in obtaining new housing. Within the study area, there is significant variation in both owner- renter and single family - multiple family percentages. According to the 1980 census, however, all of the tracts were above the MSA average in percent of owner - occupied and single family dwellings. Tracts 704.01 and 706.01 had an owner - occupied share of over 90 percent, the highest in the study area. These tracts, which include the outskirts of the Stillwater developing area, also had the highest percentage of single family dwell- ings, between 93 and 95 percent. Tract 1204 in Wisconsin occupied an intermediate position, with nearly 82 percent of its housing units being owner - occupied, and more than 84 percent being single family. Tracts 705, 706.02, and 707.02 had owner occupied percentages ranging between 71 and 76 percent; these tracts also had the lowest share of single family units (between 67 and 75 percent) in the study area. In all of the proposed corridors, it seems likely that it large majority of the residents requiring relocation currently live in owner -oc- cupied, single- family houses. The median value of owner- occupied residences in the study area is significantly greater than the MSA figure in tracts 704.01 ($87,100) and 706.01 ($73,000). This indicates that for right -of -way pur- poses, the average cost per acquired residence is likely to be highest in the North Corridor. Tract 705 71 has the lowest median value for owner - occupied housing in the study area -- $54,500, more than 12 percent below the MSA median. For renter occupied housing, tracts 705, 706.02, 707.02, and 1204 had median rates which were more than 10 percent below the MSA value. Tract 706.02, however, had a median rental value which was nearly 15 percent higher than the MSA figure. There are several large ethnic groups in portions of the study area which may be affected by relocation. In Wisconsin tract 1204 (all corridors), for example, over 14 percent of the population is of French an- cestry, nearly 12 percent above the MSA average. Minnesota census tract 706.02 (South and Central Corridors) has a comparatively large share of per- sons with Irish heritage -- nearly 18 percent of the population, almost 11 percent above the MSA average. As in the MSA as a whole, German heritage is very common in the study area, with all of the tracts being above the eleven county MSA average of 33 percent. Tracts which are more than 10 percent above the MSA average for German heritage are 705 (North Corridor) and 706.01 (all corridors). No spe- cial mitigation procedures should be necessary for any of these ethnic groups, as all of them are well integrated into mainstream American culture. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE The South and Central Corridor alternative would affect numerous lower -value residences, mainly in Oak Park Heights. The Central Corridor alternative would also impact a number of lower -income residences in Houlton. Approximately 75 percent of the residences in the affected portion of Oak Park Heights are owner -oc- cupied. According to the Regional Multiple Listing Service, only one house was sold in this area be- tween January 1 and June 30, 1989. The selling price was $35,500. Two other homes were on the market during this time, but failed to sell. The listing price for both was $39,900. This part of Oak Park Heights is a unique pocket of lower -value residences. In examining properties sold in unaffected portions of Oak Park Heights and neighboring Stillwater, it was determined that they are located in very different housing markets. Therefore, they are not helpful in valuing the proposed acquisitions. The Regional Multiple Listing Service dated November 1989 provides that approximately 200 F residences are available for sale in the Stillwater/Bayport area. The single family dwell- ings range in value from $49,000 to $659,000. Only ten residences valued less than $60,000 are avail- able. With these ten, only one and two bedrooms per residence can be accommodated. As mentioned earlier the persons per household ratio in Oak Park Heights was 2.58. Consequently, a two or three bedroom replacement home will be required in most cases. The North Corridor Build decision would affect higher value residences (over 90% owner -oc- cupied). The Regional Multiple Listing Service reveals that several residences in this area valued from $132,500 to $299,000 were sold between January 1 and June 30, 1989. In the Stillwater/Bayport area, over 100 residences are available in this price range. With approximately 3.25 persons per household, three or four bedroom residences would be a minimum requirement in most cases. This requirement could be met since these houses have between three and five bedrooms. Also, the activity in this area indicates that there is little difficulty finding a residence in this price range. Where the existing housing inventory is insufficient, does not meet the relocation standards, or is not within the financial capability of the displaced per- sons, an investigation to determine the land avail- able for residential zoning would be prudent. By working with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, this could be accomplished and a housing development could be made available in a location such as Baytown Township. If housing cannot be made available, Mn/DOT is committed to assisting landowners by using last resort options. It is anticipated that those who wish to remain in the same general community will be able to do so. Even though residents affected by the proposed South and Central Corridors in Oak Park Heights may not be able to remain in Oak Park Heights, they will be able to relocate in neighboring communities. Therefore, community ties such as schools and churches should not be seriously affected. The largest potential business relocation would be with the North Corridor alternative. A garden store employing between 5 and 20 seasonal employees exists in the corridor, at the junction of TH 36 and County Road 15. Many sites are available in the area where this business could relocate. Other busi- nesses possibly affected include an apple orchard Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 f f] F, 17, h (which would be a partial taking) and a home -based business. Neither of these businesses present a relocation problem. The southern alignment of the South Corridor would require the relocation of a restaurant in Wisconsin (less than 20 employees). With the Central Corridor alternative, a Cafe/Bait /Gas Station in Minnesota (less than 10 employees) and a restaurant in Wiscon- sin (less than 20 employees) would be affected. One or two home businesses could also be affected in each of these corridors. It is anticipated that these relocations would be fairly uncomplicated since nearby sites are available. The acquisition and relocation of displaced residen- ces will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and relocation resources are available to all residences and business relocatees without discrimination. Mn/DOT attempts to ensure that each displaced household is relocated into housing that is "decent, safe, and sanitary," is in the same general neighbor- hood (if desired), and is affordable within the finan- cial means of the household. Mn/DOT attempts to complete each relocation within 90 days from the date of property acquisition. The Mn/DOT reloca- tion office, through many sources, keeps a current listing of homes for sale and apartments for rent. Persons of lower income are given priority for public housing. Moving expenses are computed on ECONOMIC IMPACTS Economic impacts will be discussed in two major sections -- commercial impacts and fiscal impacts. While not all economic impacts fall neatly into these two categories, these are the major groups of effects which would result from a new river crossing at Stillwater- Houlton. Adverse commercial impacts from highway con- struction can occur when traffic is diverted away from existing businesses, access is curtailed, or ap- peal is diminished due to dust and noise. Positive commercial impacts may result from improved ac- cess or diminished congestion. An additional short- a room schedule basis. Business and farm opera- tions are also granted moving expenses, payment for time spent in search of a replacement site, and appraisal fees. A displaced owner - occupant may receive a sup- plemental replacement housing payment from Mn/DOT. This payment is the amount determined, which when added to the amount Mn/DOT pays for the acquired dwelling, equals the actual cost which the owner pays for a comparable dwelling, or the amount determined by Mn/DOT as necessary to purchase a comparable dwelling, whichever is less. The amount of this has recently been increased from $15,000 to 512,500, under the federal law. As a last resort, if satisfactory replacement housing of comparable value to that acquired cannot be located, MnJDOT will locate the displaced household in other housing with no upper limit on cost. Mn/DOT will explore all possible sources of reloca- tion assistance funding which may be available to displaced businesses. Emphasis will be placed on providing relocation advisory services to busi- nesses. Appropriate measures will be taken to en- sure that all businesses which are to be displaced are fully aware of their benefits and entitlements, cour- ses of action which are open to them, and any special provisions designed to encourage businesses to relo- cate within the same community. term benefit can result from demand for construction materials and workers. Fiscal impacts occur when the construction of new highways or other public facilities requires the ac- quisition of private land and buildings. The acquired property is tbemby removed from the tax rolls of the various districts (i.e., political jurisdictions, school districts, etc.), with effects varying due to the amount of lost revenue and the size of the tax base. For a more complete discussion of these impacts, refer to the economic and fiscal impacts special studies. Stillwater - Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS 73 COMMERCIAL IMPACTS The economic viability of commercial areas can be affected by factors such as visibility, ease of access, and traffic volume on adjacent roads. While some types of businesses are very sensitive to the amount Of passing traffic, the success of others is virtually independent of vehicle volumes in the area. The nature of the goods and services for sale is a key determinant of whether a retail outlet is "traffic sensitive For outlets selling convenience or travel- related goods such as fast food or gasoline, virtually every passing motorist is a prospective customer; adverse economic impacts will likely result if traffic is diverted. For stores offering specialty goods such as home appliances, musical instruments, or automobiles, prospective customers are drawn from a relatively small, focussed sector of the overall market spectrum. Little or no impact will result from a traffic diversion, as customers are often willing to travel comparatively long distances and visit several stores before reaching a purchase decision. Businesses which are not sensitive to traffic volumes and are located in congested shopping areas can sometimes realize a beneficial impact when through traffic is routed away from the front- ing thoroughfare. Motorists with no desire to stop and shop in the congested area will follow the new route to avoid delay. This diminishes traffic conges- tion in the local retail area, increasing its attractive- ness and convenience for people who come into the area specifically to shop or browse. In the Minnesota portion of the study area, two major shopping areas exist. First, there are numerous businesses paralleling TH 36, above the river bluff in Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. Second, there is the commercial area located in the Stillwater central business district (CBD). In Wis- consin, only limited commercial activity exists, con- centrated mainly in Houlton. (See figure 34.) Figure 34 Major Business Concentrations in Study Area 74 Stiltwater- Houtton River Crossing Draft EIS The TH 36 strip development is a contemporary, spatially- extensive, highway - oriented commercial area. It features a number of businesses which draw customers mainly from drive -by motorists, in addi- tion to others which are specific destinations and do not depend upon passing traffic. Large, mall -type parking lots front many of the establishments. By contrast, the Stillwater CBD is more compact and pedestrian oriented, a destination shopping area sought out for its special retail and service oppor- tunities. Because of their specialized nature, the majority of retail operations in the CBD draw little patronage from drive -by motorists. Stillwater's nineteenth century design gives it a historical atmos- phere which is very attractive to visitors; in many cases, the shoppers who come to the city are seeking a unique historical ambiance, in addition to actual goods and services. However, the lack of space and heavy traffic volumes have created increasingly severe congestion problems for those attracted to the area. In the Houlton vicinity, businesses include a res- taurant/bar, a liquor store, a convenience store /gasoline station, a drive -in theater, a bank, and several others. Drive -by customers are an important component in the success of some of these opera- tions, while others such as the bank and the theater are "destination" businesses. Both Minnesota and Wisconsin have identified TH 36 and STH 35/64, respectively, as being key transportation corridors for local and regional economic development. Mn/DOT has classified TH 36 as part of its "market artery route" system, which includes the state's most important truck transportation highways. Similarly, the Wisconsin Departments of Transportation and Development consider the stretch of STH 35/64 from Houlton to New Richmond to be important for the state's future epic vitality, and have included it as part of their recent "Corridors 2020" transportation im- provement initiative. NO -BUILD The impacts of a NO -BUII D decision would vary throughout the study area One of the most important negative effects of the NO -BUILD option will be on the Stillwater CBD. Crowing traffic jams in downtown Stillwater have the potential to gradually erode the historic ambiance which makes the City such an appealing destination. Tourists walking to and from the stores, bars, and restaurants in downtown Stillwater are in direct conflict with the heavy traffic which moves through the area during peak -level periods. The City has made a major com- mitment to maintaining an attractive rivertown at- mosphere; these efforts are being partially undermined by heavy traffic volumes, a problem which will get worse under the NO -BUILD scenario. Another potential long -term adverse economic im- pact of a NO -BUILD decision could occur in Wis- consin as a result of inadequate transportation links to the Twin Cities Area. As illustrated in figure 35, the number of routes and lanes going east out of the Twin Cities are significantly fewer than those going north, south, and west. One effect of this might be to make recreation- oriented business (e.g., resorts) in northwestern Wisconsin increasingly less com- petitive with their counterparts in Minnesota. Fur- thermore, some businesses which might otherwise be interested in locating in west- central Wisconsin may decide that transportation to Twin Cities markets is insufficient for their needs (see letter in appendix 3). Shipping products across the existing IM bridge (which goes up frequently in the summer) and through the traffic lights in downtown Stillwater results in extra costs due to additional fuel consump- tion and delays. An additional impact of a NO- BUILD decision for many Wisconsin residents employed in Minnesota will be increased difficulty in getting to their jobs. For large portions of the study area, economic im- pacts of a NO -BUILD decision should be small or ton- existent. The existing TH 36 commercial strip, for example, would be largely unaffected by the NO- BUILD option. In addition, rural areas in the Minnesota portion of the study area would, for the most part, not be affected by a NO-BUILD decision. North Corridor, Minnesota Like the other BUILD options, a North Corridor highway locstioe would mom through traffic away from downtown Stillwater. The dhainished traffic congestion would benefit the downtown des- tination shopping area by reducing congestion. However, this alternative would have a major ad- vase impact on traffic sensitive businesses located along the TH 36 eommweW strip.and ttbs existing STH 35/64 in Houlto% as it would substantially diminish the number of potential customers flowing pasL If the North Corridor ridor becomes the preferred alternative, it is passible that some traffic-sensitive Stiltwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 75 FROM WEST: 6 Routes 16 Lanes FROM NORTH: 7 Routes 22 Lanes FROM SOUTH: 6 Routes 18 Lanes PREPARED BY THE WEST CENTRAL WISCONSON REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION -1966 LER FROM EAST (WISCONSIN' , 3 Routes 8 Lanes Figure 35 Interstate, Federal and State Highways Entering Twin Cities Metro Area businesses could fail as a direct result of reduced traffic volume. In addition to inconveniencing shop- pers, this could result in the lass or relocation of an indeterminate number of jobs. Another potential adverse impact of the North Cor- ridor is that it would generate pressure for adjacent commercial development in areas which are now rural, threatening the continuing viability of agricul- ture. The location and timing of new development cannot be predicted with precision, but the affected political jurisdictions can help control and manage growth through their zoning ordinances. In addition, the location of access points can be an important determinant of where development will occur. Large -scale development along Minnesota's North Corridor route would be contrary to the growth-con- trol policies established by the Twin Cites Metropolitan Council, which has attempted to limit the extension of costly services in outlying areas. Central and South Corridors, Minnesota The economic impacts in these corridors are similar and can be addressed jointly. The most notable effect of these alternatives is that through traffic would be removed from the Stillwater CBD, reduc- ing congestion. Again, this will benefit much of the downtown retail sector by making the area a more attractive place to visit, shop, and wander through. Because these alternatives would route traffic along the current TH 36 commercial strip above the river bluffs, vehicle volumes would be preserved for traf- fic-sensitive businesses. However, the grade of the reconstructed TH 36 could be lower than the exist- ing ground elevation. Ibis might reduce the 76 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 1 CJ i L_ 1 1 1 L� 1 i visibility of many of these sites, which now have relatively unrestricted sight lines from the current highway. In addition, access will be more restricted than at present, limited to interchanges and frontage roads. One or two small businesses would likely have to be acquired as a result of these alternatives, depending on the corridor and the exact alignment. Employ- ment impacts would be relatively small. All Corridors, Wisconsin In Wisconsin, the North and South Corridor BUILD alternatives are likely to have the largest adverse economic impact, as they will divert highway traffic away from Houlton's traffic - sensitive businesses. This could also be a problem with the Central Cor- ridor alignments, although access would be easier than with the other BUILD options. In some of the South and Central Corridor align- ments, a few small businesses could fall within the final right -of -way. Employment impacts would be minimal. All alternatives are likely to generate development pressure in areas adjacent to the new STH 35/64, particularly where it interchanges with the existing highway network. Because of reduced travel times between St. Croix County and Minnesota, portions of western Wisconsin are likely to become more attractive residential and business locations, probab- ly increasing land values in the area. Summary of the BUILD Alternatives A North Corridor decision would have the most adverse economic impacts of the BUILD alterna- tives by a wide margin. A Central or South Corridor location would produce the most beneficial set of impacts, while minimizing negative effects. The Stillwater City Council, the Stillwater Area Cham- ber of Commerce, and the Stillwater Downtown Business Association have formally expressed their preference for the South Corridor. Retention of the existing bridge in connection with any of the BUILD alternatives would maximize economic benefits to downtown Stillwater and Houlton. Shoppers from Wisconsin would retain quick access to downtown businesses; without the bridge, the route from Houlton would be longer and more circuitous. Additionally, businesses in Houl- ton such as the liquor store and bank would maintain good accessibility to customers from the Stillwater area. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS Potential Mitigation Adverse economic impacts to businesses due to the rerouting of through traffic are not readily mitigated. However, the provision of appropriate access points and information signs are two techniques which might be used to diminish impacts. As previously mentioned, the adverse effects as- sociated with new development in rural areas can be reduced by thoughtful local planning. FISCAL IMPACTS The taking of private property for a public construc- tion project reduces the tax base in the affected communities, at least in the short -term. In some cases, this reduction is temporary, as transportation improvements often stimulate new taxable develop- ment and /or encourage the conversion of property to uses which produce more tax revenue. With all of the BUILD alternatives, this is likely to be especially true in west - central Wisconsin, where a new river crossing will improve accessibility to employment and shopping opportunities in the Twin Cities and the Stillwater area, increasing property values. The NO -BUILD alternative should have no direct fiscal impacts in either state The amount of useable space left within an affected jurisdiction can be an important influence on long- term fiscal impacts. When vacant or otherwise developable land is available, people displaced by public projects often move to a different location within the same taxing district. Sometimes, they may purchase or build property which is assessed higher than their previous dwelling. An affected community is less likely to retain its full tax base when there is little room for additional growth, as is now the case in Oak Park Heights. When property is permanently lost from the tax rolls, remaining residents may have to carry a proportionately higher tax burden in order to maintain service levels. The significance of fiscal impacts on the affected local governments also depends on a number of other variables, including the amount of tax revenue lost and the size of total local tax levies. A jurisdic- tion with a much larger tax base is likely to be less affected by an impact or a given magnitude than a community with smaller tax revenues. Adverse ris- cal impacts to Washington County, for example, are likely to be much less than those in Oak Park Heights because the tax loss will be a much smaller percent- age of total receipts in the larger community. In 77 addition, the larger jurisdiction is more likely to retain the relocated people inside its boundaries. The fiscal impact estimates included here are in- tended to be a means by which the effects of various alternatives can be compared; the figures are not meant to be exact predictions of lost tax receipts.' Because of revenue sharing in the seven- county metropolitan area, for example, the affected Min- nesota districts will not actually 'lose" the amounts listed. According to the Metropolitan Revenue Dis- tribution Act, a portion of the marginal revenue accrued from new development in one municipality must be shared with other communities in the Metropolitan Area. Such redistribution would mitigate - -but not eliminate -- adverse impacts in Minnesota communities which lose property to con- struction, assuming that a BUILD decision is made. Fiscal Impacts in Minnesota In Minnesota, the area with the greatest concentra- tion of fiscal impacts in the proposed corridors is located in Oak Park Heights. More specifically, the South and Central Corridor alternatives would have a substantial adverse effect on the cluster of hillside residences located below TH 36, just east of where it bends north towards downtown Stillwater. Under a worst -case scenario, the alternative which would have the most substantial impact to residen- ces in Oak Park Heights is the northern bridge alignment in the South Corridor (see appendix 3 for more information). The South Corridor tunnel ap- proach follows this route closely and would have a similar fiscal impact. Overall, these two alternatives would have the greatest fiscal effects in Minnesota. The estimated market value of the affected property along these routes is $3,059,500, with a total proper- ty tax 'loss" of $67,400. Approximately fifty -six improved properties would be affected by this op- tion. The other corridor alternatives result in fiscal im- pacts which are relatively similar. Of the remaining Minnesota alternatives, the gross tax receipts from affected improved properties would be as follows: North Corridor bridge ($51,400 /twenty -six proper- ties); 'least case" south and central alignments, South Corridor bridge ($49,200 /thirty -nine proper- ties); Central Corridor bridge ($48,900 /thirty -four properties); and North Corridor tunnel ($45,500/twenty -five properties). All of the Minnesota Corridor routes would be in Washington County, but they would affect several cities and townships. South and Central Corridor bridge and tunnel impacts would be concentrated in the cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. North Corridor bridge and tunnel alternatives would main- ly affect Grant and Stillwater Townships. Among the affected local governments, Oak Park Heights ranks first in terms of total 'lost" property tax revenue . With a northern alignment of a South Corridor bridge, or a South Corridor tunnel, Oak Park Heights would have $10,800 in property tax receipts affected. However, because the city has it comparatively large tax base, only 1.4 percent of the total 1987 tax levy would be impacted. The greatest percentage lass of local property tax revenue would occur in Stillwater Township under a North Corridor tunnel alternative. Although the affected property taxes would be modest, the local tax levy was also relatively small. As a result, the "loss" of local property tax revenues would be 2.3 percent of the total amount collected. All of the Minnesota corridors lie within the boun- daries of School District 834. The South Corridor tunnel and the northern alignment of a South Cor- ridor bridge would have the most noteworthy effect on the district, both in terms of total impacted property taxes and percent loss of total district property tax revenues. The least impact on the school district among the BUILD alternatives would result from a Central Corridor bridge. Fiscal Impacts in Wisconsin In Wisconsin, all corridors would be contained within the boundaries of St. Croix County, affecting the towns of St. Joseph and, to it lesser extent, Somerset. ( "Town" is the Wisconsin equivalent of township in Minnesota.) The greatest fiscal impact would be with the north alignment of the Central Corridor. The eleven improved properties along this route which would be affected have an estimated market value of $1,129,300, with local property taxes of $26,700. The gross tax receipts from al'- IThe fiscal impact estimates are derived from affected parcels which include buildings -- homes, farms, and a few businesses. The calculations are based on the value of the improvements, as well as the parcels which contain them. The figures do not include data from unimproved parcels required for right of way, most of which are assessed at low farmland rates. 78 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS L 1 17 1 U 1 n. 1 r1 l� 1 1 11J 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 rL fected improved properties in the other Wisconsin corridors are as follows: south alignment, Central Corridor bridge ($17,000/eleven properties); south alignment, South Corridor bridge ($15,400 /four properties); north alignment, South Corridor bridge ($13,600 /six properties); North and South Corridor tunnels (both $12,100 /five properties); North Cor- ridor bridge ($11,900 /six properties; and central alignment, South Corridor ($3,600/two properties). The principal reason why the Central Corridor has the highest values for the Wisconsin portion of the study area is because of the comparatively higher density of dwellings in and around Houlton. Even though much of this property has a lower estimated market value than some of the impacted farms in other corridors, the number of affected properties is substantially greater. Most of the fiscal impacts in Wisconsin would be in the town of St. Joseph. The largest impact in St. Joseph would be with the north alignment of the Central Corridor: local tax receipts on affected property would total $1,200, approximately .05 per- cent of the 1988 tax levy. The least impact on St. Joseph would be with the central alignment of the South Corridor, which would result in a property tax loss of $200, about .01 percent of total levies. Unlike Minnesota, the Build alternatives would af- fect a number of school districts in Wisconsin. All of the corridors would have some effect on the Hudson and Somerset School Districts, as well as Vocational- Technical District 1. (School district boundaries do not coincide with the town boun- daries of the same name.) The greatest impact on the Hudson district would be with the north alignment of the Central Corridor, which would affect $15,500 in district property tax revenues, 1.00 percent of total collections. The largest impact on the Somerset district would be with a North Corridor bridge alter- native: $4,700 in district revenues would be af- fected, 1.85 percent of the total. Wisconsin Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS Vocational - Technical District 1 would be most af- fected by the north alignment of the Central Cor- ridor: school property tax losses would be $l,IXX), 1.24 percent of the district's locally - collected revenue. Of the various Build alternatives, the central alignment of the South Corridor would have the least impact on all three districts. Summary of Fiscal Impacts in Both Min- nesota and Wisconsin When data from Minnesota and Wisconsin are com- bined, the most substantial fiscal impacts would be with the north alignment of the South Corridor (see table 10) . This route would affect improved proper- ty with an estimated market value of $3,656,4(X), with gross property taxes of $81,000. A close second would be the South Corridor tunnel, which would result in property tax losses of $79,7(X). The BUILD alternative with the least overall fiscal impact in the two states would be the central align- ment of the South Corridor, which would affect . property with an estimated market value of $2,311,900 and gross taxes of $52,800. The BUILD alternative with the second smallest impact on property taxes is the North Corridor tunnel, which would affect $57,6(X) worth of revenue. Potential Mitigation As mentioned earlier, one type of mitigation for fiscal impacts is the revenue sharing program in the Minnesota portion of the study area. In general, there should be little need for fiscal impacts mitiga- tion, as long -term growth in local communities should more than make up for "lost" tax revenues. A possible exception to this is Oak Park Heights, which has comparatively little space for new growth. Taken from a regional perspective, it new river crossing is likely to stimulate more new economic development than under the NO -BUILD scenario. 79 TABLE 10 ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACTS IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN COMBINED* BridgeAlternatives Assesed Estimated Gross County CityJ11'wp School Other Value I MarketValue I Taxes I 'faxes I Taxes I 'faxes 'faxes South Corridor South Alignment Central Alignment North Alignment $1,070,200 594,100 1,161,100 $2,843,000 2,311,900 3,656,400 $64,600 52,800 81,000 $16,400 13,600 20,800 $ 8,700 8,200 11,500 $37,800 28,400 46,000 $3,900 3,900 4,700 Central Corridor South Alignment 1,110,100 2,870,600 65,900 15,300 9,400 34,600 5,100 North Alignment 1,453,200 3,253,400 75,600 17,300 9,800 41,400 5,200 North Corridor (One Alignment) 1,001,600 3,193,600 63,300 17,600 5,800 41 ,100 1,800 Tunnel Alternatives North Tunnel 936,400 2,959,600 57,600 15,600 5,800 35,400 1,W0 South Tunnel 1,100,600 3,588,900 79,700 20,400 11,400 44,800 4,700 • Bascd on taxes payable in 1988. Figures are based on affected improved properties in each corridor. JOINT DEVELOPMENT With the exception of a related transportation project in Wisconsin and possible multiple uses of highway right -of -way, none of the study alternatives are specifically linked with major development proposals in any of the affected communities. How- ever, the choice which is eventually made -- whether it is BUILD or NO- BUILD- -will have an important impact on many aspects of the area's future. From this perspective, a decision on the river crossing alternatives is necessary to help study area com- munities, businesses, and citizens successfully plan :1 for the future. Ideally, information included in the draft EIS and special studies will facilitate discus- sion about important issues facing the region. The river crossing alternatives are separate but closely related to Wisc/DOT's plans to improve the STH 35/64 corridor between Houlton and New Richmond. The highway, which is heavily used by commuters and recreationa lists, will be upgraded to a controlled access, four -lane expressway. While the improvements are planned regardless of what the river crossing determination is, it decision on the Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 fl t 1 1 r 1 1 1 latter is necessary before the project can be com- pleted. If a BUILD decision is made, Mn/DOT and Wisc/DOT will pursue the possibility of construct- ing a boat launch ramp, along which the principal agencies involved in managing the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. This effort would be consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Highway Administration and the Department of the Interior regarding Section 147 of the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1976. The development plans of Stillwater will be greatly influenced by the river crossing decision. The con- tinuing downtown congestion which is inevitable with a NO -BUILD decision, for example, would have an adverse impact on Stillwater's efforts to emphasize its historical roots. It could also in- fluence the kinds of businesses which would choose to locate in downtown Stillwater. A Central Corridor BUILD decision would have important implications for Stillwater's plans for its waterfront. The City owns the stretch of property along the river from the lift bridge downstream to the Sunnyside Marina. Although the land south of Kolliner Park is currently leased for river barge operations, the agreement ends in 1998 and Stillwater would like to utilize the property, possibly in conjunction with Lowell Park. The recently released draft Stillwater Downtown Plan suggests various ways of maximizing the land's recreation possibilities, including the construction of walkways, picnic areas, fishing piers, and boating facilities. A Central Corridor bridge would cut through this area and dramatically change its land use potential. The same is true of Stillwater's Kolliner Park, on the Wisconsin side. A new Central Corridor bridge would make the park less desirable for recreation. Potential development of recreation facilities will depend heavily on whether the existing lift bridge is retained, as it is the key link between downtown Stillwater and the park. The river crossing location decision could have an important impact on some area businesses. For establishments located along TH 36 in Minnesota, for example, one critical issue is the economic im- pact of a North Corridor route. Businesses which rely heavily on a high volume of traffic (e.g., gas stations, fast food restaurants) for their success could be seriously hurt by a decision which diverts through traffic. In and around the Wisconsin por- tion of the study area, many businesses depend on having good access to the Twin Cities. This access will continue to deteriorate in the event of a NO- BUILD decision, and will affect the desirability of west - central Wisconsin as a business location. The disposition of the existing lift bridge will also have an effect on businesses in Houlton and Stillwater. For individuals, a river crossing location decision could have a key influence on choices such as where to live, work, and shop. A BUIL,D/NO -BUILD decision will also have an important impact on the future of a number of farms, mainly in Wisconsin. CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS The overall impacts of a BUILD decision on pedestrians will be beneficial. The reason for this is that vehicle traffic in downtown Stillwater (where most pedestrian activity in the study area occurs) would be greatly diminished, making it easier, safer, and more pleasant for people on foot. Under a NO -BUILD decision, through traffic would con- tinue to grow rapidly in downtown Stillwater, in- creasing conflicts with pedestrians. Effects on pedestrians in other portions of the study area would be less notable. The most important impacts outside of downtown Stillwater would be Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS along the current east -west TH 36 corridor in Stillwater and Oak Park Heights, and in Houlton. In the event of a South or Central Corridor BUILD decision, TH 36 will be converted to a limited access facility, and crossing opportunities will be fewer. On the other hand, the new crossings will be safer than previously. Compared to the other BUILD alternatives, the Central Corridor options would continue to have an adverse impact on pedestrian traffic in Houlton, as through traffic would continue to pass through the edge of the community. 81 Impacts on bicyclists would be more complex. First of all, the beneficial and adverse impacts mentioned above for pedestrians would also be true for bicyclists. Downtown Stillwater will be a safer and more enjoyable place for bicyclists with any of the BUILD corridors. Other bicycle impacts would depend on the specific alternative chosen. Accord- ing to the Minnesota State Bicycle Transportation System Plan, TH 36 currently has an "unsatisfac- tory" rating for bicycling along its urban section in Stillwater, and a "poor" rating on the 3.5 mile seg- ment east of the TH /County 5 junction. In the event of a South or Central Corridor BUILD decision, Mn/DOT will accommodate bicyclists along this route by either widening the shoulders and /or direct- ing bike traffic off the main highway and on to frontage roads or alternate routes. A possible alter- nate route into downtown Stillwater would be TH /County 5 A North Corridor BUILD decision would directly affect bicycling on County Road 15 and TH 96. County Road 15 currently has paved shoulders and is classified as a Washington County bike route. The potentially affected section of TH 96 also has paved shoulders, and is rated by the State Bicycle Plan as being "satisfactory" for biking. In the event of a North Corridor river crossing, Mn/DOT will ensure that bicyclists can continue to safely use these routes either through adequate shoulders, frontage roads, or off -road bike paths. A North Corridor decision would greatly reduce vehicular traffic along the current TH 36, making it more suitable for bicyclists than it is now. A North Corridor decision would also have a major effect on TH 95 between downtown Stillwater and TH 96. Because this would be the principal access route to Stillwater for people crossing the river from Wisconsin, traffic volumes would increase. Ac- cording to the State Bicycle Plan, the stretch of TH 95 from Marine on St. Croix to Elm Street in Stillwater currently has 4 foot gravel shoulders and an "unsatisfactory" rating for bicycling; it has been given a high priority for improvement due to its popularity among cyclists and lack of parallel alter- natives. In 1991, the section of TH 95 from Marine 82 on St. Croix to TH 96 will be upgraded to include two 12 foot lanes and 6 foot bituminous shoulders, as recommended by the State Bicycle Plan. Cur- rently, there are no plans to upgrade the stretch between TH 96 and Stillwater; any upgrading here would be complicated by lack of space under the rail bridge. In the Wisconsin portion of the study area, the only designated bike route is along County Road E; the route runs east out of Houlton towards Burkhardt. None of the BUILD alternatives will affect biking along this corridor. In the event of a BUILD decision, Mn /DOT will ensure that pedestrians and bicyclists have access to a river crossing. It is probable that any new river crossing would have facilities for non - motorized traffic. In addition, the existing bridge could con- tinue providing an interstate route for pedestrians and bicyclists for as long as it remains in active use. Should the existing bridge remain open under a BUILD decision, its utility for non - motorized traffic would be improved due to the diminished vehicle traffic volumes. The existing bridge could provide excellent pedestrian and bicycle access to Kolliner Park, should Stillwater decide to develop facilities there at some point in the future. If NO -BUILD is the preferred alternative, the existing bridge could continue serving pedestrians and bicyclists, al- though high traffic volumes and lift interruptions would diminish its appeal. Roadway bicycle improvements are generally done in conjunction with other road work, primarily con- struction, reconstruction, and reconditioning projects. Typically, resurfacing projects do not in- clude shoulder widening, although gravel shoulders are sometimes upgraded to a bituminous shoulder of the same width. In the event of a NO -BUILD decision, trunk highways in the Minnesota study corridors which are currently deficient for bicycling purposes will be considered for upgrading when scheduled for major road work. A four foot bituminous shoulder is considered the minimum for a safe attached bicycle facility. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS u I 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OVERVIEW Air quality impacts resulting from a new highway project can occur both during and after construction. Construction impacts include vehicle emissions from the operation of construction vehicles and /or from vehicles that are delayed or slowed by the road work. Additional impacts can occur from the generation of dust. The operation of vehicles after construction results in emissions from a variety of pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, lead, sulfur oxides, particulates, and others. In addition to construction - related impacts, the major focus of this analysis is on operational CO concentrations predicted for the study alternatives. Impacts on health can result from a relatively low level exposures to CO over short periods of time. Particular attention is given to forecasting future CO levels to determine whether they will be within the Federal and state standards established to protect human health. Emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are of concern because chemical reactions can change them into ozone and smog. Analysis has shown that emissions of these pollutants from a single roadway are relatively minor. Problems resulting from ozone and smog formation are typically associated with large metropolitan areas where the density of all types of emissions is much higher than in the study area. These pollutants are not analyzed in detail in this section because the amounts are insignificant, and differences among the alternatives are not large enough to be meaningful. Lead emissions are a result of gasoline additives used to reduce engine knock. The use of lead in gasoline is incompatible with catalytic converters, which are standard equipment on new vehicles. While these converters are designed to reduce CO emissions, an indirect effect of their use is that consumption of leaded gasoline is declining. Lead emissions are expected to continue to decrease and become a minor exhaust component. For this reason, an analysis of lead emissions is not included here. Sulfur oxides and particulates are minor com- ponents of motor vehicles exhaust emissions. They are not emitted in sufficient quantities to provide Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS significant impact levels, or to establish differences among the study alternatives. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required all states to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) documenting control measures needed to at- tain the Federal Air Quality Standards. This project is in an area where the SIP is required to contain transportation control measures. The SIP was ap- proved by the Environmental Protection Agency on June 16, 1980. The metropolitan planning organiza- tion passed a resolution on December 21, 1989 certifying that their transportation planning process fulfills all applicable Federal requirements; Mn/DOT concurred on December 29, 1989. The FHWA accepted the transportation improvement plan on January 31, 1990, and made the finding that the project was developed in accordance with the -provisions of 23 CFR Part 450, Subparts A and B. An Indirect Source Permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) may be needed if traffic volume parameters are exceeded on specific alternatives. If a BUILD alternative is selected, additional analysis will be conducted on the specified design alternative. For more information about the modeling methodol- ogy used in this section, consult Mn/DOT's Noise and Air Quality II ,npacts Special Study. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The construction of a new river crossing would have a temporary negative impact on air quality. Impacts would be localized near the center of construction activities. Construction operations could impact air quality in three ways: 1.) Vehicle delays during reconstruction will result in higher emission levels from affected vehicles. 2.) Construction vehicles and related equipment will provide additional emissions. 3.) Disruption of the existing ground cover in con- struction areas will generate dust. Vehicle delays due to construction activities are not expected to be serious. Every effort will be made to minimize these impacts by maintaining smooth traf- fic flows in each direction throughout the construc- tion period. Temporary lane closures will probably occur, but will be short-term. 83 Construction equipment emissions will be minimal. Construction equipment will not be concentrated at locations near any sensitive receptor sites, and any single piece of equipment will not result in serious pollutant concentrations. The majority of construc- tion equipment is diesel powered; diesels generate minor levels of CO compared to non - diesel engines. Dust will be generated by construction activities, but will be minimized by controlled adherence to transportation agency specifications and MPCA regulations. Dust control measures will include watering, application of calcium chloride, and /or street sweeping. Paving and replacement of vegeta- tion will be done as soon as possible after site preparation. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Overview of CO Impacts Violations of the ambient air quality standards of CO have mainly occurred in central business dis- tricts of large metropolitan areas. Contributing fac- tors often associated with these locations are as follows: signalized high volume intersections, pedestrian traffic (which causes additional traffic slowdowns), and a narrow roadway /sidewalk area confined by buildings. The nearness of receptor sites (any area where people might be exposed to vehicle emissions for time periods exceeding impact thresholds) is a major factor in these situations. The dramatic improvement of CO levels around the country is the result of the catalytic converter. In addition to improvements achieved by retiring older vehicles without catalytic converters, emission levels decrease substantially with increasing speeds (see table 11). The slow speeds common in high volume, signalized intersections is a key reason why these areas frequently have CO problems. TABLE 11 CO EMISSION RATES IN GRAMS PER VEHICLE MILE* M.P.H. 1986 1994 2004 10 146.2 85.3 72.4 30 37.1 24.3 21.5 50 24.5 12.5 10.9 ' These "worst - case" calculations assume 20 degree ambient temperature, free -flow cruise, standard vehicle mix, and 20 per- cent cold start. The typical freeway interchange is designed to reduce the possibility that high volume through -traf- fic will be interrupted, as it is now in downtown Stillwater. In addition, air quality problems on freeways are diminished by wider right -of -way and the increased distances to potential receptor sites. Measured and Predicted Ambient and Total CO Levels The ambient CO levels illustrated in table 12 repre- sent background concentrations from all sources except the highway facility being analyzed. Am- bient data was measured at four sites in 1986, and predicted for the years 1994 and 2004. TABLE 12 BACKGROUND (AMBIENT) CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) 84 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1986 t Hr /8Hr 1994 1Hr /8Hr. 2004 7 Hr /8Hr Boomsite 1.8/1.1 1.3/0.7 1.5/0.8 Houlton 0.9/0.6 0.7/0.4 0.8/0.5 Downtown Stillwater (Chestnut and Main) 6.7/2.8 4.8/2.0 5.5/2.3 TH 36./TH 95 3.2/2.0 2.3/1.5 2.7/1.7 84 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 r, e 1 J 1 I 1 1 1 C 1 Concentrations of CO resulting from vehicle opera- tions on a specific roadway are estimated by using traffic flow, emissions, and dispersion modeling techniques. The total predicted CO concentrations discussed in the summary below are the sum of the local CO levels generated on the transportation facility in question, plus the background levels dis- cussed above. Worst -case scenarios were analyzed for each of the alternatives under study. The predicted CO concentrations are measured against the state and Federal air quality standards illustrated in table 13. For the purposes of this draft EIS evaluation, negative impacts occur when the predicted CO concentrations exceed these stand- ards, which are established to protect the most sen- sitive segments of the population. TABLE 13 STATE AND FEDERAL CO AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 1 -Hour Average* 8 -Hour Average Concentration Concentration State 30 PPM * * 9 PPM Federal 35 PPM 9 PPM * These standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. * * Parts Per Million. Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A worst -case CO site analysis has been completed for the three highest volume intersections in the study area for the years 1994 and 2004. The results are illustrated in tables 14 through 17. If a BUILD decision is made, no violations of stand- ards are anticipated at any site for the hypothetical opening date (1994) or ten years afterward (2004). All of the BUILD alternatives would be very similar, although the North Corridor would have a marginal- ly smaller overall effect on CO levels at some study locations. The biggest difference among the alternatives would be between the BUILD and NO- BUILD options in downtown Stillwater, at the intersection of Chestnut and Main. As depicted in table 17, the NO -BUILD alternative at this location is the only design option which shows the potential for future CO problems, with a prediction of 7.7 ppm (the eight hour standard is 9 ppm) for the year 2004. Because of ventilation requirements, tunnels would present additional CO challenges. The one hour CO standard for tunnels is 125 ppm, which could be met by a ventilation rate of 1.76 million cubic feet of air per minute (see appendix 4). Ventilation buildings would be required on both sides of the river to handle air intake and exhaust for the tunnel. Exhaust chimneys would also be neces- sary on both sides of the river to disperse pollutants. 85 86 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS TABLE 14 YEAR 1994 PREDICTED CO CONCENTRATIONS Peak'Hour (Standard= 30ppm) Study Alternatives Existing NO -BUILD North Central South 1. Chestnut/Main Background 6.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 Roadway 5,7 5.9 2.4 2_4 2_4 Total (ppm) 12.4 10.7 7.2 7.2 7.2 2. TH 36fM 95 Background 3.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Roadway 0.7 1_8 0.4 0_5 004 Total (ppm) 3.9 4.2 2.8 2.9 2.8 3. TH 36/TH 5 Background 3.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Roadway 019 0_6 0.4 0.7 0_7 Total (ppm) 4.1 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.0 TABLE 15 YEAR 1994 PREDICTED CO CONCENTRATIONS Eight Hour (Standard =9 ppm) Study Alternatives Existing NO -BUILD North Central South 1. Chestnut/Main Background 2.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Roadway 4_5 4_7 2_0 2_0 2_0 Total (ppm) 7.3 6.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 2. TH 36/ITII 95 Background 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Roadway 0_6 1_5 0_3 0_4 0_3 Total (ppm) 2.6 3.0 1.8 1.9 1.8 3. TH 36/TH 5 Background 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Roadway 0_7 0_5 0_3 0_6 0_6 Total (ppm) 2.7 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.1 86 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 C 1 1 1 1 J 1 TABLE 16 YEAR 2004 PREDICTED CO CONCENTRATIONS Peak Hour ( Standard =30 ppm) TABLE 17 YEAR 2004 PREDICTED CO CONCENTRATIONS Eight Hour (Standard =9 ppm) Study Alternatives Existing NO -BUILD North Central South 1. Chestnut/Main Background 6.7 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Roadway 57 6_8 2U 2_8 2_8 Total (ppm) 12.4 12.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 2. TH 36/TH 95 Background 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Roadway 0_7 2_1 0_5 0_6 0_5 Total (ppm) 3.9 4.8 3.2 3.3 3.2 3. TH 36/TH 5 Background 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Roadway 0_9 0_7 0_5 0_8 0_8 Total (ppm) 4.1 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.5 TABLE 17 YEAR 2004 PREDICTED CO CONCENTRATIONS Eight Hour (Standard =9 ppm) Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS Earl Study Alternatives Existing NO -BUILD North Central South 1. Chestnut/Main Background 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Roadway 4_5 5_4 2_2 2_2 2.2 Total (ppm) 7.3 7.7 4.5 4.5 4.5 2. TH 36MI 95 Background 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 Roadway 0_6 1_7 0_4 0_5 0_4 Total (ppm) 2.6 3.4 2.1 2.2 2.1 3. TH 36/TH 5 Background 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 Roadway 0.7 0.5 Q-A 0_6 0_6 Total (ppm) 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS Earl NOISE IMPACTS INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Noise is a major impact associated with highways. Traffic noise is created by all types and sizes of vehicles, with considerable variability occurring because of differences in engines, mufflers, and tires. Noise is measured in units called decibels (dB). Because people react to some frequencies more than others, measurements, studies, and predictions of highway noise are conducted using a weighted "A' scale referred to as dBA, which includes only those sounds humans can hear.1 Noise levels on the A scale are quantified according to both magnitude and frequency of occurrence. For example, L1o65 dBA means that a noise level of 65 dBA is exceeded 10 percent of the time. Land uses adjacent to the corridors under study vary broadly from agriculture, commercial, and residen- tial, to the St. Croix River itself, with its variety of uses. Because of these land use differences, im- pacts will vary between areas, even when identical noise levels are generated. The sensitivity of various areas to noise impacts is reflected in the different categories of state and Federal noise im- pact standards and criteria. Because wide corridors and multiple design options are still being considered, a "worst case" alignment was used for all corridors in order to determine the greatest possible impacts. NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA The relevant noise standards and criteria established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are presented below in table 18. Wisconsin uses the FHWA criteria. NOISE PREDICTION MODEL The Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (Report number F14WA -RD -77 -108, December, 1978) was used to estimate present and predict future noise levels. The model utilizes three classes of vehicles -- automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks. Peak hour traffic volumes for existing conditions, as well as for the design year 2014 were used in the model predictions. Various adjustments are provided in the model for vehicle speeds, noise shielding, and distance, as noted below: * Vehicle Speed: It has been assumed that the posted speeds will generally remain the same as present, although appropriate speeds have been projected where future changes are likely. TABLE 18 MPCA AND FHWA NOISE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA (Lio dBA Levels) Land Use Area MPCAZ FHWA Residences and lodgings, hospitals, farmhouses, and camping areasl 65 70 Schools, churches, and libraries 65 70 Parks and recreation areas 70 70 Commercial and retail 70 75 Industrial and agricultural land 80 75 (The above levels are for exterior use areas only.) MPCA night standards have a 10 dBA lower level and are applicable between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. for land uses which have overnight sleeping. 2A 1_5o standard also applies to all land uses. iFor reference, a 2 -3 dBA change is barely noticeable to the human ear under laboratory conditions, while a 5 dBA change is perceptible. A 10 dBA increase represents a doubling of the noise level. 88 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u 1 i t 1 1 G 1 * Shielding: No shielding is assumed in order to provide the worst case noise levels. In reality, some shielding (and thus an associated drop in noise levels) due to earthwork, vegetation, and building obstructions will be present. * Distance: Distances are measured from the centerline of roads. A hard ground roll off factor ( -3 dBA) was used in lieu of a soft ground factor (4.5 dBA) for distance attenuation. This also gives a worst case scenario for sites, especially for those located at distances greater than 200 feet. At 800 feet from the highway, a hard ground roll off factor amounts to a noise level that is 6 dBA higher than if a soft ground factor was used. OTHER EVALUATIONS As illustrated in Table 18, NPCA standards also include nighttime levels, as well as levels not to be exceeded more than 50% of the time (Lso). This study employs a worst -case analysis (unshielded, daytime peak -hour with hard roll -off factor) for the year 2014, in order to most clearly establish the predictable differences among the BUILD and NO- BUILD Alternatives. Inclusion of nighttime or L5o data would not present any additional useful com- parisons. NOISE IMPACTS IN THE STUDY CORRIDORS No impacts to commercial or industrial uses are likely. As listed below, the affected areas have been separated into five areas to better illustrate the differences between the alternatives (see Figure 36). AREAS 1. Common section along TH 36 - -Co. Rd. 15 to TH 95 2. Central section along the river - -TH 95 corridor, from TH 36 to the river crossing. 3. North section - -TH 36 to TH 96 (along Co. Rd. 15), then east to the river. 4. All Wisconsin corridors. 5. Tunnels/bridge river crossings. 1. Common Section Area Existing peak -hour traffic noise along this 4 -lane segment at adjacent receptor sites averages L1o66 dBA. This could increase to L1071 dBA under the NO -BUILD alternative. Under the Central and South Corridor BUILD alternatives, this could in- crease to L1o72 dBA. Properties exceeding FHWA criteria: - NO- BUILD: 21 residential sites exceed criteria by 1 dBA. - Central Corridor: 9 residential sites exceed criteria by 2 dBA. - South Corridor: 9 residential sites exceed criteria by 2 dBA. Properties exceeding MPCA Standards: - NO- BUILD: 51 residential sites exceed standard by up to 6 dBA. - Central Corridor: 57 residential sites exceed stand- ard by up to 7 dBA. - South Corridor: 57 residential sites exceed stand- ard by up to 7 dBA. Mitigation to achieve the MPCA Standard is pos- sible on this segment for the Central and South Corridor BUILD alternatives. 2. Central Corridor River Area Existing peak -hour traffic noise along this 2 -lane segment at adjacent receptor sites averages L1065 dBA. This could increase to L1o68 dBA under the NO -BUILD alternative. Under the Central Cor- ridor BUILD alternative, this could increase to L1o71 dBA. Properties exceeding FHWA Criteria: - NO- BUILD: 0 residential sites exceed criteria. - Central Corridor: 6 residential sites exceed criteria by 1 dBA. Properties exceeding MPCA Standards: - NO- BUILD: 11 residential sites exceed standard by up to 3 dBA. - Central Corridor: 32 residential sites exceed stand- ard by up to 6 dBA Mitigation to achieve the MPCA Standard in this segment will not be practical because the residential sites are located well above the roadway, and bar- riers would not be effective. 3. North Corridor Existing peak -hour traffic no= along this corridor is below Lto60 dBA at most adjacent receptor sites. A NO -BUILD decision would not likely increase noise levels above L1o65 dBA. Under the North Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 89 STILLwATIF1 TOWNSHIP cq Q 0 � •, eieiii 9 6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... .. .. ........ Xe ' 80th X CO. CO.RD. 64 64 Both ST. N. �3MLLWATER TOWNSHIP -Z:-, HOULT C.S.A.H. 12 STILLWATER 'D36 641 E51 136 GRANT ), TOWNS Uj 01 1.-1 -1 11 UI a 95 BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP 136'1 OAK PARK HEIGHTS 7 H NORTH CORRIDOR CENTRAL CORRIDOR SOUTH CORRIDOR SOUTH TUNNEL NORTH TUNNEL Figure 36 Corridor Alternatives SOMERSET TOWNSHIP ST. JOSEPH -c 7 TOWNSHIP CO. RD. E 90 Stillwater-Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r n 1 Properties exceeding FHWA Criteria: - NO-BUILD: 0 residential sites exceed criteria. - North Corridor: 0 residential sites exceed criteria. Properties exceeding MPCA Standards: - NO- BUILD: 0 residential sites exceed criteria. - North Corridor: 47 residential sites exceed criteria up to 2 dBA. Mitigation to achieve the MPCA Standard in this corridor will probably not be practical. Develop- ment is widely spaced along four miles of roadway. 4. Wisconsin Corridors (FHWA Criteria) In the Wisconsin corridors, the receptor sites are generally widely spaced, and noise would affect fewer people than in Minnesota. Only the Central Corridor alternative would affect more than 4 sites, with an alignment that goes through a portion of Houlton and skirts a trailer court. Under a worst - case scenario, FHWA criteria (L1o70 dBA) would be exceeded by 1 -3 dBA at up to 15 sites in the Central Corridor, but impacts could be mitigated by measures such as earth mounds or short walls. S. Tunnels /Bridge River Crossings Noise levels around the approaches of a North and South Corridor tunnel would be similar to the im- N w 150 — LL 100- 2 50= . 0- p 50— pacts from a bridge approach. Of course, no noise would be audible from vehicles passing under the river. The net effect would be that residential noise impacts would be similar to a bridge in the same area, while effects on river users would be eliminated. The sound envelopes around the various bridge proposals would be similar (see figure 37). This is assuming that safety barriers /parapets are 32 inches high, made of concrete, and continuous along the edge of the bridge. It is also assumed that the bridge deck is made of a solid material such as concrete. If no concrete safety barriers are employed, then the anticipated noise envelope would expand outward, and a Lto65 dBA level would reach the river surface. A high bridge would have slightly less impact on river users than a low (e.g., 60 foot) bridge. For noise evaluation purposes, the river is con- sidered to be a park and recreation area, with Federal and state standards of L1070 dBA No areas of the river adjacent to any of the potential crossing sites would exceed this level. Listed below are the specifics for each of the bridge alternatives: 'North Corridor alterative (High Bridge) --an in- crease of 10-15 dBA above the existing levels would result, with a peak level of L1o60 dBA. Nighttime noise will not exceed a L05 dBA level. WATER LEVE L I 1 1 1 1 I 1, 1 1 1 I I I 600 500.400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 DISTANCE IN FEET FROM q OF ROAD Figure 37 Bridge Sound Envelope Stillwater- Houhon River Crossing Draft EIS 91 *Central Corridor alternative --an increase of 5 dBA above the existing levels would result, with a peak slightly below Lio65 dBA. *South Corridor alternative -- similar to Central Cor- ridor. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS MPCA Standards (Minnesota) As depicted in figure 38, pre - mitigation traffic noise impacts in Minnesota would be the greatest with a Central Corridor Build alternative --89 residences would be affected by noise levels which are higher than state standards. However, mitigation efforts could reduce the number of impacted residences to about 30 homes. In the North Corridor, a BUILD alternative would result in 47 residences being above Minnesota Standards. While this is the lowest number among the alternatives, no mitigation would be practical here due to the low development density. The end result is that North Corridor noise impacts would actually be the greatest of any of the BUILD pos- sibilities. Along the South Corridor, 57 residences would receive noise impacts which are above the permis- sible Minnesota level. After mitigation efforts, no residences would be above the standard. Among the BUILD alternatives then, the South Corridor has the potential for the least noise impacts. The NO BUILD alternative would result in 68 residences being above the Minnesota noise stand- ard. Noise impacts would be greater than with any of the BUILD alternatives. FHWA Criteria/Minnesota and Wisconsin Using FHWA criteria, the Central Corridor would have the most serious noise impact, with about 30 residences affected in both Minnesota and Wiscon- sin--15 in each state. Mitigation measures would likely be possible to protect many of the affected Central Corridor sites. Based on the worst -case studies completed to date, the DOTs intend to install one noise abatement barrier near the junction of STH 35 and STH 64 in Houlton, Wisconsin, and another along the north side of TH 36 in Minnesota, west of Beach Road. FIGURE 38 RESIDENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE* (By Number of Residences) 89 ■ MINNESOTA DAYTIME STANDARD (Lro 65dELA) ,; F.H.VdA CRITERIA/WISCONSIN DAYTIME STANDARD (Lao 7OdBA) *Numbers indicate number of residences with impacts agave specified standard and/or criteria. Figures do not include the effects of mitigation. 92 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 l U fl 1 1 According to preliminary information, each barrier would be 10 feet high, approximately 1,500 feet long, and cost $150,000 to construct. It is estimated that the barriers would result in a 5 -7 dBA noise reduction for 4 affected residences in Wisconsin and 9 residences in Minnesota. The South Corridor would affect about 13 sites in the two states, 4 of which would be in Wisconsin. It is probable that mitigation could be used to keep most of the affected sites below the FHWA criteria. Mitigation in Minnesota would likely include the same noise barrier and reductions described above for the Central Corridor, with 9 affected residences. Mitigation would probably not be feasible in the Wisconsin portion of the South Corridor because of the low residential density. The North Corridor alternative would affect the least number of sites, about 4. All of these would be in Wisconsin. Mitigation is not likely to be economi- cally practical due to the dispersed nature of the development. In sum, the BUILD alternatives may require excep- tions to FHWA criteria at a few scattered sites. If this is the case, noise levels would only exceed the criteria by about 1 -3 dBA. The NO BUILD alter- native would result in about 21 sites being over the FHWA criteria, all of them in Minnesota. If during the final design process conditions prove to be sub- stantially different from those assumed here, the noise abatement measures described above might not be provided. A final decision on the installation of abatement measures will be made upon comple- tion of the project design and public involvement process. WATER QUALITY AND FISHERIES Water quality in the St. Croix River is generally good, although oxygen depletion can occur during the summer in bottom waters. The section of the river near Stillwater is more like a mildly eutrophic lake than a river, partially due to water control structures further downstream on the Mississippi River. A wide variety of aquatic life is found in the St. Croix, including populations of walleye, bass, northern pike, and other important game fish. Sport fishing and other water -based forms of recreation are extremely popular on the river. A more detailed analysis of water quality impacts and a listing of St. Croix aquatic life is found in the special study on natural resource impacts. Brown's Creek, which would be affected by a North Corridor route, is a Minnesota DNR- designated trout stream. Brown's Creek impacts and mitigation are discussed in the floodplains and threatened and endangered species sections of the draft EIS, and in the above mentioned special report. IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC LIFE The only potentially major impacts of a BUILD decision on St. Croix water quality and aquatic life would be caused by construction- related activities Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS which disturb bottom sediment. Water quality im- pacts in the river would be temporary. In general, impacts on aquatic life are expected to be transitory, but will depend on the type of crossing and the method of construction. Of the BUILD options, a bridge would cause the least effect because bottom disturbances would be concentrated around piers. Aquatic impacts are likely to be least severe with a North Corridor bridge, which could probably be built without the need for piers on the river bottom. Tunnel construction could cause a degradation of water clarity and a substantial increase in suspended solids downstream from the work area. Increased turbidity reduces light penetration in the water, and can alter biological productivity. The possibility exists for long -term effects to benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms near the construction zone fol- lowing completion of a tunnel. In addition, there could be secondary impacts on aquatic communities for some distance downstream. Because of" their mobility, fish would likely move away from the disturbed area. However, the spawning activity of some fish may be affected during construction. Ad- ditionally, secondary impacts on fish are possible due to the disruption of benthic food sources. As- suming there are no long -term impacts on the ben - thic organisms, impacts on fish should be limited to the construction period. 93 Aquatic impacts resulting from a tunnel will be partially determined by the type of construction method and /or dredging technology used. In general, aquatic impacts will be diminished to the extent that the disturbance and downstream distribu- tion of bottom sediments can be minimized. In the sections which follow, the principal types of tunnel construction and their likely impacts will be sum- marized. For more information on tunnels, see the Mn/DOT special tunnel report. Immersed Tube Tunnel The impacts associated with the immersed tube con- struction method result from the preparation of a dredged trench on the river bottom, and from the construction and operation of a temporary drydock which is sometimes needed to build the tube sec- tions. Dredging the trench would cause localized increases in turbidity and suspended solids, the magnitude depending upon the method chosen for dredging. In the area around the trench, hydraulic dredging (as compared to mechanical methods) with land deposi- tion would have the least effect. However, a suitable area would be needed for on -shore settling basins to reduce turbidity in water returning to the river. Following construction of the trench, gravel or some other stable material would be spread over the bot- tom, and the tunnel sections would be floated out and lowered into place on the river bed. Once the segments have been properly connected, the sides and top of the tunnel can be backfilled, and the riverbed restored. Overall, the long -term aquatic impacts from the construction of an immersed tube tunnel are likely to be minor. Earth Pressure Balance Shield Tunnel Tunnel construction of this type would occur below the existing bed of the river. A rotary cutting head would excavate material from the river bed, and it would be removed through an attached tube. Con- sequently, impacts to the surface of the river bed are expected to be minimal. Some settling and compac- tion could occur in areas above the cutting head due to vibration. Localized increases in turbidity and suspended solids are apt to result, possibly affecting benthic organisms in the immediate area for a short period of time. The environmental impacts from the shield method would probably be less than for the other tunneling methods. Cut and Cover Tunnel Cut and cover tunnel construction would occur directly on the river bottom, causing major, wide- spread, and possible long -term disruptions to the aquatic environment. Benthic organisms around the site would be harmed by siltation resulting from the construction of cofferdams and increased scour due to more rapid flow in the constricted river channel. The narrowing of the river by coffer dams could also limit boat traffic and create navigation hazards. A cut and cover tunnel is apt to have the greatest construction- related impact of any of the sub- aqueous methods described here. However, should a tunnel become the preferred alternative, this method is the least likely to be used. MITIGATION The most important mitigation for aquatic and water quality impacts is discussed in the Threatened and Endangered Species section, and involves measures to protect any populations of Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussels (or any other mussels) from construction activity. Every effort will be made to minimize disturbing bottom sediment, and to see that it is transported and deposited safely on- shore. Con- struction- related debris will be kept out of the river to the greatest extent practicable. All appropriate erosion control measures will be followed during construction to protect water quality. If a bridge is the preferred alternative, runoff will - -if at all feasible -- be routed to holding ponds, rather than being allowed to flow directly into the St. Croix River. NO -BUILD DECISION There are a number of water quality impacts as- sociated with a NO -BUILD decision. First, the existing bridge does not have the advanced road drainage that a new structure would likely have; runoff from the lift bridge goes directly into the river. Should a hazardous spill occur, for example, the chances that the material would enter the river are greater on the old bridge than they would be with a new river crossing. Furthermore, it is possible that the collection of an increasing number of boats waiting for the lift to open during pleasant summer days contributes to water quality degradation. Removal of the existing bridge, or increasing lift "up" times would help diminish the concentration of idling watercraft in front of Stillwater. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 94 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS I 1 1 e r 1 C i !r, PERMITS AND APPROVALS The list which follows includes the permits and approvals required for this project, and the agencies which issue them. In addition to the agencies listed below, extensive involvement with the National Park Service and the Minnesota and Wisconsin His- toric Preservation Offices occurred as part of the environmental review process. Refer to the Com- ments and Coordination section of this draft EIS for more information. FEDERAL *Section 9 Permit: Construction of a bridge over navigable waters in the U.S.--(Coast Guard) No substantial, long -term effects on navigation will occur as a result of any of the BUILD alternatives. Any new piers constructed in the St. Croix River will be kept out of the navigation channel. In the event of a Central Corridor BUILD decision, the Coast Guard would be willing to reduce its minimum river bridge clearance to 45 feet, if this is required. *Section 10 Permit: Work in navigable waters of the U.S. - -(Army Corps of Engineers /COE) *Section 404 Permit: Discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters- -(COE) No major fill activities in the St. Croix River would result from any of the BUILD alternatives. If a bridge becomes the preferred alternative, some WETLAND IMPACTS THE UTILITY AND PROTECTION OF WETLANDS Wetlands are valuable natural resources which, over the past century, have been greatly diminished by human activity. Long considered to be useless or wasted areas, it has become increasingly apparent that wetlands serve a number of critical functions, including the following: groundwater recharge and discharge; flood control and desynchronization; sediment trapping; nutrient retention and removal; food chain support; and habitat for fish and wildlife. Because of the growing recognition of the impor- tance of wetlands, there has been increasing interest at both the Federal and state levels in preservation measures. In 1977, for example, President Carter issued Federal Executive order 11990, which estab- Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS dredging would be required around pier placements. As discussed in the water quality and fisheries sec- tion of this draft EIS, the tunnel alternatives could require extensive dredging on the river bottom. The precise locations of dredge sites and sediment dis- posal areas will be discussed in the final EIS, if a BUILD decision becomes the preferred alternative. STATE OF MINNESOTA *Section 401 Certification of Federal Permits- - (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency/MPCA) *Air Quality Indirect Source Permit-- (MPCA) *Protected Waters Permit -- (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources/Mn/DNR) *State EIS Adequacy Determination -- (Minnesota Department of Transportation/Mn/DOT) STATE OF WISCONSIN *Section 401 Certification of Federal Permits- - (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resour- ces/WDNR) LOCAL *Municipal plan approval is required by affected Minnesota communities. lished a national policy "to avoid to the extent pos- sible the long- and short -term adverse impacts as- sociated with the destruction or modification of wetlands..." The policy further aimed "to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alterna- tive." In accordance with President Carter's Executive Order, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued Administrative order 5660.1A. This order states that "transportation facilities and projects should be planned, constructed, and operated to assure the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the nation's wetlands to the fullest extent practicable." Also at the Federal level, work in wetlands can fall within the Section 404 permit authority of the U.S. 95 Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service advises the Corps on wetland im- pacts associated with a particular project; in addi- tion, the EPA has review and comment authority. At the state level, Minnesota wetlands are protected by the Department of Natural Resource's (DNR) "Protected Water" Program. The DNR has legal authority over particular types of wetland basins of at least 10 acres in size in rural regions and 2.5 acres in incorporated areas. In Wisconsin, the state DNR has the responsibility for making regulatory and management decisions affecting wetlands. For more detailed information about wetlands, both generally and in the study area in particular, see the Natural Re our e Impacts SW-dal Sjudy. WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE STUDY AREA A large number of wetlands are located in the study area (see table 19 and figure 39). By far the greatest concentration of wetlands is in the North Corridor, mainly north of TH 96, along or adjacent to the bridge alignment. The least potential for wetland impacts among the BUILD alternatives is in the Central Corridor. The NO -BUILD alternative would have no direct effect on wetlands in the study area. The wetland impacts estimated for the draft EIS represent a worst -case scenario. Potential impacts were calculated by assuming that all wetlands within each corridor would be affected by construction. In reality, the width of the study corridors is substan- tially greater than the limits of the actual right -of- way which would need to be acquired. Because many of the wetlands within any given corridor would not be affected by construction, actual wet- land impacts resulting from a BUILD decision would very likely be less than those estimated here. Nonetheless, substantial wetland impacts are pos- sible if the North Corridor is selected as the preferred alternative. As indicated by table 20, wetlands in the North Corridor total nearly 58 acres, compared to 5.6 in the South Corridor and 2.4 in the Central Corridor. The North Corridor contains 23 wetlands, compared to 5 in the South Corridor and 1 in the Central Corridor. The vast majority of potentially affected wetlands are in Minnesota; less than one acre of wetlands are located inside one of the Wisconsin BUILD corridors. In the special study on natural resource impacts prepared by Mn/DOT, the effect on study area wet- lands was quantified according to impacts on wildlife habitat. This was accomplished by multi- plying the estimated wetland acreage impacted in each corridor by the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) value for each wetland type. The product, which is called total Habitat Unit (HU) loss, provides a means by which the impacts on wetland wildlife habitat in the various corridors can be assessed and compared. The "worst- case" loss of Habitat Units would be 1169 under the North Corridor option, compared to 296 with the South Corridor and 38 with the Central Corridor. MITIGATION When feasible, it is preferable to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands by adjusting corridor align- ments. If there is a BUILD decision, the location of wetlands will be an important consideration in making the final alignment determination. Should impacts to wetlands be unavoidable, they can be reduced by a number of measures. For example, steeper inslopes can be used on roadsides near wet- lands to minimize encroachment. In addition, com- pensation for losses can occur through the creation of new wetlands within the project area boundaries, on or adjacent to Mn/DOT right -of -way. Another possible mitigation measure involves modifying wetlands which exist on Mn/DOT's right -of -way to improve their value for wildlife. It is not always possible or practical to construct appropriate mitigation projects within or near the right -of -way where impacts occur. In some cases, for example, it can be prudent to construct a single large mitigation project away from the affected area to compensate for many small wetland impacts which have occurred in the new highway corridor. Impacts to Minnesota wetland habitat which can not be compensated within Mn/DOT right -of -way will be nominated for inclusion in the Metro District's Wetland Habitat Mitigation Bank (WHMB). In the WHMB system, Mn/DOT will create new wetlands or enhance existing ones as compensation for those which are taken during construction projects. WI-IMB mitigation which is not feasible within the study area will occur elsewhere within the boun- daries of Mn/DOT's Metro District. Mn/DOT will select appropriate mitigation in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the DNR, and any other appropriate agencies. a e i 1 Y 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 f 96 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS I 1 t r 1 L * These wetlands are stockponds located in pastures or crop fields. A description of wetland types is found in appendix 5. Wetlands are mapped in figure 39. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 97 TABLE 19 WETLANDS IN STUDY AREA BY TYPE AND SIZE Corridor Wetland Wetland No. Location TYM Size (Acres) 1 South 3 0.5 2 South 213 1.8 3 None 2/3 1.4 4 None 2 0.3 5 None 5 5.5 6 Central /South 5 2.4 7 North 2 1.1 8 North 2 0.6 9 North 2/6 5.1 10 None 2.6 12.0 11 North 2 0.3 12 North 2 0.1 13 North 2 0.1 14 North 2 0.2 15 North 3 1.2 16 None 2 0.2 17 North 2 0.2 18 None 2 1.1 19 None 2 0.1 20 None 2 0.5 21 None 2 0.5 22 None 2 3.4 23 None 2 0.4 24 None 5 4.9 25 North 3 0.5 26 None 2 0.4 27 None 2 0.5 28 North 2 0.2 29 North 2 0.1 30 North 2 0.2 31 None 2 0.3 32 North 3 0.4 33 North 2 0.4 34 North 2 0.2 35 North 2 1.5 36 North 2 1.4 37 North 2 1.4 38 North 2/6 40.0 39 None 2 10 40 None 6 7 41 None 2 30.0 42 None 2 50.0 43 North 2 1.0 44 None 2 26.0 45 None 2/6 19.4 46 None 3 11.5 47 South(Wl) 3 0.8 48 South(WI) S* 0.1 49 None(WI) 5* 0.1 50 None(WI) 5* 0.1 51 None(WI) 5* 0.1 52 North 3 1.2 53 None 2 4.0 * These wetlands are stockponds located in pastures or crop fields. A description of wetland types is found in appendix 5. Wetlands are mapped in figure 39. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 97 (0 0' U) (o 2 0 0 0 (D n 0 N N 0• cn O m U) a36 \�\ ,/� WISCONSIN 2 - \ North n 2 ® 0 \ V \ TWn 18 0 � � 0 tm. 219 020 �O- 2 ,I \ 5 � 25 031 \ 4 / \\ caw s TILLWATER I 1. '\� 39 I I I I I I I I I I I 4 U I cu. STILLWATER 5 6 HOULTON I --- -- - - - -I / I �. /I I 4 493 � I I I ` Q I �1,' `�R; /• /• � — / x`11 Q Figure 39 Wetland Location Map Naga wm mw� m��mft Na ft" mw r� m m6 sift t CI t t 1 1) 1 a i 1 In Wisconsin, there is nothing similar to Mn/DOT's wetland banking program. However, as mentioned earlier, potential wetland impacts in Wisconsin are likely to be very minor, limited to a few small areas along the central alignment of the South Corridor. Mitigation for any wetland impacts in Wisconsin will be developed in cooperation with the Wisconsin DNR and other appropriate agencies. TABLE 20 WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS BY CORRIDOR Wetland North Central South Characteristics Corridor Corridor Corridor Number of Wetlands 23 1 5 Total Basin Acreage 57.9 2.4 5.6 Modal Wetland Type * 2 5 5 Most Frequent Size Class(Acres) 0 -1 1 -10 0 -1 Ave. Wetland Basin Size(Acres) 2.5 2.4 1.1 s See appendix 5 for more information on wetland types. WATER BODY MODIFICATION AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS The major areas of concern include the St. Croix River, Brown's Creek, and various wetlands. Be- cause impacts to these areas are analyzed in detail elsewhere in this draft EIS, they will not be repeated here. A discussion of various water - related issues is included in the following portions of the environ- mental consequences section in this document: WILDLIFE IMPACTS This section will focus on terrestrial wildlife im- pacts. Effects on aquatic life, including potential impacts on the endangered Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel, are discussed under other chapters (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and water quality and fisheries). It is expected that wildlife impacts resulting from the construction of any of the BUILD alternatives will not be substantial, even at the local level. None of the alternatives under consideration is anticipated to cause the elimination of any wildlife species now using the corridors or adjacent areas. However, construction will permanently remove and /or dis- rupt some kinds of habitat, and displace wildlife in certain areas. While some species will be able to utilize habitat created by highway construction, new right -of -way habitat will not fully replicate the territory lost to construction. In most cases, wildlife species which water quality; wetlands; floodplains; wild and scenic rivers; threatened or endangered species; and construction. Those interested in information beyond what is included in the above subsections should consult the special environmental studies Mn/DOT has released on natural resources, threatened and endangered species, and tunnels. require timbered or brushy habitat will be reduced, while those which favor grassy areas should in- crease or stay about the same. In Minnesota, impacts to wildlife habitat resulting from the South and Central Corridor alternatives would be concentrated near the St. Croix River. Because much of the North Corridor would be on new alignment, this alternative would have the greatest impact on wildlife. In Wisconsin, impacts in all corridors would tend to be similar, varying primarily with the length of the route. These impacts would consist of the transfor- mation of some floodplain forest, but the effects would be primarily associated with the conversion of farmland -- including cropped fields, grassland, and wooded parcels- -into highway right -of -way. The NO -BUILD alternative will not have a major effect on wildlife in either state. IStillwater - Houston River Crossing Draft EIS 99 In addition to the floodplains listed in table 21, all corridor alignments will cross a number of small, intermittent streams. If a BUILD decision becomes the preferred alternative, these intermittent streams will be investigated for flooding potential. If flood- ing problems are known to occur, the roadway design will incorporate measures to minimize flood- ing conditions. The NO -BUILD alternative will have no immediate impact on floodplains. At some point in the future, however, floodplains could be affected by bridge repair or replacement work. TABLE 21 POTENTIAL FLOODPLAIN CROSSINGS 100 Year Floodplain Type of Crossing Approx. Length Flood Elev. North Corridor Brown's Creek Transverse 1,000 Feet 896.0 Twin Lakes/North Transverse 700 Feet 886.2* Twin Lakes/South Transverse 700 Feet 891.0* St. Croix River Transverse 1,300 Feet 693.0 St. Croix River Tunnel 3,000 Feet 692.0 Brown's Creek* * Tunnel 1,500 Feet 692.0- 712.0 Central Corridor St. Croix River Transverse 2,000 Feet 692.0 South Corridor St. Croix River Transverse 3,000 Feet 692.0 St. Croix River Tunnel 3,500 Feet 692.0 Estimated 100 year flood elevation. ' * A tunnel in the North Corridor could result in a longitudinal encroachment into the floodplain of Brown's Creek of approximately 1,5(X) foci. The length of encroachment could vary considerably depending on design features which are not yet developed. In addition, this alternative may necessitate an approximate 1,000 foot channel change of Brown's Creek in the vicinity of the TH 96 /rH 95 intersection. The channel change would begin in an as yet undetermined point in the river valley and continue to the Brown's Creek confluence with the St. Croix River. 102 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS w i r i i Y I 1 1 1 1 WILD AND SCENIC RIVER IMPACTS Information concerning the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is discussed in detail in the Section 4(i) documents included with the draft EIS. This chapter will summarize major impacts and mitiga- tion which are addressed in greater depth in those reports. Before discussing specific impact areas, it is impor- tant to note that none of the BUILD alternatives would jeopardize the St. Croix River's status as a National Scenic Riverway. The section of the river included in the study area is classified as "recrea- tional", the least restrictive of the three categories established in the original 1968 Wild and Scenic River Legislation (the other categories are "wild" and "scenic "). Recreational designation permits roads, bridges, and various shoreline developments. Scenic designation is operative on the river above the Washington - Chisago County (north of the study area), and on the Namekagon River, a major St. Croix tributary in northwestern Wisconsin. One of the principal concerns of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was the prohibition of dams in order to maintain the free - flowing state of key rivers; there is no explicit language in the Act which forbids the construction of major transportation facilities. Ac- cording to a 1974 Senate Committee report on amendments to the Wild and Scenic River Act, the only use "strictly prohibited" by the legislation is impoundment. t In the appendix of the 1975 Final Environmental Statement produced for the Lower St. Croix Nation- al Scenic Riverway, the FHWA, Wisc/DOT, and the Metropolitan Council questioned the impact River - way designation would have on future regional transportation plans, including a new bridge in the vicinity of Stillwater- Houlton. In response, the Final Environmental Statement contained the fol- lowing observations: "...it is believed that Section 13 (g) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides the necessary flexibility to satisfy future transporta- tion needs. „2 Additionally, the plan stated that "the Recreation River designation which prevails at Stillwater contemplates ready accessibility to transportation and bars neither bridges nor parallel- ing rail nor motor vehicle corridors. "3 Planning for a new river crossing at Stillwater - Houlton initially began in the late 1960s, and predates the 1972 designation of the Lower St. Croix as a National Scenic Riverway. While a new river crossing in the vicinity of Stillwater - Houlton would not be inherently incon- sistent with the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, there would be some important adverse impacts with any of the alternatives, including the NO- BUILD option. Riverway impacts and potential mitigation can be summarized as follows: NO -BUILD * Growing vehicle congestion in downtown Stillwater. This will result in increasing noise, air pollution, blight, and conflicts with pedestrians. Stillwater is a major Riverway destination, and its most important collections of historical sites. Large traffic volumes in downtown Stillwater conflict with the City's historical qualities, and have adverse economic effects on local businesses. One of the aims of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is the protection of historical areas in designated river corridors. * Increasing conflicts between vehicles and large watercraft. Both vehicle and boat traffic are increas- ing at the lift bridge. Since 1970, watercraft on the Lower St. Croix have been increasing at a rate of 5.6 percent a year, a trend which is expected to continue. Under a NO -BUILD scenario, it is anticipated that vehicle traffic over the lift bridge will grow by over 100 percent between 1986 and the year 2014. The problem is compounded by the fact that peak periods for both vehicles and boats tend to occur at the same times. On Sunday afternoons in the summer, 1Hearings before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on amending the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Lower St. Croix River Act of 1972, 93rd Congress, 2nd session, report no. 93 -1207 (1974). 2U.S. Department of Interior/National Park Service, Final Environmental Statement: Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, August, 1975, p. 107. 3Ibid., p. 110. 104 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 I 1 vehicle traffic can back up for several miles into Wisconsin when the lift is up. BUILD * Water Quality Impacts All of the BUILD alter- natives would have short -term adverse impacts on water quality during the construction period. Im- pacts would mainly be caused by the disturbance of sediments on the St. Croix River bottom; effects caused by tunnel construction would be the most serious. In addition to St. Croix River impacts, the North Corridor tunnel would have a major effect on Brown's Creek. Water quality impacts to the creek would likely be short -term, but major long -term structural changes would be required in the stream bed. Soil erosion around the highway and bridge construction area is another potential cause of short- term water quality impacts. Specific mitigation procedures for river bottom im- pacts can not be determined until a BUILD/NO BUILD decision has been made and a specific cross- ing option chosen within a preferred corridor. This is because construction techniques could vary wide- ly according to crossing type and corridor location. Mn/DOT and the contractor will follow all ap- plicable procedures to limit soil erosion around Brown's Creek and in other construction areas. * Aquatic/Terrestrial Wildlife Impacts Increased sedimentation downstream from the work area will have an adverse impact on aquatic life. Because of their mobility, fish are likely to be less affected than mussels. Of particular concern is the Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel, which is on the Federal list of threatened and endangered species. An additional concern with the North Corridor tunnel alternative is the Brown's Creek trout population. The Bald Eagle and the Peregrine Falcon are also classified as Federal threatened and endangered species, but neither will be affected by any of the BUILD alternatives. In addition to Federal species, there are a number of plants and animals on the Minnesota and Wisconsin threatened and en- dangered lists which could be affected by a BUILD decision. Along with the Federal species, these are listed and discussed in a Mn/DOT special report and a draft EIS summary chapter on threatened and endangered species. In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice, Mn/DOT has agreed to an extensive mitigation procedure to reduce impacts on mussel populations, including locating piers away from mussel beds or Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS relocating mussels to unaffected areas upstream. Mitigation for any impacts on Brown's Creek trout habitat will be coordinated with the Minnesota DNR. Potential mitigation for state - listed species will be decided on a case -by -case basis, but could include adjusting corridor alignments, relocation, or the creation of new or improved habitat. r Bluff All of the BUILD alternatives will have some adverse impacts on shore areas. Paten tial impacts will be the least with the tunnel alterna- tives and a North Corridor bridge, which would go from one bluff top to another. The amount of bluff cuts necessary with the Central and South Corridors would generally be more extensive on the Wiscon- sin side, but would depend on the specific align- ment. On the Minnesota shore, the greatest potential impact would be with a Central Corridor decision, which would affect the bluffs west of TH 36. Impacts to bluff areas resulting from a BUILD decision could be reduced by using a sub - aqueous or on -land tunnel, employing a high bridge design, or utilizing natural draws or existing cuts for bridge approaches (e.g., like some of the Central and South Corridor alignments). Whenever feasible, attempts will be made to ensure that cuts blend into the river valley environment as much as possible. * Recreation/Visual Impacts To a certain extent, these are closely related to bluff impacts. The largest potential recreation impact would be with a North Corridor bridge, which probably would entail placing a pier on Mile Long Island, a heavily und camping and beaching area. As a fault, some campsites could be lost on the island, and tbKe would be major visual impacts along a stretch of river which has retained a reply wild appearance (see the Section 4 (f) on Mile Long Island). In addition to affecting Mile Long Island, a North Corridor bridge would also be a major visual presence from the Bomisite Wayside, a popular recreation area and historical site on the Minnesota shore (see figure 41). In the Central and South Corridors, overall visual impacts of a new river crossing would be less notable due to the more developed character of the river, even though there is a greater potential for bluff cuts. Piers from a new bridge would have a relatively minor long -term adverse impact on watercraft. A Central Corridor BUILD decision would have an adverse aesthetic impact on Kolliner Park. In all the study corridors, construction ac- 105 NORTH CORRIDOR ® CENTRAL CORRIDOR SOUTH CORRIDOR ��■ SOUTH TUNNEL NORTH TUNNEL Figure 41 Selected Riverway Recreation Areas tivities would result in a short -term negative impact on recreation. For watercraft, a potential benefit of a new river crossing in any corridor would be less conflict with vehicles at the existing bridge site. If a new crossing was constructed, the number of lift openings could be increased, or the old bridge might eventually be removed. The primary means for reducing the visual impact of a bridge in a specific corridor would occur during the design process. Mn/DOT will solicit the input of citizens, agencies, local governments, and public interest groups in helping to select an appropriate type and design for a new river crossing. * Noise and Air Quality No noise or air quality standards are expected to be exceeded on the River - way as a result of any of the crossing corridors. As discussed in the noise and air quality special study, MPCA noise standards which will be met include a 70 Lio dBA level for parks and recreation areas, and 65 Lio dBA for camping areas (55 Lio dBA at night). All corridors will easily meet existing state carbon monoxide (CO) standards; the highest CO levels would be found in downtown Stillwater under the NO- BUILD option. No noise or air quality mitiga- tion will be required along the Riverway for any of the corridors. * Status of Existing Bridee None of the study alternatives require removal of the existing bridge; replacement in -place was dismissed as an option because it would not solve the congestion problem in downtown Stillwater. Consequently, the disposi- tion of the old bridge is not an issue which neces- sarily has to be determined prior to a BUILD/NO -BUILD decision. 106 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 Important factors affecting the future of the existing bridge are as follows: 1.) Historical importance. The bridge is a key cultural artifact in the lower St. Croix valley and an important example of an in- creasingly uncommon engineering style; it was recently added to the National Register of Historic Places. State transportation departments have a Federally mandated responsibility to help preserve historic bridges where ever possible. 2.) Value to Stillwater. The bridge is a key element in the City's future plans for its downtown area and Kolliner Park. Stillwater's future development of Kolliner Park depends on the easy access afforded by the existing bridge. A new crossing would reduce vehicle traffic on the lift bridge, making it more appealing to bicyclists and pedestrians. 3.) Direct transportation link between Stillwater and the Houlton area. Keeping this crossing open would have a beneficial impact on the social and economic interaction be- tween Stillwater and Houlton. None of the new crossings would allow such easy access between the two communities. The best solution to the region's transportation problems would be to maintain the existing bridge in conjunction with a new crossing. 4.)Funding. It is unlikely that either Mn/DOT or Wisc/DOT would be able to indefinitely fund the operation and maintenance of the existing bridge if a new crossing is built. Sometime in the future, the transportation agencies will begin the environmental processes necessary to evaluate the disposition of the lift bridge. Unless a new owner can be located, the agencies will eventually propose to have the struc- ture demolished or relocated to another site. 5.) River -based recreation would benefit from removal. In particular, large boats would no longer have to wait for the lift, and Kolliner Park would (except with a new Central Corridor bridge) become a more appealing location for beaching watercraft. 6.) Reduced presence of the built environment on the Riverway. Although removal of the lift bridge would be an important cultural loss, it would help focus attention on the natural characteristics of the river. This would be particularly important under a Central Corridor BUILD scenario; two adjacent bridges could result in adverse visual impacts. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The Federal government and the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin have developed lists detailing threatened and endangered species, which have been granted special protection. A species included on the Federal register is at risk in the U.S. as a whole, while those on the state lists may be imperilled only in Minnesota and /or Wisconsin. A given species may be included on both state and Federal listings, in which case the most restrictive classification takes precedence. In addition to individual species, par- ticular kinds of rare or unique habitats are sometimes afforded protection. For more detailed information, see appendix 6, the Threatened and Endangered Species Spg&ial Sjqdy, and the mussel survey report. FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The study area is within the potential breeding range of three Federally threatened and endangered species. These include the following: Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel m ilis hi i i); Peregrine Fal- Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS con Talco per anus); and the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). All three of these are also on the Minnesota and Wisconsin state lists. Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel The only species from the Federal listing which could be potentially impacted by any of the BUILD alternatives is the Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel, a rare species of clam. The Higgins' Eye has historically been reported in major tributaries to the Upper Mis- sissippi River, including the St. Croix. According to a 1987 survey conducted by a malacologist at the request of Mn/DOT, no live specimens of the endangered mussel were found within the immediate vicinity of the study area cor- ridors. However, a number of dead Higgins' Eye mussels were discovered, and it is highly probable the species is present around Stillwater - Houlton at low densities. No other Federally endangered aquatic species (or any aquatic species proposed for 107 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS OVERVIEW OF STILLWATER - HOULTON AREA HISTORY The Lower St. Croix River Valley is an area with a rich Native American and European - influenced cul- tural heritage. Well before the time of European settlement, the land around Stillwater - Houlton was used by Dakota and Ojibway Indians, who were removed from the area as a result of treaties ratified in 1838. Stillwater was founded in 1843, and is known as the "birthplace of Minnesota." This title is a reference to the Territorial Convention which was held in the city in 1848 to petition Congress for a new territory, a move which resulted in the or- ganization of the Minnesota Territory a year later.t Stillwater grew rapidly during the last half of the nineteenth century, fueled by its location on a navigable river and a great lumber boom which began after the town's first sawmill was constructed in 1844. Logs from the vast forests to the north were floated down the St. Croix River to Stillwater, where they were removed from the water and processed into lumber at the city's mills. The lumber was then placed in the river again and floated downstream to finishing mills on the Mississippi River. Today, the Boom Site Wayside north of the city limits marks the point where the logs were removed from the river. In addition to helping support the lumber industry, the St. Croix also provided a corridor for sternwheelers, which carried passengers, goods, and mail up and down the river. Regular steamboat service was available from Prescott and St. Paul up the St. Croix as far as Taylor's Falls. At this time, Stillwater was the principal supply depot for the entire St. Croix Valley. Although steam powered lumber mills were the most efficient, Stillwater's first mill utilized power from water flowing down from Lake McKusick into the town. During the wet spring of 1852, disaster struck when the Lake McKusick dam broke, sending a cascade of mud and water down into the town, burying buildings. One long -term effect of the flood was that more land was made available for construc- tion along the river, due to the accumulation of sediment and debris. Sawdust from the mills was also used to build up land along the river, a factor which even today contributes to soggy foundations in the downtown area. In the mid - nineteenth century, Stillwater had the distinction of being the lumbering capital of Min- nesota. However, the main logging areas began to move further north in the 1860s, and the output from mills in Minneapolis began to outdistance Stillwater's, which nonetheless continued to flourish. The arrival of the railroad to Stillwater in 1871 diminished the importance of steamboats and precipitated a major change in the local economy. The mills shifted their emphasis from turning out raw lumber to shingles, lathe barrels, and other finished wood products. The wood -based economy was bolstered by the spin -off development of breweries, foundries, masonries, retail outlets, and manufacturing plants. The railroads greatly ex- panded the markets for Stillwater's lumber and manufactured goods, making the city a major wholesale distribution point for northwestern Wis- consin and northeastern Minnesota. When the Lum- ber Era economy peaked in the 1880s and 1890s, the population of Stillwater was an estimated 12,000, slightly less than the 1988 population of 13,485. During the main Lumber Era period, lumber barons, bankers, and business owners contributed their resources to a wealth of new construction. Numerous Victorian homes in the Federal, Italianate, Greek Revival, Gothic, Second Empire, and Queen Anne styles rose on the slopes back from the river. During this period, the wooden clapboard commercial buildings previously found in the Stillwater downtown area were replaced by struc- tures in the Italianate, Gothic and Greek Revival styles, some with Queen Anne towers and bays. After the turn of the century, the Lumber Era in Stillwater quickly declined. As logging continued to move further north, it became uneconomical to transport logs to the city for processing. Addition- 1Much of the information in this section has been adapted from two documents, the Stillwater Downtown Plan: Committee Review Draft, released in November, 1987, and Historical Reconstruction of the Riverfront: Stillwater Minnesota, a study completed for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1985 by Historical Research, Inc. and John A. Fried Associated Architects and Engineers, Inc. 110 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 t I 1 t ally, the frontier pushed relentlessly westward, and markets for the lumber became more distant. The last log passed through the St. Croix Boom in 1914. Because the economy of Stillwater had diversified during the Lumber Era, the city managed to avoid becoming a ghost town after the timber industry's decline. Local entrepreneurs who had amassed for- tunes in lumber wisely put capital into flour milling, manufacturing, wholesaling, and banking. Manufacturing plants rose along the river, and Stillwater became noted for producing freight pas- senger cars, farm engines, threshers, and other agricultural implements. Stillwater grew to be the largest producer of agricultural machinery in the region, shipping its products by rail to newly home- steaded lands in the Dakotas and other plains states. Homes built during this period tended to be more practical and less grand than those erected during the Lumber Era. New areas were platted back from the central city which included homes in the Bungalow, American Foursquare, English Revival, Craftsman, Prairie, and Princess Anne styles. In the Commer- cial District, buildings in the Classic Revival Style became common. In conjunction with the City Beautiful Movement, Stillwater's first city plan was completed in 1918. The Movement's emphasis on formal gardens, parks, and green spaces is visible today in Lowell Park, located along the river in the downtown area. In 1931, the existing lift bridge opened for traffic, replacing a wooden pontoon toll bridge dating from 1876. The lift bridge has long been a symbol of Stillwater - Houlton, and was recently added to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Ac- cording to the NRHP inventory- nomination form submitted to the Minnesota Historic Preservation Officer, the Stillwater - Houlton bridge "is associated with events which have made a substantial contribu- tion to the broad patterns of regional history, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of a given style of construction." Of the six vertical lift bridges existing in Minnesota and Wisconsin before the Second World War, the Stillwater - Houlton structure is one of three which remain. One of these (located at Prescott, Wiscon- sin) will be torn down in the early 1990s. The other (at Duluth Harbor) was rebuilt in the 1930s. Con- sequently, the Stillwater- Houlton bridge will soon be the only remaining original example of a tower - and- cable, through -truss drawbridge in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Aside from some necessary func- Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS tional modifications and repairs, the original in- tegrity of the lift bridge has been preserved. Stillwater's Manufacturing Era ended with the Great Depression. During the 1930s mills and manufac- turing plants were demolished, their former spaces along the river left vacant. By the 1940s the popula- tion of the City had declined to a low of around 7,000. In the 1950s, Stillwater began to revive. The Twin Cities were growing, and the advent of the Automobile Era put Stillwater within reasonable commuting distance of the metropolitan area. As a result of growth during the 1960s, and 1970s a num- ber of impressive old buildings were demolished in the downtown area, and many other storefronts were remodeled. Perhaps the most notable loss was Union Station, which was one of the most architec- turally significant train depots in Minnesota. This period of change has come full - circle in recent years, with a growing emphasis on historical preser- vation. Historic structures which have been rehabilitated for new uses include the Freight House Restaurant, the Old Post Office, the Staples Mill, and the Grand Garage. A survey of historic struc- tures in Downtown Stillwater was recently com- pleted, and there is a possibility that portions of the central core could eventually become a National Register Downtown Historic District. It has become increasingly clear that historical resources are ex- tremely important to Stillwater's present and future viability, making it an attractive place to live as well as a popular destination for tourists. HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE STILLWATER - HOULTON AREA Federal laws and regulations require that harmful impacts to important historical and archaeological resources be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Reconnaissance surveys were conducted to supple- ment the list of known sites and properties. As a result, a number of historic and archaeological sites have been identified in the vicinity of the new river crossing study corridors. The majority of the sites are located on the Min- nesota side of the St. Croix in Stillwater, including eighteen historic sites and standing structures which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places 111 (NRHP). In addition, there are a number of struc- tures which have been listed in the Minnesota Inven- tory of Historic Places. Minnesota also has five known archaeological sites, one of which is listed on the NRHP. In Wisconsin, a potentially important archaeological site is present in the North Corridor. Major historic and archaeological sites are listed below, and are mapped in figure 42. Supporting documents for this section are as- sembled in the appendix of the HistaLkal 1� AL- chaeological ImpaM Spggigl ,&Udy. A selection of this correspondence is included in appendix 7 of this draft EIS. In addition, a special report summarizing archaeological survey work in the Wisconsin por- tion of the study area was completed in 1989 by the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. b x Vi r a a V n •- m x Q� < HISTORIC SITES /STANDING STRUCTURES CURRENTLY LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER (A.) C. M• and St. P. Freight House and Depot, 233 -335 Water St. (B.) Rasone Hersey House, 416 South 4th St. (C.) Captain pusnn Je ab House, 504 South 5th St. (D.) Albert hammers House, 1306 South 3rd St. (B.) Minnesota State Prison (o)d), Main at Laurel St. (F.) Ivory McKusick House, 504 North 2nd St. (G.) Nelson School. 1018 South 1st St. (H.) Pest House, County Highway 11. (I.) St. Croix Boom company House and Barn, 9666 North St. Croix 'Nail. O CO.RD. 64 © FOOT 00th ST. N. N T O C.S.A.H. 12 ©O O W 4 q v 3 W a m i I o 0 we Figure 42 Historical and Archaeological Sites CO. RD. E 112 Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS I (J.) St. Croix Boom Site, TH 95 North, (National Historic Landmark). (K.) St. Croix Lumber Mills/Stillwater Manufactur- ing Company, 318 North Main Street. (L.) William Sauntry House and Recreation Hall, 626 North 4th St. and 625 North 5th St. (M.) Stone Arch Bridge, off County Road 5. (N.) Henry Stussi House, 9097 Mendel Road. (O.) Warden's House, Minnesota State Prison (old), 602 North Main St. (P.) Washington County Courthouse, West Pine Street and South 3rd St. (Q.) Mortimer Webster House, 435 South Broad- way. (R.) Stillwater - Houlton Lift Bridge KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (1.) Prehistoric Burial Mound. (2.) Prehistoric Habitation Site. (3.) Prehistoric Habitation Site. (4.) Prehistoric Habitation Site. (5.) Prehistoric Habitation Site, (listed on National Register). (6.) Twin Springs Prehistoric Campsite (Note: Some potential archaeological sites in Min- nesota and Wisconsin are still under investigation.) In addition to the sites listed above, there are a number of other structures of historic significance, some of which might someday be included on the National Register. The following list, which does not necessarily include all remaining historic struc- tures in the study area, was adapted from the 1987 Stillwater Downtown Plan: Committee Review Draft: • Lowell Park and Pavilion • Main Street, from Nelson to Commercial • Old Post Office • Lowell Inn * Stillwater Gazette Building * Piper, Jaffray, and Hopwood Building * 106 East Chestnut Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS • Brick Alley • Commander Elevator • Lumber Exchange • Vittorio's • Connolly Shoe Building • 226 East Myrtle • The Arlington • Junior High School (South Hill) • Various Homes and Churches * Pioneer Park * Stillwater Library POTENTIAL IMPACTS The North Corridor bridge and tunnel routes could directly or indirectly affect a number of known cultural resources. Both North Corridor alternatives would pass close to the Henry Stussi House, located between TH 96 and North Twin Lake. Although precise impacts will not be certain until an exact alignment is known (if the North Corridor becomes the selected alternative), it is unlikely that the struc- ture would be physically affected. Other notable properties which are located within several blocks of the two North Corridor alignments include two archaeological sites, an old stone arch bridge off of County Road 5, and the Boomsite Wayside. Per- haps the greatest potential for impacts would be at the historical Boomsite, which is also a popular recreation area. Although the location would not be Physically impacted by a North Corridor bridge, the structure would dramatically alter views of the river valley downstream from the site. Archaeological investigations in the North Corridor have not been completed. According to the Min- nesota DNR, human bones and artifacts have been discovered on land near the Minnesota touch -down point of the North Corridor bridge. These reports are being examined. In the Wisconsin North (bridge) Corridor, there is an archaeological area known as the Twin Springs Site. According to investigations, this prehistoric campsite is potential- ly eligible for listing on the National Register. Ad- ditional work will be necessary to determine more details about its importance. Of the three corridors, the Central Corridor would come closest to the large concentration of historical structures in the study area. One National Register structure - -the Mortimer Webster House - -is located 113 on the bluff above TH 36, but is unlikely to be directly affected by a Central Corridor decision. While the Central Corridor would not enter downtown Stillwater, its proximity to the core of the city would have an important indirect impact on important historical resources. The single most important historical impact result- ing from a Central Corridor decision would be the effect on the existing bridge. The lift bridge would not be physically impacted by a new crossing, but the proximity of a new bridge could have a very serious negative visual impact. Two river crossings converging across a relatively small area would produce a congested appearance, diminishing the strong visual lines of the existing bridge and reduc- ing views from the historic Stillwater waterfront. Based on current information, the South Corridor alignments would have the least potential for adver- sely affecting historical and archaeological resour- ces. No notable historic or archaeological sites are known to exist in any of the South Corridor align- ments. The NO -BUILD alternative has the potential for the most serious long -term adverse impacts on Stillwater's historical character. The noise, air pol- lution, and congestion created by an increasingly high volume of vehicular traffic through downtown Stillwater threatens the historical ambiance the city is attempting to preserve. Downtown Stillwater is highly dependant on pedestrian traffic; the ease with which people are able to drive into town, park, get out of their cars, and walk around in the core area will directly affect the continued economic vitality of many of the local businesses, including the his- torical structures which have been renovated. Removing through traffic from downtown Stillwater - -which is a major aim of all the BUILD alternatives - -will help protect the historical values of the city. CONTAMINATION SITES According to information supplied by the Min- nesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), there are a number of existing and /or potential hazardous waste sites scattered throughout the study area. In addition, the MPCA provided a list of sites where underground storage tank leaks have been reported, and where hazardous substances and /or petroleum products have spilled. The disposition of the lift bridge is closely con- nected to a BUILD/NO -BUILD decision. How- ever, it is also a separate issue, as none of the BUILD alternatives require that the existing structure be removed. Because of its historical significance, the lift bridge is covered by the procedures in Fedcral Sections 4(f) and 106. If a new river crossing is constructed, Mn /DOT and Wisc/DOT will initiate the above study processes when the structure be- comes unsafe and is closed for continued vehicular use (5 -15 years, without major work). Neither transportation department is in a position to assume the cost of owning and maintaining two river cross- ings at Stillwater - Houlton. After the existing bridge has been declared unsafe, the structure will not be rehabilitated for further transportation use unless a local government and /or private owner can be found. MITIGATION At this time, no mitigation for historical impacts is being proposed. Most potential conflicts with cul- tural resources have already been avoided; the loca- tion of historic and archaeological sites was an important factor early in the study corridor selection process, when the present corridors were chosen for further analysis. If there is BUILD decision, the precise corridor alignment ol'the selected alternative will be deter- mined. Any historical and /archaeological impacts resulting from the selected route will be analyzed in detail in the final EIS; at that time, specific mitiga- tion will also be discussed. Presently, available information indicates that there is a high probability that the South Corridor and - -to a lesser extent - -the Central Corridor, would result in no direct historical or archaeological impacts requiring mitigation. If it is necessary to remove the existing bridge at some point in the future, the mitigation procedures will follow those set forth in Sections 4 (1) and 100. For the Wisconsin portion of the study area, the Department of Natural Resources examined its lists of active and abandoned landfills, as well as its hazardous material spill files. The DNR had no sites listed for the area reviewed. There are no Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, C)m- pensation, and Liability Act /CERCLA) sites, and no reports of leaking underground storage tanks or hazardous wastes stored in the area. 1 i 1 1 114 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS I Most of the sites supplied by the MPCA are located well outside any of the possible corridor locations. There are three pQtential contamination sites, how- ever, which are very close to a study corridor. The NSP King Plant Slag Disposal Area No.1 is located immediately south of TH 36, west of Beach Road. Depending on exact alignments, one or more of the South Corridor options could require right of way from the edge of this area. Should a South Corridor route become the preferred alternative, a more detailed analysis of this site would be necessary in the final EIS. Two other potential contamination sites are located near Brown's Creek Valley, in the vicinity of the North Corridor tunnel route. It is not known at this point whether they would be affected by right of way acquisition. The sites include a railroad dump, lo- cated north of Hazel court near Dellwood Road, and a city demolition dump, located northeast of Hazel Street East and 2nd Street North. As in the case of the South Corridor, a more thorough site evaluation would be required if this became the preferred alter- native The information supplied by the MPCA and the Wisc./DNR does not necessarily include all existing or potential sites in the area. In the event of a BUILD decision, the selected corridor will undergo a detailed evaluation for the potential presence of soil and /or groundwater contamination. Properties found to be contaminated will be investigated to determine the type and extent of contamination, the remedial action necessary to clean up the site, and the estimated cleanup costs that could be incurred. For correspondence with the MPCA and Wisc./DNR regarding hazardous waste sites, refer to appendix 8. LIST OF POTENTIAL/EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES The following list includes the existing or potential hazardous waste sites obtained through the MPCA's file search. The list includes the name of the site, its approximate location, and its classification(s). The classification descriptions are listed beneath the sites, which are mapped in figure 43. (1) Stillwater City Dump, County Road 12 and Eagle Ridge Trail, (categories B, H) (2.) Stillwater Gas Manufacturing Site, near Nelson St. and South Main St., (category B). (3.) Stillwater Gas Manufacturing Site H, 423 South Main St, (category B). (4.)UFE Industries, Inc., 1850 Greeley St., (category B). (5.) NSP King Plant Slag Disposal Area No. 1, King Power Plant, south side of TH 36, near junction with TH 95, (categories E, G, H). (6.) Railroad Dump, north of Hazel Court, near Dellwood Road, (category G). (7.) City Demolition Dump, northeast of Hazel St. East and 2nd St. North, (category G). (8.) Stillwater Dump, north side of County Road 12, west of Birchwood Drive, (categories G, H). (9.) Lake McKusick Dump, northwest of Boutwell Rd. North and County Road 12, (categories G, H). Categories (A.) EPA National Priorities List (NPL) (B.) EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). (C.) MPCA Permanent List of Priorities (PLP). (D.) MPCA Regulatory Compliance, Hazardous Waste Enforcement Log (E.) MPCA List of Permitted Solid Waste Facilities. (F.) MPCA Hazardous Waste Permit Unit Project Identification List (G.) MPCA 1980 Metropolitan Area Waste Dis- posal Site Inventory. (H.) MPCA 1980 Statewide Open Dump Inventory LEAK/SPILL SITES The following list includes sites from the MPCA's Underground Storage Tank Information System Data Base. It includes both leaking underground storage tanks, as well as sites where hazardous sub- stances and /or petroleum products have been spilled. The MPCA supplied Mn/DOT with the name of the business or site, and its address. Figure 43 illustrates the site locations. All of the known leak/spill sites are outside the study corridors, and should have no bearing on a BUILD/NO -BUILD decision. It is probable, how- ever, that there are additional leak/spill sites in the study area which have not yet been identified.If there is a BUILD decision, a property history evaluation and site reconnaissance should be under- Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 115 taken to identify any currently unlisted leak/spill (3.) Croix Oil, 1749 South Greeley St. sites in the preferred corridor. (4.) Culligan, 826 South 4th St. (1.)Ammerman, 1815 S. Greeley St. (5.) Press On, 1987 Industrial Blvd. (2.) Burlington Northern, East Mulberry and North Water Streets. m 0 c� � tri 9e 64 CO. RD. 64 X. Both ST N. ( � CO. RD. E IF T" p w < 5 h � St vtoi^ (s ! x a POTENTIAL/ EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES LEAKS / SPILL SITES Figure 43 Contamination Sites 116 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 1 l� t 1 1 VISUAL IMPACTS Visual impacts are highly subjective. In the case of a St. Croix River crossing, aesthetic perceptions of a given crossing location and design are likely to vary markedly depending on whether the viewer lives, works, or recreates near the facility, or travels on it as a tourist or commuter/hauler. Of course, people do not necessarily fit neatly into a single category. An individual's perception of a river crossing will often vary depending on where they are and what they are doing at a particular time. Depending on a person's relationship with a river crossing, different aspects of the structure and its environment will assume greater or lesser impor- tance. To a person canoeing or fishing on the river, for example, impacts on the natural environment would likely be the most notable. To the owner of a business in historical downtown Stillwater, the effects of a new river crossing corridor on the built or cultural environment might assume the greatest importance. To auto-based tourists, both the natural and cultural environment are likely to be of interest, along with the geometric design of the highway and its relationship to the landscape. This section will provide an overview of the major visual impacts which can be expected in each cor- ridor. At this stage in the planning process, it is not feasible to discuss specific bridge or tunnel designs because of the number of type and design variations that are potentially available. Design criteria are highly site- specific, and will be fully addressed if and when a BUILD decision is made and a specific corridor selected. For a more detailed analysis of visual concerns, consult Mn/DOT's special studies on visual effects and wild and scenic river impacts. NORTH CORRIDOR The North Corridor bridge and tunnel routes would directly affect the most sensitive natural landscape in the study area. In the North Corridor area, in particular, the St. Croix River Valley is distin- guished by its scenery. The river here is bounded by forested bluffs and broken by numerous, un- developed islands in the middle. Of the two North Corridor alternatives, a bridge would have the most substantial and noticeable impact. Because of the bluffs on both sides of the river, a new bridge would be built high above the river, going from one ridge to another. Little bluff cutting would be required. However, for some people, a Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS bridge in this area has the potential for being an intrusion in a river valley which has remained surprisingly unspoiled. A North Corridor bridge would pass directly over Mile Long Island, a popular camping and picnicking destination. The presence of a new bridge could dramatically alter the current ambiance on the is- land; the bridge would be visible from all parts of the island and its shadow would shade portions of it at various times of the day. At night, lights from the structure would be visible to campers. In addition, it is probable that a pier would have to be constructed on the island. A North Corridor bridge would also be very prominent from the nearby Boomsite Wayside, lo- cated on the Minnesota shore. The Boomsite is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is a popular place for picnickers, tourists, and boaters. It is probable that a North Corridor bridge could. be constructed without the need for piers in the river, diminishing its effect on boats and canoes. None- theless, a high bridge along this stretch of the St. Croix would necessarily be a powerful, dominating visual presence for people enjoying the river in the immediate vicinity of the structure. However, it is likely that from a distance, a North Corridor bridge would be more obscured by river bends, islands, and trees than the more open Central and South Corridor bridge alternatives, which cross Lake St. Croix. For people who live and work in the St. Croix Val Icy near Stillwater, a North Corridor bridge would have the least impact in the sense that few would see it from their residences or work place. Compared to the South or Central Corridors, development in the area is sparse, with a scattering of homes on the ridge -tops above the river. For these homeowners, a new bridge would likely be seen as an adverse impact on the natural beauty of the river valley. The effect of a North Corridor bridge on motorists would be quite different from the impact on people in the valley. Travelers would be rewarded by out- standing vistas - -the will, forested river valley to the north, and Stillwater and Lake St. Croix to the south. For motorists, the North Corridor bridge would un- questionably offer the moss scenic views of the river valley of any of the crossing alternatives. The North Corridor bridge crossing would also have virtually 117 no grade, and would be the shortest and straightest of the bridges. A tunnel in the North Corridor would have a much less pronounced visual impact on the St. Croix River Valley than a new bridge. However, as in the other tunnel segments, the potential exists for cut and cover work on the bluffs, because it is not known at this point how conducive the rock is for boring. Back from the St. Croix on the Minnesota side, the tunnel approach and portal would have a major adverse impact on the scenic beauty of Brown's Creek Valley. For motorists, a tunnel would lack the visual interest afforded by a bridge. While the structure would be unique in the region, it is unlikely that a tunnel would become a cultural symbol for the Lower St. Croix Valley in the same sense that the existing lift bridge has been for many years. Like all of the BUILD options, the North Corridor routes would have a beneficial impact on the visual environment in downtown Stillwater; a large amount of traffic would go around rather than through it, reducing congestion. However, the North Corridor bridge and tunnel would be less successful in accomplishing this transportation goal than the other BUILD alternatives. Furthermore, the North Corridor would provide an incentive for businesses to relocate along County Road 15 and TH 96. Without appropriate land use controls, these areas could rapidly lose their present rural /exurban visual ambiance. CENTRAL CORRIDOR In contrast to the North Corridor, the Central Cor- ridor involves a much more developed portion of the study area. For motorists traveling on the Central /South Corridor common section of TH 36 in Minnesota, a new limited - access freeway would create a greater sense of order out of the built landscape; the confusing array of visual distractions such as stop lights, intersections, and signs would be eliminated, standardized, or made less apparent. For people working or shopping along this stretch, a lower grade on the highway would reduce the sights and sounds of traffic along a high volume corridor. Like the South Corridor, the Central Corridor would require the acquisition of a large number of homes in Oak Park Heights; residences left along the fringe of the new right -of -way would be affected by the visual presence of the river crossing corridor. 118 Above the current TH 36 in Stillwater, a few homes along the top of the bluff would be acquired for right -of -way in the Central Corridor, and many other residents in the area would be able to see the approach and /or new bridge. Many residents would probably consider this to be an adverse visual im- pact. Some bluff cutting might be necessary in sections of the cliff below the homes in this area, although the potential for this could be reduced if the railroad tracks below were relocated closer to the river. If an elevated Central Corridor roadway became the chosen design option, views of the Minnesota bluff from the river would be at least partially blocked, and the view of Stillwater from the east would lose some of its appeal. Because of the lack of space between the river and the Minnesota bluffs, a Central Corridor bridge ap- proach would have a more crowded appearance than the other corridors. This effect would bc; intensified if the old bridge remains in place; the two structures would form a kind of triangle on the river, diminish- ing the aesthetic integrity of the old lift bridge and the view from the Stillwater waterfront. A Central Corridor bridge could adversely affect plans Stillwater has for a future waterfront park/parking area south of downtown. If the existing bridge was eventually removed, it is unlikely that the new structure would be able to soon acquire the same historic and symbolic presence that the old bridge had for residents, business people, and visitors. On the other hand, visual clutter on the St. Croix would be reduced. As with all the BUILD alternatives, removal of the existing bridge would diminish the presence of civilization on the river. On the Wisconsin shore, impacts to the bluffs could be minimized by using the existing road corridor as much as possible, although additional cuts into the bluff could be necessary. The presence of the two bridges coming together on the Wisconsin shore would increase visual impacts to Kolliner Park, and diminish its appeal as a semi -wild recreation area. As in two of the South Corridor alignments, an on -land tunnel could be constructed to reduce bluff cuts below Houlton. Of the new bridge options, the Central Corridor alignments have the least amount of clearance above the river; the lowest bridge would have 45 feet of clearance over the channel. The proximity of a Central Corridor bridge to the river surface would have a strong visual impact on people in nearby boats. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 t 1 Ll f 1 1 1 LJ 1 1 To motorists using the bridge, the Central Corridor would lack the visual drama of a high bridge, al- though a good view of Stillwater would be available to those approaching from the east. The South Corridor "common" section along TH 36 would share the same attributes discussed above. On the Minnesota side, a South Corridor bridge would rise above a landscape of mixed residential and industrial land uses. Nearby riverfront develop- ments which would be visible from the bridge in- clude the Alan S. King Power Plant, the Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Sunnyside Marina, the Andersen Window factory, and - -on the bluffs above the river -- residential and commercial por- tions of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. Because of the large amount of development, the South Cor- ridor bridge alignments would have the least visual impact on Minnesota natural areas of any of the new bridge alternatives. The Wisconsin shore is much less developed, with forested bluffs dropping abruptly into the river from the flat farm and residential areas above. To a large extent, impacts to bluffs will be determined by the height of the bridge at the Wisconsin shore. In general, a lower and shorter bridge would require more bluff cutting in order to build the approach, but all of the South Corridor alignments would require at least some cutting. Two of the Wisconsin cross- ing alignments in the South Corridor include option- al tunnel segments which would reduce bluff impacts. In addition, the northern alignment takes advantage of a natural draw, which would help minimize the need for cutting, and partially shield the approach from river users up and downstream. A South Corridor bridge would be visible from a large number of residences in the area, on both sides of the river. For motorists, a South Corridor bridge would provide expansive views of the Lower St. Croix, upstream to Stillwater, and south to Bayport and the next bend in the river. Of all the crossing alternatives, a South Corridor tunnel would have the least visual impact on the St. Croix River and surrounding natural environment. Although the west approach would be visible from the river, it would be affecting an area which is already heavily developed, unlike the North Cor- ridor tunnel. The east portal in Wisconsin would be a considerable distance inland, shielded from the river by the bluffs. (For more details on tunnels, see the special Mn/DOT tunnel study.) Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS One potential visual effect of all the South Corridor alignments is that they would pass through un- developed agricultural land in Wisconsin. Without adequate zoning controls, these areas could lose their rural character as new development locates along the new route. NO -BUILD A major visual effect of the NO -BUILD option would be increasing congestion and clutter on TH 36, both in downtown Stillwater and along the com- mercial strip in Oak Park Heights. In Stillwater, congestion is already affecting the ambiance of the historical downtown area, and this can be expected to increase substantially if the old bridge remains the only river crossing in the area. Changes which could affect the visual environment include an in- crease in signs, traffic signals, concrete islands, safety barriers, turn - lanes, and other incremental traffic improvements. A major benefit of the NO -BUILD option is that it would not by itself precipitate any major visual changes in the St. Croix River Valley, although auto and boat congestion at the lift bridge would continue to increase. The NO -BUILD alternative would also help to keep new development concentrated along the existing corridors. MITIGATION If a BUILD decision is the preferred alternative, a number of mitigation measures are available to bet- ter integrate a new highway corridor and bridge into the existing landscape. Bluff cuts will be mini- mized; if they are unavoidable, cuts should be varied, with some rock left exposed to add vitality to the visual experience and illustrate the area's geology. When feasible, the cutting of trees and shrubs along the right -of -way will also be limited; when cutting is required, irregular clearing and feathering of vegetation will add visual interest to the road. Plantings on the right -of -way will take advantage of opportunities for developing native plant diversity. Locating corridors along natural and cultural boun- daries will help reduce impacts. Vegetation, reduced grades, and earth mounds will be used to reduce visual impacts on the surrounding com- munity. Alignments will maximize the use of potential scenic vistas, such as an approach leading down to a bridge. If a new bridge is the selected alternative, 119 railings and safety barriers will be designed so that they do not unduly restrict views. Various geometric design techniques will be employed to help formulate an alignment which is both easy to drive and aesthetically pleasing. In certain types of terrain, for example, a divided high- way might best be constructed with separate align- ments with a forested strip in between them. This would heighten both safety and visual interest. The design of a bridge critically influences the visual impact it has on its surrounding environment. A well- designed structure which is carefully in- tegrated with the adjacent natural and cultural en- vironment can function like a giant sculpture and a community symbol. A poorly designed bridge, however, can be an intrusion which detracts from its surroundings. The height of a bridge, and the number and place- ment of its piers are important visual considerations, particularly for people on the river. Fewer piers, in conjunction with a high bridge, would tend to reduce the proximity of the structure to river users and diminish the potential impact on their activities. Conversely, a high bridge would be visible for a greater distance up and downstream. Location should be an important factor in determin- ing bridge materials and style. By using natural materials such as native stone on piers, for example, ENERGY USE Energy use is an important consideration in evaluat- ing the impacts of a transportation project. Because a significant quantity of the oil used in the U.S. must be imported from abroad, energy consumption is it critical national security concern. In addition, there are a number of important environmental considera- tions related to energy conservation. The various river crossing options analyzed in this study would have a wide range of energy use im- pacts. The main factors affecting this disparity in vehicle fuel consumption include total miles traveled, the number of starts and stops required, speed -ups and slow- downs, congestion, and grade steepness. The numbers in this section are estimates of com- parative differences in annual ( "direct ") fuel con- sumption by vehicles which would use, or be affected by the various new river crossing alterna- tives. The figures assume similar amounts of traf- 120 connections to the natural environment can be em- phasized; this could be especially useful in the com- paratively unaltered North Corridor. In an area like the Central Corridor (which is close to an extensive concentration of historical architecture), a bridge design employing motifs from the past would probably be more appropriate than a modern -look- ing structure. In the relatively industrialized South Corridor, a wider range of design choices could be appropriate. With either of the tunnel alternatives, an important visual concern would be the location of on -land ventilation structures and utility buildings. Thcse would have to be carefully integrated into the landscape in order to minimize adverse visual im- pacts. In addition, visual impacts would be a con- sideration in the design of the portals. If a North Corridor tunnel became the selected alternative, ex- tensive aesthetic mitigation would be necessary in and around Brown's Creek. If a BUILD decision is made and a bridge becomes the selected alternative, the DOTS will make every effort to ensure and encourage public input into the bridge type and design selection process. The DOTS will produce a design guide detailing aesthetic mitigation options if a BUILD alternative is selected. fic, and use the NO -BUILD option as a basis of comparison The calculations do not include "in- direct" energy uses such as the fuel needed to con- struct and maintain the roadway. The amount of fuel used to construct and maintain a new road would typically be small compared to direct energy consumption, and would be relatively similar for all of the alternatives except for NO- BUILD. As illustrated in table 22, the greatest fuel savings would be afforded by a new South Corridor bridge. As with all the BUILD options, the largest energy savings would be gained by maintaining the existing bridge for local traffic in conjunction with a new structure. Over the course of a year, it South Cor- ridor bridge would save 285,M) gallons of fuel a year compared to maintaining existing conditions, providing the lift bridge is left in place. If the old bridge was removed, the savings would be 237,M) gallons per year. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS a 1 1 n t t t Pj 1 1 The Central Corridor would have the second most beneficial energy impacts. If this became the preferred corridor, the energy savings would be 197,000 gallons per year with the old bridge left in place, compared to 172,000 gallons per year if the structure was removed. Of the new bridge options, the North Corridor would have the least beneficial impacts from an energy perspective. If the lift bridge were left in place, the annual energy savings would be 11,000 gallons; if the old bridge were taken out, there would be an increase in energy use of 84,000 gallons per year over the NO -BUILD alternative. Both of the tunnels would be associated with high energy use, in part because of their steep grades. (Aside from vehicle energy consumption, tunnel lighting and ventilation would also consume consid- erable amounts of energy.) The North Corridor tunnel would have the most adverse energy impacts of all the alternatives: The increase in annual fuel consumption would range between 1,011,800 and 1,884,000, depending on whether the lift bridge were retained. The South Corridor tunnel would be slightly more conserving, with the annual increase over the NO -BUILD option ranging between 835,600 gallons of fuel with the old bridge left in place, to 1,173,500 gallons if it were removed. TABLE 22 FUEL USE SUMMARY Alternatives Fuel Consumption Change Gallons per Da X Gallons per Year Decrease - -- Increase jecrease --- Increase North Corridor (new br. /retain existing br.) 30 11,000 North Corridor (new br. /remove existing br.) 230 84,000 North Corridor (tunnel /retain existing br.) 2,770 1,011,800 North Corridor (tunnel /remove existing br.) 5,160 1,884,000 Central Corridor (new br. /retain existing br.) 540 197,000 Central Corridor (new br. /remove existing br.) 470 172,000 South Corridor (new br. /retain existing br.) 780 285,000 South Corridor (new br. /remove existing br.) 650 237,000 South Corridor (tunnel /retain existing br.) 2,290 835,600 South Corridor (tunnel /remove existing br.) 3,210 1,173,500 ` These estimates predict changes in fuel consumption for each alternative, compared to the perpetuation of existing conditions over an equal period of time. The methodology used in the analysis was largely derived from a manual entitled Energy and Transportation Systems, published in 1983 by the Transportation laboratory of the California Department of Transportation. Because of the difficulty in accurately forecasting the relevant variables, the estimates have a 10 to 20 percent margin of error. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 121 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS All applicable precautions will be taken to limit impacts connected with highway and bridge con- struction activities. Major environmental effects associated with construction include noise, air, water quality, and visual impacts. In addition, there will be impacts on traffic flow and access. A detailed discussion of construction impacts will not be possible until a specific corridor is chosen, providing a BUILD decision becomes the selected alternative. NOISE Construction noise is not expected to be a problem, or violate any standards. Mn/DOT's Standard Specification 1717 states in part that the contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees during the construc- tion period. In Wisconsin, contractors will be obliged to follow the rules set forth in the Wisconsin Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Con- struction, Section 107. AIR Construction of a new river crossing and approach corridors would have a temporary impact on air quality, for the following reasons: 1.) Vehicle delays during the reconstruction of an existing road segment will result in higher vehicle emission levels. 2.) Construction vehicles and related equipment will increase emissions. 3.) Disruption of ground cover due to grading and other activities will generate dust. Vehicle delays caused by construction activities are not expected to be serious. Every effort will be made to minimize these impacts by maintaining a smooth traffic flow in each direction during the construction period. Temporary lane closures will probably occur, but will be short -term. Emissions from construction equipment will be minimal. Equipment will not be concentrated at locations near any sensitive receptor sites, and any single piece of machinery will not result in sig- nificant pollution concentrations. Most construc- tion equipment is diesel powered; diesel engines generate only minor levels of CO. 122 Dust generated by construction activities will be minimized by controlled adherence to transporta- tion agency specifications and MPCA regulations. Dust control measures will include watering, the application of calcium chloride, and /or street sweep- ing. Paving and the replacement of vegetation will be completed as soon as possible after site prepara- tion. WATER QUALITY The most serious construction- related impacts in- volve water quality. Potential impact sources in- clude bridge or tunnel construction in the river, wastewater from materials preparation, accidental spills of petroleum products or chemicals, and runoff water muddied by erosion. Construction-re- lated water quality concerns are covered in Mn/DOT's Standard Specification 1717 for High- way Construction and Wisc/DOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Construction on the river bed has the largest poten- tial for creating water quality impacts. Of the various corridor alternatives, tunnel construction would have the greatest effect on the river bottom, the magnitude depending on the construction tech- nique which is selected. With any tunnel construc- tion method, some sediment will be dislodged, carried downstream, and eventually redeposited on the river floor. Benthic organisms in the immediate construction area, in particular, will be negatively impacted. Dredged material collected from the bot- tom of the river will be deposited at a safe on -shore location. River bed impacts associated with bridge construc- tion would be less severe than those resulting from tunnels, as work would be focussed around the pier placements rather than along the entire crossing. As with the tunnel alternatives, special care would be taken to protect mussel populations in the area; details are included in the threatened and en- dangered species section of the draft EIS. In the North Corridor, it is possible that a bridge could be constructed with a pier on Mile Long Island, eliminating the need for one on the river floor. Every practicable effort will be made to minimize the disruption and redistribution of sediments along the river bottom. Water quality impacts and mitiga- tion associated with river crossing construction are discussed in more detail in the water quality section Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 r� L t fi LJ 1 fl 1 LJ 1 of the draft EIS, and the special studies Mn/DOT completed on natural resource impacts and tunnels. Construction- related wastewater generation and spills will be carefully controlled according to the relevant DOT standard specifications. The contrac- tor will take all necessary precautions and actions to prevent contaminating water with any substance which is harmful to fish and wildlife, or detrimental to public use. Water containing sediment from wash operations will not be allowed to enter public waters until its sediment content has been reduced to not more than that of the water into which it is dis- charged, or will eventually enter. Wash water or waste from concrete mixing operations will not be allowed to enter streams. Ground left uncovered by construction activities is vulnerable to sheet and rill erosion. Sediment car- ried away by runoff Pan easily enter adjacent streams, rivers, and lakes,, with potential impacts on fish, wildlife, navigation, and recreation. As stated in Mn/DOT's Standard Specification 1717, the con- tractor will be required: to conduct operations so as to minimize erosion and the deposition of silt in neighboring water, bodies. Where erosion is ex- pected to be a problem, the contractor will be asked to submit an erosion control plan prior to construc- tion. The contractor will be requested to construct necessary permanent erosion control measures at the earliest pp�sible time,, in addition to any temporary tecf#iques which may be required. Erosion control might include measures such as mulch, berms, dikes, slope drains, sedimentation basins, and diver- sions. Restoration work will include cleanup, shap- ing, replacement of topsoil, and establishment of vegetative cover on all disturbed areas where erosion potential has been increased by construction activities. VISUAL Aside from the visual impacts which would accom- pany the completion of any of the BUILD alterna- tives, construction activities themselves will have visual impacts. The presence of heavy equipment, detour signs, uncovered earth, and construction materials will have an important visual impact on the area surrounding the immediate corridor. There is little which can be done to mitigate these impacts, aside from keeping the construction area as orderly as possible. Excess excavated materials will be dis- posed of in accordance with applicable DOT proce- dures. The visible effects of the completed BUILD alternatives are discussed in the visual impacts sec- tion of the draft EIS. TRAFFIC A traffic control plan will be developed prior to construction. If a BUILD decision is made, details will be worked out after a specific corridor align- ment has been chosen. Increased congestion and temporary driver con- fusion can be expected as travel patterns are altered and existing access points are either modified or closed. The traffic control plan will include provisions for adequate signing and strategies for maintaining safe traffic flow. The DOTS will work to ensure that drivers are made aware of any detours, alternate routes, or other inconveniences resulting from construction. THE RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY SHORT-TERM EFFECTS Primary adverse short -term effects of a new river crossing would include the following: 1.) QMsUUi3ion- related environmental impacts, in- guding increased noise air and water pollution Of these, the one with the potential for causing the most harm is water contamination caused by the disrup- Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS tion of sediments on the river bottom, particularly with a tunnel. This could temporarily harm popula- tions of benthic organisms in and around the work area, and make certain types of recreation less desirable. Construction will also temporarily in- crease noise and air pollution. In addition, the work area will be less visually attractive during the con- struction period. 123 2.) Construction- related travel impacts. Construc- tion will cause relatively minor, short -term incon- veniences for motorists in the area. 3.) Right -of -way acquisition and relocations If a BUILD decision becomes the preferred alternative, it is estimated there will be between 30 and 61 relocations, mainly residences. A large percentage of these people are likely to relocate in or near the study area; any fiscal or school impacts resulting from relocations are likely to be short -term. LONG-TERM EFFECTS Beneficial long -term effects would be as follows: 1.) Improved interstate traffic flow and safety. Be- cause through traffic would be able to avoid the lift bridge and traffic signals in downtown Stillwater, travel times between Minnesota and west - central Wisconsin would be reduced. This reduction would be aided by improvements in the approach corridors in both states. Another important benefit will be improved safety for motorists using the new facilities. 2.) Reduced congestion in downtown Stillwater. Traffic not having an origin or destination in Stillwater would be routed away from the downtown area. The reduced congestion would help Stillwater implement its comprehensive plan, and make the downtown area an easier and more attractive place to visit and shop. 3.) Reduced conflicts between vehicles and watercraft at lift bridge site. If the old bridge is left in place after a new crossing is completed, there would be less conflict between vehicles and watercraft than under a NO -BUILD decision, due to the large amount of traffic which would be diverted. In the event a new river crossing is built and the old structure is removed, boats could proceed upstream unhindered by the need to wait for the lift. 4.) Greater op2portunities for growth and develop- meet. Because access to the Twin Cities and Stillwater area would be improved, a new river crossing would result in increased interest in residential, commercial, and industrial development in portions of west - central Wisconsin. Wisconsin residents would find it easier to commute to jobs in Minnesota, while Wisconsin businesses would have better access to markets in the Twin Cities. In general, residents of west - central Wisconsin would have improved access to a wide range of cultural, social, and economic opportunities. (On the other 124 hand, growth and development are sometimes as- sociated with substantial negative impacts.) 5.) Long -term fiscal benefits. Because a new river crossing would stimulate new development, espe- cially in Wisconsin, the long -term fiscal advantages would more than compensate for minor short -term fiscal impacts. 6.) Onoortunity to move forward on long -term local and regional plans. A new river crossing in the vicinity of Stillwater - Houlton has been a topic of discussion and study between the two state transpor- tation agencies since the 1960s. If a NO -BUILD decision becomes the preferred alternative, the issue of a new river crossing is almost certain to emerge again at some point in the future because of con- tinued regional growth, vehicle congestion, increas- ing boat traffic, and the age of the existing structure. A BUILD decision, on the other hand, would enable communities to directly confront important plan- ning issues which they might otherwise have to postpone. The status of the Stillwater - Houlton river crossing(s) is an integral component of local and regional development plans. In addition to the long -term benefits mentioned above, a new river crossing would also result in effects which could be considered long -term disad- vantages: 1.) Facilitate the long -term trend away from farm - ing in St. Croix County. While St. Croix County has adopted a farmland preservation plan, pressure to convert agricultural land to other uses would in- crease if a new river crossing were constructed. In the Midwest, as well as in other parts of the country, there has been growing concern over the wisdom of converting prime farmland to transportation, residential, commercial, and /or industrial uses. Aside from the loss of farmland, important social changes could occur as rural agricultural areas are developed. The degree to which a new river cross- ing indirectly affects agriculture and rural life styles will be strongly influenced by local farmland preser- vation and planning efforts. 2.) Impacts on the Lower St Croix National Scenic Riverway. A new crossing would change the exist- ing appearance of the river valley. The effect would be most pronounced with a North Corridor bridge, which would be located on a stretch of river which appears relatively wild. If the existing bridge remains in place, a new crossing would increase the number of cultural artifacts along the river. Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS a 1 j I 1 1 f A 1 1 1 3.) Impacts on flora and fauna A new river cross- ing has the potential for relatively minor long -term impacts on plants and wildlife, mainly with the North Corridor alignments. Some habitat will be permanently lost due to right -of -way acquisition, although mitigation techniques are available to of- fset some of these losses. Aquatic life is of greatest concern, especially the Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel, which is listed on the Federal Threatened and En- dangered Species List. Because of the extensive mitigation agreed to by Mn/DOT and Wisc/DOT, there should be no substantial long -term impact on St. Croix mussel populations. A North Corridor tunnel has the potential for a long -term adverse impact on trout in Brown's Creek. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE SELECTION OF A BUILD ALTERNATIVE All of the BUILD alternatives will require commit- ments of natural, physical, human, and financial resources which, for all practical purposes, must be considered to be irretrievable and irreversible. The most important commitments include the following: land and the resources on it; fuel, labor and construc- tion material; and financing. All of the BUILD alternatives will require the pur- chase of new right -of -way. In the case of the North Corridor in Minnesota and all of the Wisconsin cor- ridors, much of the land that would be acquired is agricultural, some of which is classified as prime farmland. Once this property is procured for right - of-way, there is little chance that it could be used for agricultural purposes in the foreseeable future. Although agricultural land represents the largest potential land use which would be affected, there are a variety of others, including residential, commer- cial, and park/recreational property. While it is pos- sible that certain residential or commercial structures could be transported to new locations, most of the affected buildings would be razed. Over the short - term, property acquisition could result in a small amount of lost jobs and residents. From a long -temp perspective, however, employment and population in the area will grow as a result of a new river crossing; many people in the affected corridors will likely relocate in or near the study area. Some park, natural, and /or recreational areas on the St. Croix River would be directly affected by the BUILD alternatives. All of the BUILD alternatives, for example, will require that piers or other structures be placed on the river bottom or on islands. Depend- ing on the alignment, natural features such as trees, geological formations, and animal habitat could be lost or modified, although mitigation will at least partially compensate for features such as wetlands and mussel beds on the river bottom. Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS In addition to direct impacts on land and the river, there will be some permanent indirect effects on areas not actually acquired for right -of -way. Scenic vistas along the river, for example, will be altered in some places by a new crossing. In general, farmland preservation will be more difficult in areas adjacent to a new highway corridor because development pressure will be more intense. The extent to which indirect development occurs as a result of a new river crossing is, to a large degree, dependent on local land use controls. Considerable amounts of fossil fuel and labor, as well as construction supplies such as steel, cement, aggregate, and bituminous materials would be re- quired by all of the BUILD corridors. The energy, labor, and material used to construct, plan, and design a new river crossing would, for the most part, be irretrievable. A new river crossing will require a considerable state and Federal financial commitment. Construction cost estimates alone range from approximately $57,000,000 for a North Corridor' bridge to $173,000,000 for a South Corridor tunnel. These figures do not include the preliminary and actual design costs, or the expenditures required to main- tain the facility. While these public funds are not directly recoverable, money spent on this new infrastructure should be considered to be a long -term investment in the future safety and economic vitality of the region. Ideally, the considerable planning preceding any BUILD decision will act as a stimulus for local communities to carefully consider their own future development plans; this should help reduce some of the costs typically associated with unplanned growth. 125 LIST OF PREPARERS The following people were responsible for preparing and reviewing the draft EIS. NAME AREA(S) OF EXPERIENCE EDUCATION CONTRIBUTION Dennis Adams Visual Analysis 20 years B.L.A. Landscape Architecture Martin 1. Beekman DEIS Reviewer 31 years B.S. Civil Engineering Greg Busacker Fisheries, Threatened 9 years B.S.,M.S., and Endangered Species, Ph.D. Water Quality Biological Sciences Craig Churchward Visual Analysis 11 years B.L.A. Landscape Architecture Jeff Erickson Principal Writer/Editor, 2 years B.A. Social and Environmental Geography Research M.A. Public Affairs Alan Friesen DEIS Reviewer 15 years B.S. FHWA Civil .Engineering Max Grogg DEIS Reviewer 7 years B.S. FHWA Civil Engineering John O. Jackson DEIS Reviewer 15 years Ph. D. Entomology Kevin Kotts Wildlife, Wetlands 4 years B.S. Wildlife Biology Gerald Larson Social, Economic, 10 years B.S., M.S. Land Use, Agriculture Sociology Michael Louis Project Manager 26 years B.A. Social Analysis Urban Studies Robert S. Newbery DEIS Reviewer 8 years M.A. U.S. History Greg Pates Visual Analysis 7 years B.L.A. Landscape Architecture 126 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 1 1 1 1 f r r i f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DEIS Reviewer 16 years B.S. Civil Engineering M.B.A. Business Administration Tunnels, Hazar- 7 years B.S., M.S. dous Waste Geology Wildlife, Wetlands 8 years B.S., M.S. Wildlife Biology Floodplains, Hydrology, 10 years B.S. Water Quality Water Resources Management DEIS Reviewer 24 years M.S. Civil Engineering Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS 127 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THIS DRAFT EIS ARE SENT FEDERAL AGENCIES Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Council on Environmental Quality Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District Department of Commerce Department of Energy Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Office of Environmental Project Review Regional Environmental Review Officer Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission Federal Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control U.S. Coast Guard STATE AGENCIES Board of Water and Soil Resources (MN) Department of Agriculture (MN) Department of Health (MN) Department of Natural Resources (MN and WI) Department of Public Service (MN) Environmental Quality Board (MN) Legislative Reference Library (MN) 128 Lower St. Croix Management Commission (MN and WI) Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission (MN and WI) Pollution Control Agency (MN) REGIONAL. COUNTY, AND LOCAL AGEN- CIES Baytown Township (MN) City of Bayport (MN) City of Oak Park Heights (MN) City of Stillwater (MN) Grant Township (MN) Stillwater Township (MN) St. Croix County (WI) Town of St. Joseph (WI) Town of Somerset (WI) Twin Cities Metropolitan Council (MN) Twin Cities Metropolitan Waste Control Commis- sion (MN) Washington County (MN) West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Com- mission (WI) OTHER Environmental Conservation Library Leonard, Street, and Deinard Northern States Power Company Sierra Club (St. Croix Valley Group) St. Croix River Association Stillwater Business Association Stillwater Development Committee Stillwater - Houlton Bridge Task Force Voyageurs Region National Park Association Stillwater- Houlton.River Crossing Draft EIS t 1 1 [l Ll 1 11 1 1 u I� 1 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION The Stillwater - Houlton river crossing studies have involved substantial coordination with the public, agencies, communities, and special concern groups. The major areas of coordination and public input include but are not limited to the following: scop- SCOPING ACTMTIES Although a new river crossing was studied in the late 1960s and early 1970s, these efforts were discon- tinued due to lack of funding. The current round of studies began with scoping activities in 1984. The first major product of this phase- -the Draft Study Outline and Scoping Document -- discussed the jus- tification for the study and outlined its proposed schedule and likely development path. In addition, it introduced potential location alternatives, as well ing/early coordination; the Stillwater - Houlton Bridge Task Force; formal resolutions; public peti- tions and mail -in comments; public informational meetings and newsletters; and cooperating agencies and their review comments of the special studies. as environmental concerns which might require fur- ther study. Public scoping meetings were held shortly after the report was released. The second scoping document- -the Scoping Decision Docu- ment Final Study Outline - -was finished in January, 1987. This report represented a record of the decisions which had been reached through the scop- ing process about the breadth of the issues and alternatives to he analyzed in the draft F,IS. STILLWATER- HOULTON BRIDGE TASK FORCE One of the major areas of public involvement and coordination has been carried out through the Stillwater - Houlton Bridge Task Force, which was formed in 1985 during the scoping process. The Task Force is composed of members and alternates which were appointed by the 11 communities that could be affected by the various alternatives. The Task Force was charged with a number of assign- ments, including the following: * To discuss and analyze all relevant information that might influence the eventual BUILD/NO- BUILD decision. * To communicate information between the Task Force and the communities represented. * To facilitate community input and discussion during the draft EIS process. * To make a BUILD/NO -BUILD recommendation to the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation after reviewing all the environmen- tal documents. In June, 1989, the Task Force released an evaluation of the most important advantages and disadvantages of the various BUILD alternatives. Task Force Chair Sally Evert summarized her group's analysis as follows: COMMUNITY RESOLUTIONS Because of the large potential impact of a new river crossing, a number of communities have been close- ly involved with the environmental review process. Several have passed formal resolutions supporting Stillwater- Houfton River Crossing Draft EIS Overall, the South Corridor received the most support as the best BUILD alternative from the Task Force. The Central Corridor was slightly behind the South, and the North Corridor was a distant third ... Our goal in releasing the results of our review is to provide some assistance to our citizens that will hopefully aid them in their own review of the studies. or rejecting specific alternatives. In October, 1988, the St. Joseph Town Board unanimously passed a motion which stated that if a new river crossing is built, it should be located along the northern align- 129 ment of the South Corridor (the "Buckhorn" site). According to the resolution, the northern alignment "is the on yly route in the Southern Corridor that the Board finds acceptable." In April, 1988, the Stillwater City Council passed a resolution supporting the South Corridor as the preferred location for a new river crossing. Accord- ing to the resolution, "there is a documented regional and local need for a new bridge across the St. Croix River." The statement observed that "the South Corridor Bridge location has the fewest detrimental impacts to the City," and that "the Central or North locations would be detrimental to the health, welfare and economy of the Stillwater community." In ad- dition to the City Council resolution, the Stillwater Planning Commission, the Downtown Plan Steering Committee, the Heritage Preservation Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Busi- ness Association, and the Downtown Development Corporation recommended a South Corridor bridge location as well as continued operation of the exist- ing lift bridge. Grant Township passed a resolution in April, 1987 opposing the selection of a North Corridor route. According to the statement, a North Corridor route "would have serious ramifications on the setting and atmosphere of the Township of Grant." In May, 1987, Stillwater Township took a position which held that "the Northern Corridor is not a viable site for a new bridge." According to the Township, a North Corridor route would "potential- ly have significant negative impacts on several en- vironmentally sensitive areas," and would be "totally inconsistent" with the National Scenic Riverway designation of the St. Croix. Further- more, a North Corridor BUILD decision would have "an adverse effect on the economics of the TH 36 service area and be detrimental to the community as a whole." The statement specifically expressed concern about the historical, archaeological, and social impacts associated with a North Corridor route, adding the following: In the one - hundred plus years which this community has developed, the emphasis has been on creating and main- taining a rural atmosphere. Regional and Township com- prehensive plans have all followed a distinct and consistent pattern by providing for the continuance of this rural atmosphere... Hundreds of families have relied upon this planning effort ... and stand united in their opposition to a Northern Corridor that would cause such a significant and unacceptable change to our community. PETITIONS AND MAIL -IN COMMENTS Two petitions have been circulated in support of various alternatives. The largest contains over 400 signatures, mainly from residents living in the Min- nesota portion of the study area. This petition advo- cates locating a new bridge 'over the St. Croix River south of Stillwater as an extension of State Highway 36." According to the statement, a South or Central Corridor location "would best accommodate traffic, including the Andersen Corporation employees." The petition added that the "the scenic quality of the comparatively untouched area north of Stillwater would be seriously impaired" by the North Corridor alternatives. An additional adverse impact of the North Corridor is that it would "isolate" Stillwater. Another letter was received by the transportation departments which included 37 signatures from St. Joseph Township residents. The signees expressed their support for the Central Corridor and /or the northern alignment of the South Corridor. Objec- tions to the two southern -most South Corridor alter- natives included extensive farmland impacts, the expense of not using existing corridors, and impacts 130 to wildlife, particularly along the western edge of the heavily wooded Birch Park Ski Area. The peti- tion noted that the Birch Park forest is popular with hunters, and expressed concern about the safety of passing motorists if one of the two southern align- ments of the South Corridor became the preferred alternative. As of January, 1989, Mn/DOT had received nearly 200 separate public comments on the various alter- natives. Many of these were in the form or mail -in comment cards supplied by Mn/DOT. Others were letters, some of them several pages in length. In general, the commentary was impressive for the degree of interest shown in the outcome of the river crossing studies. Also notable was the affection expressed for the cultural and natural attributes of the St. Croix River Valley. It is clear that citizens in the area are concerned about the issues associated with a new river crossing, and want to be involved in the decision - making process. Although the opinions expressed in the mail -in com- ments were varied, a number of themes emerged Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS l� 1 [J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 fi l� J 1 from WDOT's tabulation of the responses. The top five "alternatives" in terms of number of com- ments received are as follows: oppose North Cor- ridor (76); support South Corridor (60); support Central Corridor (17); support NO -BUILD (11); and support North Corridor (10). The comments were also categorized according to what concerns people thought were most important in weighing the alternatives. The nine issues most frequently stated were as follows: aesthetics (57); environment (45); access (44); rural lifestyle (42); "disruption" (40); business concerns (37); traffic congestion (36); cost (33); and wildlife (31). NEWSLETTERS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS Mn/DOT has periodically sent newsletters to inter- ested area residents which detailed the study process and reviewed the results of some of the special environmental studies. Since the beginning of the scoping process, Mn/DOT and Wisc/DOT have also held a number of informational meetings for the public, special concern groups, communities, and agencies. Additional public hearings and informa- tion meetings will be scheduled in 1990 to discuss the material included in the draft EIS. COOPERATING AGENCIES AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS During the environmental review process, a number of state and Federal governmental bodies have acted as cooperating agencies with Mn/DOT, Wisc/DOT, and the FHWA. These agencies have reviewed project documents in their areas of expertise and /or interest, providing critical commentary and infor- mation. Cooperating agencies include the follow- ing: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the National Park Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Coast Guard; the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The National Park Service and the two State Departments of Natural Resources have been the most actively involved. In addition to cooperating agencies, a number of other Federal, state, regional, and local governmen- tal bodies, as well as various private organizations, have played roles in the study process. Some of these include the Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, the Lower St. Croix Manage- ment Commission, the City of Stillwater, the Voyageur's Region National Park Association, and the Sierra Club. Although the issues raised by these agencies and groups are too numerous to summarize in their en- tirety, a number of themes have emerged. The Na- tional Park Service (NPS), the State Departments of Natural Resources (DNRs), and the environmental organizations have focussed their concern on im- pacts to the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Issues raised include (but are not limited to) visual and noise impacts along the river, endangered species, effects on Mile Long Island and the Boom - site, and the disposition of the existing bridge. For individuals interested in the coordination be- tween the transportation departments and other par- ticipants in the review process, Mn/DOT has assembled a volume which includes correspondence not included in the appendix of this draft EIS. lA cooperating agency is a Federal, state, or local governmental body with a formal role as a participant in the environmental review process. The term does not imply that the cooperating agency necessarily shares the views of the lead agency or is trying to promote the project being reviewed. Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 131 INDEX (Note: List does not include minor references) Tonic Pae lsl Accessibility 2- 4,63 -66 Accident Rates 7 -9 Age Groups 48-50,58-63,71 Agriculture 46-47 54 -57 Air Quality 83 -85 Alternatives (BUILD/NO- BUILD) 13 -37 Andersen Corporation 37-38,59-60 Archaeological Sites 111 -114 Bald Eagle 107 -109 Bayport 41-45 Baytown Township 41-43 Bicyclists 64-66,81-82 Boomsite Wayside 50,105-106,110, 52, 11 1 112-113,117 Brown's Creek 52,101-103,105,109 Businesses 71 -77 Census Tracts 48-50,59-63 Community Cohesion 59-63 Community Facilities 66 -69 Commutershed (Twin Cities) 11,64 Construction Impacts 122 -123 Cooperating Agencies 131 Coordination 129 -131 Costs (Crossing Options) 15 -32 Department(s) of Natural Resource (DNR) 95, 131 Drawbridge 2,4-7,50,106-107,111-114 Police Protection Economic Impacts 73 -80 Energy Use 120 -121 Fire Protection 6 7-68 Fiscal Impacts 77 -80 Floodplains 101 -1 -3 Grant Township 39-43,130 Joint Development 80 132 Topic Pages) Hazardous Waste 114 -116 Higgens' Eye Pearly Mussel 94,105,107-109 Historical Impacts 113 -114 History (Stillwater) 50,110-113 History (River Crossing Studies) 1, 13 -14, 129 -131 Houlton 45, 51, 58 -69, 74 Households 43 Kolliner Park 52,105-106, Section 4(f) Evaluations Land Use 39,54-57 Land Use Impacts 54 -55 Lift Bridge (Sec Drawbridge) List of Preparers 126 -127 Lowell Park 52, 11 1 Lower St. Croix Management Commission (LSCMC) 131 Mass Transit 4,36-37 Medical Services 8,67-68 Metropolitan Council 46-48,54 Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission (MWBAC) 131 Mile Long Island 52,105-106,117 Modal Interrelationships 4 National Park Services (NPS) 131 Neighborhoods 51,58-62 Noise 88-92,106 Police Protection 67 -68 Oak Park Heights 42-44,58-72, 74 -75 Pedestrians 69,81-82 Peregrine Falcon 108 Permits 95 Petitions 130 Population 42 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �I 1 1 it 1 1 1 1 1 R i Topic Pagg(i) Recreation Areas and Parks 52,104-106,117-118 77 -80 Section 4(f) Evaluations Relocations 70 -73 School Districts 66-68,77-80 Scoping Studies 1,129 Social Characteristics 48,58-63 Social Impacts 58-63 Somerset 8,11,66-68 Somerset Township 11, 42, 43, 45, 66 -68, 78 -79 St. Croix County 11,42-43,45-46,56,61 St. Croix River 52, 93 -93, 99,101- 107,117 -120 122 -123, Section 4(i) Evaluations St. Joseph Township 11,42,43,45,78-79, 95-99 129 -130 Stillwater, City of 5, 10 -11, 33 -38, 42 -44, 58 -80 104-107,117-119, 110 - 114,130 Stillwater Township 42-43,78,130 Task Force, Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing 1,129 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS Tonic Page(s) Threatened and Endangered Species 107 -109 Tax Base Impacts 77 -80 Topography 39 Traffic Forecasts 10 Transportation System 2 -7 Transportation System Management (TSM) 20,35-37 Tunnels 16,19,23,32,93-94,101-102 Visual Impacts 105-106,117-119 Washington County 42 -43, 67-68,77 Water Quality 52, 93-94, 9S - -99, 101 -105 West Central WI Regional Planning Commission (WCWRPC) 48 Wetlands 95-99 Wild and Scenic River Impacts 104-107,117-119, Section 4 (1) Evaluations Wildlife 93 -94, 99 -101, 107, 109 133 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 APPENDIX Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 135 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS Appendix 1 137 EXISTING NETWORK ESTIMATES OF 1986 ADT (AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC) STILLWATER HOULTON BRIDGE N " =w r= r= m m m == w m == w w = == m EXISTING NETWORK/NO BUILD PROJECTIONS FOR 2014 AWDT (AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC) STILLWATER HOULTON Vf\ BRIDGE � � � � � � � � � � i � � � � � � � � _ � A � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � r � r � � � r � � r � � � � � � � � � w� � w i w w w w w r�■� w w w w� I� w w w C> ^ ,' ♦9 J .r E STN $6144 STILLWATER w W CENTRAL CORRIDOR BRIDGE HOULTON a PROJECTIONS FOR 2014 AWDT (AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC) z_ BRIDGE w 1 EXISTING BRIDGE + NORTH CORRIDOR BRIDGE PROJECTIONS FOR 2014 AWDT (AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC) !1,164 iiSTILLWATER HOULTON BRIDGE Q w = GC :ta o = Ur _ = u, iN NORTH CORRIDOR BRIDGE PROJECTIONS FOR 2014 AWDT (AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC) 67" 36M N STILLW_ ATER f '�'l "a HOULTON 0 z C7 BRIDGE _ c+. 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS ndix 2 147 United States Soil Department of Conservation 1825 CurNre Crest Bl%-d . Agriculture Service Stillwater, MT 550$2 J I I ' Th Soil Conservation Service s agenCY Of the Department of Agriculture Gerald Larson September 14, 1988 ' En.-ironmental Ser.-ice 704 Transportaion Bldg. St. Paul. MN -5.51: Dear Mr. Larson. This letter is in response to your request for completion of ' AD1006, Farmland ConN'ersion Impact Rating for the new crossin,' of the St. Croix Rix-er in the vicinity- of Stillwater. At the p resent time we do not have all the statistics necessary: to complete the form. However, the following ' fivlures do apple to Site C, the " North " route: Acres of cropland = 85 ' :acres of Prime Farmland =67 As you can see, 79% of the cropland in the project area (north site) is considered prime farmland. This represents ' 19% of the total pro.- iect area. The approximate boundaries of the prime farmland are colored green on the aerial phot ographs . With the South and Central sites there is no impact on prime farmland. ' I hope this information is of value to you in selection of a site. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 439 -6361. Since elf-, Howard Moe nig District onservationist J I I ' Th Soil Conservation Service s agenCY Of the Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) D Of Land Fvalu tion Request Name Of Project . t l w XTF g=MO LA L- T(3 Federal Agency Involved N Pro osed Land Use t T tOti% ount And State S ZO N 1WW EsuT- PART II (To be completed by SCS) Date Request Received By SCS 88 Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Ye No (If no, the FPPA does not apply — do not complete additional parts of this form). Acres Irrigated AOME Average Farm Size Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Acres: % Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres: % Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)uTH 't Site A Site B Site C Site D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly O O 3 SO B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly Q O C. Total Acres In Site I PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of t-armland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdictio t With Same Or Higher Relative Value ! PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 10OPoints) PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 656.5/61 Maximum Points I i 1. Area In Nonurban Use ! 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use j 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government j 5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area 6. Distance To Urban Support Services j 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average B. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 10. On -Farm Investments 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) I I Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 Total Site Asse sment (From Part VI above or a local site assessment 160 TOTAL P01 NTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 Site Selected: Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Yes ❑ No ❑ ncasun rur auiu"iun: r•..• ��.. United States Department of Agriculture Sol I Conservation 6515 Watts Road, Suite 200 Service Madison, WI 53719 -2726 John Roslak, Director Bureau of Environmental & Data Analysis Wisconsin Department of Transportation 4802 Sheboygan Avenue ' P. 0. Box 7916 Madison; WI 53707 -7916 r 1 1 1 1 � I June 13, 1989 Dear Mr. Roslak: Re: Agricultural Impact Statement for: Project 1550 -00 -02 Stillwater Bridge and Approaches STH 64 St. Croix County NE(CE�,yEn) OFFICE OF rrJlf. ANIAL VS9c .fl ­ We are returning your AD -1006 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form for the listed project. We have not yet developed a Land Evaluation System for St. Croix County and so can give only limited guidance. We have noted on part IVA of Form AD -1006 the acres of Prime and Unique Farmland that will be affected by the various proposed corridors. We have also done this in part IVB for acres of Statewide and Local Important Farmland. Sincerely, FRANK L. ANDERSON Acting State Soil Scientist Enclosure cc: L. L. Natzke, SS, SCS, Eau Claire, WI S. W. Payne, SSS, SCS, Madison, WI `O The Sod Conservation Service .J is an agency of the Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Da t Of Land Evaluation Requ s PRIG Z Name Of Project JET /LLUJ.4TC�' I E Proposed Land Use /Gti`w Federal Agency Involve /=EDc.C'! -1L CL� /.t/ ,2ATGY✓ r=/14 County A State n � of dou 17.4 GfliSGo�lSi.L/ PART II (To be completed by SCS) Date Request Received By SCS 4 G E9 Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No (If no, the FPPA does not apply — do not complete additional parts of this form). X1 ❑ Acres Irrigated Alorte_ Average Farm Size 1175 Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction -- Acres: % 'Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres: % Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS PART I II (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternativ Site Rating Site A / site BGr i sate A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly S. X8.2 /03:3 z o B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly C. Total Acres In Site 0-15 G. if 114971 / 9. Z PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information ABS"ue e '?8S"u p pi a.9 Ce o ,Z (�S 0 O A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted I3.2- _ , O / 19,7 1 rW-,;9 1 75'1 D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt, Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value) I I I PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points) PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 653.5(b) j : "aximum Points it 1. Area In Nonurban Use 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government I 5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area 6. Distance To Urban Support Services 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 10. On -Farm Investments 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services I I 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) — Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 Total Site Assessment (From Part Vl above or a iota) I site assessment) 160 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) I 260 Site Selected: I Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used Yes ❑ No u rteason ror Selection: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix 3 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 153 0 BANK OF NEW RICHMOND A Full Service Bank • Member F.D.I.C. I� IMay 24, 1984 Mr. David Iennander, Associate Planner West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 124} Graham Avenue Eau Claire, WI 54701 Dear Mr. lennander: iAs per our telephone conversation, I am writing to express my concern over the lack of highway access to the twin city market area. ' The Stillwater bottleneck on highway 64 has been a real deterrent in the ability to attract industry and develop our industrial park over the last several years. We have lost several industries because of the impossible traffic problems at the Stillwater bridge and the conjestion in downtown Stillwater and their inability to gain access to the twin cities market for finished goods or to obtain supplies routed through the eastern suburbs. ' Our most recent disappointment came when Phillips Plastics of Phillips, Wisconsin decided to locate their 40,000 square foot manufacturing plant in iilu3scn, Wisconsin rather than New Richt�nd. The major reason given by Mr. Cervenka, president of Phillips Plastics Corporation, was a lack of easy access in and out of New Richmond for toolmakers and supply people located in the twin cities area. ' I am convinced that the future economic development of New Richmond and particularly the industrial park, depends on improving the highway access to the twin cities area and particularly solving of the Stillwater bridge and downtown Stillwater bottleneck. Sincerel l' chard J. churtz` President a em 355 S. Knowles Ave. P O. Box 128, New Richmond, WI 54017, (715) 246 -22( " 1st St & Co H, P O Box 25, Star Prame, WI 54026, (715) 248 -7181 TABLE 1 ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACTS IN MINNESOTA Bridge Alternatives Assessed Estimated Gross County City/Twp. School Other Value Market Value Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes South Corridor Oak Park Heights/ Worst Case $626,100 $3,059,500 $67,400 $17,600 $10,800 $35,100 $4,600 Oak Park Heights/ Least Case 457,000 2,158,900 49,200 12,800 8,000 25,500 3,800 Central Corridor Stillwater 160,300 554,900 18,700 3,400 3,900 5,200 3,500 Oak Park Heights 280,700 1,569,200 30,200 7,900 4,700 15,800 1,500 Combined Total 441 ,000 2,124,100 48,900 11,300 8,600 21,000 5,000 North Corridor Grant Township 225,800 1,146,600 21,500 6,300 1,700 12,400 1,100 Stillwater Township 304,800 1,523,900 29,900 8,600 3,400 17,200 600 Lake Elmo 200 10,500 - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Combined Total 530,800 2,681,000 51,400 14,900 5,100 29,600 1,700 Tunnel Alternatives North Tunnel Grant Township 225,800 1,146,600 21,500 6,300 1,700 12,400 1,100 Stillwater Township 235,600 1,273,100 24,000 6,500 3,500 13,300 700 Lake Elmo 200 10,500 - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Combined Total 461,600 2,430,200 45,500 12,800 5,200 25,700 1,800 South Tunnel Oak Park Heights 626,100 3,059,500 67,400 17,600 10,800 35,100 4,600 ' Based on taxes payable in 1988 for impoved properties. Values rounded to nearest hundred 1 1 Ij 1 1 L C L 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 C 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 2 PERCENT LOSS OF LOCAL PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS BY CORRIDOR Minnesota Corridors Local Local Percent Loss Property Tax of Local Property Tax Levies s Losses Tax Revenues Bridge Alternatives South Corridor South/Central Alignments (Least Case) Oak Park Heights $770,800 $8,000 1.04% North Alignment (Worst Case) Oak Park Heights 10,800 1.40 Central Corridor Stillwater (City) 2,144,300 3,900 .02 Oak Park Heights 4,700 .61 North Corridor Grant 137,900 1,700 1.23 Stillwater (TWA) 152,400 3,400 2.23 Lake Elmo 489,700 - - -- ----- Tunnel Alternatives North Corridor Grant 1,700 1.23 Stillwater (rwp.) 3,500 2.30 Lake Elmo - - - -- - - - -- South Corridor Oak Park Heights 10,800 1.40 ' Data for the Cities of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, and Lake Bmo is based on taxes payable in 1987. Data for Chant and Stillwater townships is based on tares payable in 1986. Local tax losses were computed from taxes payable in 1988. Values have been rounded to the nearest hundred in the first two columns and the nearest hundredth in the last column Source: Mnnesota State Auditor TABLE 3 PERCENT LOSS OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS IN MINNESOTA SCHOOL DISTRICT #834 Corridors School School Percent Loss District District of School District 834 Property 834 Property 834 Property Tax Tax Revenue Tax Revenue Revenues Bridge Alternatives South Corridor South/Central Alignments $17,025,200 $25,500 .15% North Alignment 35,100 .21 Central Corridor 21,000 .12 — North Corridor 29,600 — .17 Tunnel Alternatives North Corridor 25,700 .15 South Corridor 35,100 21" ' All corridors fall within Minnesota School District 834. Val ucs are based on taxes payable in 1988. Figures rounded to nearest hundred in the first two columns and the nearest hundredth in the last column. n 1 Ij r 1 I �l l r 1 1 1 TABLE 4 ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACTS IN WISCONSIN Bridge Alternatives Assessed Estimated Gross County City/Twp. School Other Value Market Value Taxes** Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes South Comdor South Alignment/ St. Joseph $613,200 $684,100 $15,400 $3,600 $700 $12,300 $100 Central Alignment/ St. Joseph 137,100 153,000 3,600 800 200 2,900 100 North Alignment/ St. Joseph 535,000 596,900 13,600 3,200 700 10,900 100 Central rridor South Alignment/ St. Joseph 669,100 746,500 17,000 4,000 800 13,600 100 North Alignment/ St. Joseph 1,012,200 1,129,300 26,700 6,000 1,200 20,400 200 North Corridor St. Joseph 373,400 416,600 9,600 2,200 500 9,600 100 Somerset 97,400 96,000 2,300 500 200 1,900 - -- Combined Total 470,800 512,600 11,900 2,700 700 11,500 100 Tunnel Alternatives North Tunnel St. Joseph 474,500 529,400 12,100 2,800 600 9,700 100 South Tunnel St. Joseph 474,500 529,400 12,100 2,800 600 9,700 100 ' Based on takes payable in 1988. Values rounded to the nearest hundred. " Wisconsin tax credits am reflected in the gross taxes column only. TABLE 5 PERCENT LOSS OF LOCAL PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS BY CORRIDOR Wisconsin Corridors Local Local Percent Loss Property Tax of Local Property Tax Levies Losses Tax Revenues Bridge Alternatives South Corridor South Alignment St. Joseph $2,273,300 $700 .03%, Central Alignment St. Joseph 200 .01 North Alignment St. Joseph 700 .03 Central Corridor South Alignment St. Joseph 800 .04 North Alignment St. Joseph 1,200 .05 North Corridor StAoseph 500 •02 Somerset 729,600 200 •02 Tunnel Alternatives North Corridor St. Joseph 600 .03 South Corridor St. Joseph 600 .03 • All figures based on taxes payable in 1988. Values rounded to the nearest hundred in the first two columns and the nearest hundredth in the last columrt. Source: St. Croix County Tmasurer i I 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 6 PERCENT LOSS OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIPTS BY CORRIDOR * Corridors School School Percent Loss and District District of School District School Districts Property Property Property Tax Tax Tax Revenues Revenues Losses Bridge Alternatives South Corridor South Alignment Hudson $1,551,600 $9,600 .62 Somerset 252,700 1,500 .59 Vo-Tech #1 152,200 1,100 .72 Central Alignment Hudson 1,100 .07 Somerset 1,500 .59 Vo-Tech M 300 .19 North Alignment Hudson 6,900 •44 Somerset 3,000 1.18 Vo-Tech M 1,000 .65 Central Corridor South Alignment Hudson 9,400 .60 Somerset 3,000 1.18 Vo-Tech M 1,200 .79 North Alignment Hudson 15,500 1.00 Somerset 3,000 1.18 Vo-Tech #1 1,900 1.24 North Corridor Hudson 4,000 •w Somerset 4,700 1.85 Vo-Tech #1 900 .59 Tunnel Alternatives North andSouth Corridors Hudson 5,900 •38 Somerset 3,000 1.18 Vo-Tech #i 900 •59 ' All figures based on taxes payable in 1988. Values rounded to the nearest hundred in the first two columns and the nearest hundredths in the last column. Souse: St. Croix County Treasure t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS )endix 4 163 Input values for each barrel of the tunnel are as follows: Length 8800 fee Cross Section Area Perimeter SO4W06-03 Traffic Volumes: (1) 1500 vph avg pk hr STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT (3) 22 ft. headway per Office f ice Memorandum stopped vehicle Transportation Vehicle Coefficient 0.49 avg. (cars, vans, DATE: TO: Mike Louis September 26, 198c, CO at Tunnel Entrance 15 ppm Project Manager Ambient CO 3 ppm FROM: Norman Mellem PHONE: 296 -1656 125 ppm for tunnels less than 3000 ft. above sea level. The Air Quality Engineer '�to standard is soon expected to be lowered to 120 ppm, accor- SUBJECT: T.H. 36, Stillwater - Houlton, Wisconsin Project, Tunnel Option consultant for the The amount of ventilation air needed for an 8800 ft. tunnel The following are the CO levels the tunnel. The 1500 vph traffic was calculated using the TUNVEN computer model. The model way ADT of 25,000 with the peak has been modified so that up -to -date emission values can be and a 60 -40 directional split. entered into it. The emission values used for this analysis 1,760,000 cfm is based on the ASHRAE guideline of 100 are issued on the EPA Mobile 3 model which is the most up to date information available. Input values for each barrel of the tunnel are as follows: Length 8800 fee Cross Section Area Perimeter 702 feet 119 feet Traffic Volumes: (1) 1500 vph avg pk hr (2) 4000 vph max Pk hr (3) 22 ft. headway per stopped vehicle Vehicle Coefficient 0.49 avg. (cars, vans, trucks) Year Opened 1995 CO at Tunnel Entrance 15 ppm Ambient CO 3 ppm The carbon monoxide (CO) standard for tunnels is presently 125 ppm for tunnels less than 3000 ft. above sea level. The standard is soon expected to be lowered to 120 ppm, accor- ding to the report by the ventilation consultant for the I -35 Erickson Tunnel in Duluth. The following are the CO levels the tunnel. The 1500 vph traffic for various situations in volume is based on a two - way ADT of 25,000 with the peak hour having 10% if the ADT and a 60 -40 directional split. The ventilation rate of 1,760,000 cfm is based on the ASHRAE guideline of 100 cfm /lane -ft needed for fire: `vehicle Traffic ventilation Ambient Max CO _._. Speed- _Volume _Fate Temperature t PPM ; 5 1500 O 0 67 30 1500 O O 121 35 1500 0 0 35 4000 (Capacity) 0 0 15'4 `1C topped 22 f t/ veh 1,760,000 0 84 Stopped 22 f t/ veh 1,760.000 75 Stopped 22 ft /veh 1,760,000 100 05 5 1500 1,760.000 u 54 35 4000 1 , 700 , OiJO O 57 The above analysis shows that the ventilation rate of 1,760,000 cfm into each barrel and 1,760,000 out of each barrel, which is required for fire will be enough to pre ,/ent excedance of the anticipated CO standard. If ventilation buildings can be constructed at buth ends of the tunnel, then only one--half of this volume of air would need to to moved through ducts along side the tunnel, thus reducin4 the si'Ze of the ducts to half. 53ome items that are recommended for discussion in an E15 are as follows: 1) CO standard for tunnels (125 ppm or other if chan.aed) will be met with a ventilation system. 2) CO levels in the tunnel for peak traffic under normal and congested conditions. S) Analysis of whether there would be any CO problem_ ad;iacent to the tunnel. 4) Hazardous materials truck routing. 5) Emergency procedures will be developed. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me. NM:ep cc: Larry Erb 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS :)endix 5 167 1 COMPARISON TABLE WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS SYSTEM U.S.F.W.S. Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats Circular 39 of the United States (Cowardin, et al. (1979)) (1971) Palustrine System Type 1 Nonpersistent Emergent Wetland or Forested Wetland. Water regimes are temporarily or intermittently flooded. Erect, rooted, herbacious plants or lowland hardwoods are dominant. Type 2 Persistent Emergent Wetland. Water regime is saturated. Erect, rooted, herbacious plants are dominant. Type 3 Persistent Emergent Wetland. Water regimes are semipermanently or seasonally flooded. Erect, rooted, herbacious plants are dominant. Type 4 Aquatic Bed with floating vascular plants, fringed by Persistent Emergent Wetland. Water regimes are permanently f l o o d e d, intermittently exposed or semipermanently flooded. Type 5 Aquatic Bed with floating vascular plants, and Unconsolidated Bottom, consisting of mud. Water regimes are permanently flooded and intermittently exposed. Type 6 Scrub -Shrub Wetland, with predominantly broad- leaved deciduous plants. Water regimes are temporarily flooded, seasonally flooded, semipermanently flooded, intermittently exposed and permanently flooded. Type 7 Forested Wetland, with broad - leaved deciduous needle- leaved deciduous and needle - leaved evergreen plants. Water regimes are identical to those for Scrub -Shrub Wetland, above. Type 8 Scrub -Shrub Wetland Forested Wetland, Moss- Lichen Wetland with broad - leaved deciduous, needle - leaved deciduous and needle - leaved evergreen plants. Water regime is saturated. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS :)endix 6 171 1 u 0 r MINNESOTA/WISCONSIN SPECIES WHICH ARE ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR OF SPECIAL CONCERN The following state - listed species are located in and /or around the proposed corridors, and have the greatest chance of being directly impacted: Species Scientific Name Minnesota Wisconsin Crystal Darter Ammocrypta asprella Sp. Cone. Endangered Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Not Listed Endangered Speckled Chub Hybopsis aestivalis Not Listed Threatened Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger Not Listed Threatened Pallid Shiner Notropis amnis Sp. Cone. Endangered Gilt Darter Percina evides Sp. Cone. Threatened Paddlefish Polyodon spathula Sp. Cone. Threatened Shovelnose Scaphirhynchus Sturgeon platorynchus Sp. Cone. Not Listed, Buttonbush Cephalanthus Sp. Cone. Not Listed occidentalis Kittentails Besseya bull i Endangered Threatened Dotted Blazing Star Liatris 1unctata Not Listed Endangered Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix Sp. Cone. Not Listed River Redhorse Moxostoma carinatum Not Listed Threatened Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus Sp. Cone. Threatened Buckhorn Tritogonia verrucosa Not Listed Threatened Monkey -face Ouadrula metanevra Not Listed Threatened The following state - listed species are likely to utilize corridor habitat, and are found within the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway: Species Scientific Name Minnesota Wisconsin Toothcup Ruellia humilis Endangered Not Listed Fame Flower Talinum rugospgrmum Endangered Not Listed Elephant Ear Elliptio crassidens Sp. Cone. Endangered Ebony Shell Fusconaia ebena Sp. Cone. Endangered Snapping Turtle Chelydra serWntina Sp. Cone. Not Listed Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta Threatened Threatened Fox Snake Elaphe vulpina Sp. Cone. Not Listed Blandings Turtle Emydoidea blandingi Threatened Threatened Red Shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Sp. Cone. Threatened Cooper's Hawk Accipiter coopgrii Not Listed Threatened Great Egret Casmerodius albus Not Listed Threatened Warty Back Ouadrule nodulata Not Listed Threatened Source: National Park Service, 1988 There are also a number of species in the study area which are considered to be uncommon, but have not yet been classified by the states. These include the Virginia Water Horehound (Lyggpus, vir inicus ), Unknown Grass (Paspatum =.), the False Map "1'urlc (Graptem pmudogeoeraphica), and two mussels-- Alasmidonta mareinata and Plagiola tn�uetra. ��NNESpT� n�0 ►- OF T10" September 26, 1986 Minnescta Department of Transportation Transportation Budding, St. Paul. MN 55155 Mr. Robert Welford Director, St. Paul Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 50 Park Square Court 400 Sibley Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Welford: Phone 296 -1642 We would like to initiate informal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act regarding the potential impacts of constructing a replacement crossing of the St. Croix River at or near Stillwater, Minnesota, and Houlton, Wisconsin. The project, if a Build alternative is selected, will extend between the junction of TH 36 and CSAH 15 in Minnesota, and a point in Wisconsin on STH 35/64 which is approximately two and one -half miles east of the existing river bridge. Project length would vary from six to nine miles, depending on the corridor alternative selected (Figure attached). Under all of the Build alternatives, the existing vertical lift drawbridge, which connects the City of Stillwater, Minnesota with the village of Houlton, Wisconsin, could remain in place to serve local traffic. The only aquatic endangered species which could be potentially impacted by the bridge construction is the Higgins Pearly Eye Mussel (Lampsilis higginsi). These impacts (if any) would likely be the same for any of the proposed corridors and are likely to have no bearing on the choice of alignment. During construction, impacts (if any) would be localized within the river channel in the immediate areas of ,bridge pier placement. Following construction, no further impacts would be expected. L. higginsi has been historically reported from the major tributaries of the Upper Mississippi River. The mussel has been reported in the St. Croix River by Dawley (1947), Fuller (1980) and recently in preconstruction surveys near Prescott, Wisconsin. Stillwater, Minnesota is within the expected range of L. higginsi, but to date, no specimens have been found in the river. Recently, one fresh shell was found on the river bank near river mile 25 just north of Stillwater and identified by Marian Havlik, a malcologist from La Crosse, Wisconsin. The origin of the shell is unknown but it is reasonable to suspect that it was local. 1 11 1 t r.1r . lei ford September 26. 1985 Page 2 Three alternative alignment corridors have been propose z .. for construction of the new Trun!: Liahway 36 bridge. In a:idit *_on, numerous designs have been proposed within. each corridor. Thus, there is a great deal of uncertainty as to where the bridge and its piers micnt ba placed. and this magnifies the potential pro construction sure :-ay problems for extant populations of (L. higginsi). These issuez ?rr to be resolved following the publication of the DEIS and before Lire FEIS. After receiving public and agency comments on the DEIS. one of the proposed corridors would be chosen for the bridge alignment under a Build alternative. Following the choice of alignment and before the final bridge design is chosen, we propose to survey for L. higginsi on the river bottom in the alignment corridor. The survey would be completed by an approved malcologist using divers. Mussels would be identified and enumerated. Snecimens of L. hiaainsi would be returned as closely as aessible to the area of collection and placed by hand on the river bottom. Following the completion of tie environmental assessment and the survey, formal consultation. with USrNS would be initiated for a biological determination as to the possi:.le ir..pacts of the bridge construction. The survey, the environmental assessment, and the biological opinion of USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, would become part of the FEIS. Should this survey suggest that further investigations are needed irt_mediately prior to construction (similar to the Prescott Bridge), an additional preconstruction survey would be conducted. Tris survey, within nine ^onths of contract letting, would utilize a malcologist and divers and would investigate the river bottom in the immediate vicinity of pier placement. Mussel relocation could be an option of this survey. We would appreciate comments on this proposal. This department is currently conducting studies that will lead to a DEIS published by the spring of 1 °87, and an FEIS by the spring of 1988. If necessary, I and Members of my staff are available to mee }_ to :iiscuss this proposal. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me or Dr. Greg Busacker (296- 1640), our aquatic biologist. Sincerely, Frank = afko; Chief Environmental Develop-rent Unit Referonces Mr . WeA ford' September t 26, 1980 P.m c1e 3 Dawley, C. 1947. Vistribut.icn of acuatic mcllusks in Minnesota Averican Midland Faturali =t, Fuller, S.L.r'. 1990. Freshwater n-ussF:r (tcllurca: Livalivia: Unicnicae) of the Upper r'iEsissi,ri Pivrr: cFservation; at selected sitcr within the 9 -to at navicaticr. channel Frc ect fcr the Et. Paul Eistrict, United Etate; Army CorFr of Fncir•cerr, 1977- 1S'79. Final Report Yo. 79 -24F. volur..cs I and II. ^rF Academy of Natural Sciences of PhiladelFhia - Division of Limnology and Fccicgy. Philadelptia, Pennsylvania. bcc: D. Srrilonich L. E. Focte R. Winter M. Lcui s G. Pusacker ES 1 1 i 1 I f', I t United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ST. PAUL FIELD OFFICE, (ES) 50 Park Square Court 400 Sibley Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 uc,,c;)?r L� iir. Frank, Enviror�r�en'cal uevelo,7;ent 6nit Gffice of Enviro..mentai �ervicas ;4i nnzsota bepar-c:i,,ent of Transportation Transpertati on i3ui l di n;, Aoola T1-4 St. Paul, li nnesota 551:,5 Dear vir. Paf':o: IN RZFLY RIVER TO: This is in response to your re -quest for i nforr,!al cunsultati on under Section 7 of the Endangered: Species Act concerning possible iwpacts to federally listed endangered and threatened species from construction of TH -35 bridle over the St. Croix River from Washington County, Minnesota, to St. Croix County, 1.4isconsin. Washin ton and St. Croi; Counties range of the endangered peregrine wintering range of t1le threatened leucocephalus). Io addition, the the endangered HiSgins' Eye Pearl, are within the potential breeding falcon (Falco erecirinus) and the bald eagle ha iaeetus St. Croix River is in the range of i- lussel (Lampsilis higginsi ). Based on available information, the proposed project will not affect peregrine falcons or bald eagles. This precludes the need for further action on these No species for this project as requirec under Section 7 of the Endangered Species ;pct of 197:, as amenued. however, s0oulc this project be modified or ne.4 i nforic.ati on becomes available whi cri indicates peregrine falcons or bald eagles may be affected, consultation with this office should be reinitiated. Secause of the possibility of Lampsilis higginsi being present within the project area and ti,e nature of t�ne proposed work, ►;e cannot provide a "no effect" determination for this species. We agree with your concl :si on that a .�ore cuiiiprefiensi v;: survey for L. hi c, i nsi s teal d )e cenduct�d iii tie i a.�e„i to vicinities of prop ose� permanent and tewpordry structures. This survey s„�uld be con:iuctad r r r by a qualified biolo;;ist fa„iiliar ►;ith the identification of L. hi, i nsi . A copy of the Survey s':ioul d be provi cep to this office as part of yo-ir biological assesscienz ant: rzquest for formal consultation. Sincere1- r Robert F. uelford Field Office Supervisor r cc: MN D;jR, St. Paul MIN PCA, St. Paul , US COE, St. Paul US EPA, Chicago WI DIV., Prairie du Chei In 1 r r r r r r 1 r r P ' �o41*Nesorq do a � Q 1141; OF TRe 5 April, 1989 1 Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 (612) 296 -1637 Phone ' Mr. Robert Welford Director, St. Paul Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 50 Park Square Court 400 Sibley Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Subject: No effect determination for aquatic endangered species in the St. Croix River at or near Stillwater, Minnesota. (MN /DOT Projects: SP 8214 -92 & 8217 -10) Dear Mr. Welford: In September of 1986, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN /DOT) requested the initiation of informal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act regarding the potential impacts of constructing a replacement crossing of the St. Croix River. If a build alternative is selected, the new crossing would be at or near Stillwater, Minnesota, and Houlton, Wisconsin. At the present time, the alternative corridors are still being evaluated under the EIS process, and a preferred corridor has not been chosen. ' During the informal consultation process, MN /DOT proposed with your concurrence (see attached letter) that a comprehensive survey for the naiad mollusk Lampsilis higginsi be undertaken in the vicinities of proposed permanent and temporary structures to meet conditions of the federal Endangered Species Act. Subsequently, MN /DOT contracted with Malacological Consultants of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, to conduct a survey for L. higginsi. The malacologist is Ms. Marian E. Havlik and she is experienced with surveys for L. higginsi in the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The survey was conducted in the summer of 1987, and a copy of the final report is attached to this letter. Using the information in the contractors final report and other available information, our office has prepared an Biological Assessment to determine IAn Equal Opportunity Employer L. higginsi was not found alive during this study and no other federal aquatic endangered species, or any other proposed federal aquatic endangered species were found, either dead or alive. Five L. higginsi were represented by empty shells at three locations. In the southern alignments, L. higginsi was represented by four empty shells at two locations. Several of the specimens found along the Wisconsin shoreline opposite the King Plant were fairly fresh -dead, and it is very likely that this species still lives in that area. In the northern alignments one specimen was found in the water along the Minnesota shoreline at the North Bridge site. It was worn and probably had been empty for more than 10 years. Additional evidence for living L. higginsi in both of the two northern alignments comes from recent findings of fresh -dead specimens upstream at Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota, and just upstream of the existing Stillwater bridge. The identity of both of these specimens, which are at the Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, has been confirmed (see attachments). Mussel reproduction occurs at all sites near Stillwater, Minnesota. The living shell density was low to moderate, as compared to the best bivalve beds in the Mississippi River at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where shells nearly cover the bottom of the river in some places. Estimated densities in the St. Croix River near Stillwater ranged from less than one /square meter to an actual density of 21 live and 23 dead specimens/ square meter along the Wisconsin shoreline at South Bridge 4A (see attachments). A number of fairly rare naiad species were found, but possible impacts to aquatic endangered species (see attached any one site as copy) . Particular emphasis was given to L. higginsi, commonly been recently discovered in some other areas on the St. known as the Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel because it is the only of this study federally listed aquatic endangered species which could be potentially impacted by the proposed river crossing. The Fat Pocketbook Mussel, Potamilus capax is on the federal list, but it is generally considered extirpated in Minnesota. A summary of the key findings is given below. Summary: L. higginsi was not found alive during this study and no other federal aquatic endangered species, or any other proposed federal aquatic endangered species were found, either dead or alive. Five L. higginsi were represented by empty shells at three locations. In the southern alignments, L. higginsi was represented by four empty shells at two locations. Several of the specimens found along the Wisconsin shoreline opposite the King Plant were fairly fresh -dead, and it is very likely that this species still lives in that area. In the northern alignments one specimen was found in the water along the Minnesota shoreline at the North Bridge site. It was worn and probably had been empty for more than 10 years. Additional evidence for living L. higginsi in both of the two northern alignments comes from recent findings of fresh -dead specimens upstream at Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota, and just upstream of the existing Stillwater bridge. The identity of both of these specimens, which are at the Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, has been confirmed (see attachments). Mussel reproduction occurs at all sites near Stillwater, Minnesota. The living shell density was low to moderate, as compared to the best bivalve beds in the Mississippi River at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where shells nearly cover the bottom of the river in some places. Estimated densities in the St. Croix River near Stillwater ranged from less than one /square meter to an actual density of 21 live and 23 dead specimens/ square meter along the Wisconsin shoreline at South Bridge 4A (see attachments). MN/ DOT 2 1 A number of fairly rare naiad species were found, but there were no concentrations of rare species at any one site as have been recently discovered in some other areas on the St. Croix River upstream of Stillwater and outside of this study area. MN/ DOT 2 1 IBiological Determination: ' south Bridge 4A, south Bridge Modified 6, or south Bridge 5 /5A. If South Bridge 4A, South Bridge Modified 6 or South Bridge 5/5A were chosen for the bridge site, no additional IMN/ DOT 3 Based upon the Biological Assessment, the Aquatic Biologist for the Minnesota Department of Transportation has concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on the aquatic endangered species L. higginsi, if the recommendations given below are followed. Recommendations are specific to the possible construction corridors and crossing types being proposed in the Draft EIS. MN /DOT requests your concurrence in this analysis. Further, should a bridge crossing be identified as the preferred alternative in one of the three southern bridge corridors, MN /DOT proposes that no further survey work be done for any bridge design where pier placements are 300 to 500 feet from the shorelines; the reasons are given below. If this type of design is not feasible, the options given in the recommendations section would apply. The general contour of the river in the southern corridor area is like a steep- sided, flat- bottomed bowl. The bottom sediments are predominantly flocculent silts and fines with bands of bark in the deeper near shore areas. These materials are not suitable mussel habitat; only an occasional empty naiad valve was found in either the bark or the flocculent silt areas by divers in MN /DOT's mussel survey (see attachments). If a bridge can be designed so that all piers in the water would be 300 to 500 feet from the shorelines, there would be no impacts to mussel populations in the near shore environment. Recommendations: Due to the apparent low densities of L. higginsi populations, none of the alternatives under consideration should affect the continued existence of the species in the lower St. Croix River. MN /DOT, working with USFWS approval, would take the following precautions in the specified corridors to avoid harm to any possible existing L. higginsi: North Bridge or Central Bridge. If the North Bridge or the Central Bridge alignment is chosen, areas of bridge piers plus a 20 foot buffer zone would be cleared of naiades immediately prior to construction. Naiades would be relocated to suitable habitat upstream from the site. ' south Bridge 4A, south Bridge Modified 6, or south Bridge 5 /5A. If South Bridge 4A, South Bridge Modified 6 or South Bridge 5/5A were chosen for the bridge site, no additional IMN/ DOT 3 t fl action would be necessary if bridge piers are P laced at least 300 to 500 feet from the respective shorelines. Any bridge design requiring pier placements in the near shore environment would require naiad salvage operations immediately prior to construction for all mussels likely to be adversely impacted. These mussels would be moved to , suitable habitat upstream from the site. North Tunnel I If the North Tunnel were to be constructed, more diving would be needed, particularly in the main channel eastward towards the Wisconsin shoreline. A naiad salvage operation , would be conducted immediately prior to construction from the main channel east to the Wisconsin shoreline. These mussels would be relocated to suitable habitat upstream from I the site. South Tunnel If the South Tunnel were to be constructed, a naiad salvage operation would be conducted on the Wisconsin shoreline from the edge of the water outward to the band of , submerged bark. The area would vary with the type of construction chosen. All mussels would be moved to suitable habitat upstream or downstream depending upon existing population densities. Handling Endangered Species. , Any endangered species found in naiad rescue operations would result in an immediate Section 7 consultation with USFWS. With USFWS concurrence, endangered naiads would be marked with an identifying number on both valves, measured, aged, sexed, weighed and photo vouchered prior to their hand replacement by divers at a marked transplant site. If female L. higginsi are found, the gills would be visually inspected to determine if the animal is gravid. Follow -up. Provisions would be made by MN /DOT with USFWS for follow -up studies on any transplanted federal endangered specimens. 1 MN/ DOT 4 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 If you have any questions or comments, please contact me or Dr. Greg Busacker (296 - 1651), our aquatic biologist. I, members of my staff, and MN /DOT bridge engineers are available to meet and discuss this proposal. Sincerely, Frank Pafko, Chief Environmental Development Unit Attachments: cc: R. Hill L. Foote M. Louis R. Winter L. Hegland F. Pafko G. Larson MN/ DOT 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS Appendix 7 185 1 ISTATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY Of f ice Memorandum ITrunk Highway Archaeology TO: Ted Lof strom DATE: June 28. 1985 ' Environmental Review Officer P*oM: Leslie Peterson V"WE: 726 -1171 Trunk Highway Archaeologist IL R: . 8217 -10 (T.H. 361 Wisc. Proj. ID 1550 - 0.5-00 From Jet. CSAH 15 i T.H. 36 West of Stillwater, Minn. To 3 Mi. N.E. of Houlton, Wisconsin Including Replacement of Bridge #4654 over the St. Croix River Washington County, Minn. and St. Croix County, Wisconsin ' As the enclosed correspondence indicates, C.Y. Kachelmyer has requested a listing of known cultural resource sites in the vicinity of the broad study area for the proposed revision of the T.H. 36 crossing of the St. Croix River at Stillwater. This study area currently ' encompasses three possible crossing areas and four approach corridors on the Minnesota side. MnDOT has requested information regarding known cultural resource sites by 1 July 85 for inclusion in scoping studies. Following refinement of corridors during the scoping process, we will be provided data sufficient to conduct any required field surveys and site evaluation. Stillwater is, of course, an area steeped in history. Previous Inventories have resulted in the recording of seventeen standing structures which have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Surveys have also recorded five archaeological sites in the study area. One of these, 21 WA 49. has also been listed on the National Register. These sites, as documented on the enclosed Figure 1. are as follows: Historic Sites /Standing Structures Currently Listed on the National Register A. C.M. 4 St. P. Freight House and Depot, 233 -335 Water Street B. Roscoe Hersey House, 416 South 4th Street C. Capt. Austin Jenks House. 504 South 5th.Street D. Albert Lammers House. 1306 South 3rd Street E. Minnesota State Prison (old). Main at Laurel Street F. Ivory McKissick House. 504 North 2nd Street ' G. Nelson School. 1018 South 1st Street H. Pest House, County Highway 11 I. St. Croix Boom Company House 6 Barn. 9666 North St. Croix Trail J. St. Croix Boom Site, Minnesota Highway 95 North [National Historic Landmark) Ted Lofatroa Page 2 June 28, 1985 L. St. Croix Lumber Kills /Stillwater Manufacturing Co., 318 North Main Street L. William Sauntry House and Recreation Hall, 626 North 4th Street and 625 North Sth Street K. Stone Arch Bridge, off County load 5 M. Henry Stussi House, 9097 Mendel Lad 0. Warden's House, Minnesota State Prison (old), 602 North Main Street P. Washington County Courthouse, West Pine Street and South 3rd Street Q. Mortimer Webster House, 435 South Broadway Known Archaeological Sites in the T.H. 36 Study Area: 1. 21 WA 12, 1 prehistoric Burial Mound NIA, SW%&, SEk, Section 15, T30N, R20W 2. 21 VA 26, Prehistoric Habitation Site SA, NEk, Section 18, T30N, 12OW 3. 21 WA 29, Prehistoric Habitation Site NE14, SA, SE C, Section 15, T30N, 120W 4. 21 WA 30, prehistoric Habitation Site NWh, VA, NEk, Section 20, T30N, R20W 5. 21 WA 49, St. Croix Access Prehistoric Habitation (listed on National Register) Vit, SA, Section 15, T30N, R20W In addition to these know archaeological sites and historic sites listed on the National Register, there are numerous standing structures within the study area which have been listed on the State Inventory of Historic Places and may also be eligible for inclusion on the National Register. Tile data are incomplete on these sites at the present time, however, and accurate locations and relationship to the project cannot be defined with available information. A preliminary evaluation is also required for Bridge 4654, as it is to be replaced under this planned construction. Bridge 4654 was built In 1931 and includes 7 Parker Through Truss spans and one lift span as documented in the MaM submittal. This structure was placed in Category 3 by the Historic Bridge Study recently completed by Dr. Robert Prase III and, thus, appears to be potentially eligible for sominatioo to the National Register of Historic Places. It would be wise to define the status of this structure early in the planning process. Within the current corridors, you will note that the north corridor (1) affects the most know resources including two or three National 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Ted Lofstrom Page 3 June 28, 1985 Register standing structures and tvo unevaluated archaeological sites as well as indirect impact on bridge 4654. The central corridor (3) Involves three National Register standing structures In the area of the greatest historical and archaeological potential and threatens direct impact on the bridge. Corridor segment 4 threatens another National Register structure in additional high potential areas and similarly threatens the bridge. On the basis of existing data, only the south corridor (6) affects no known historical or archaeological sites. ' Surveys will be required within any corridors that remain under consideration to locate currently unknown sites, define relation- ship of known sites to the corridors, evaluate potential for the existence of archaeological deposits at known historic structures, and ' evaluate the significance of any affected resources. Leslie D. Peterson Trunk Highway Archaeologist, MHS ' LDP: It Enc . I I s S �> r 1W46 ? THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN OF W15Go H. Nicholas Muller Ill. Director 816 State Street Madison. Wisconsin 53706 608/262.3266 HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION June 21, 1989 Mr. John Roslak Director, Bureau of Environmental and Data Analysis P.O. Box 7916 Madison, Wisconsin 53707 SHSW: 87 -0167 RE: Replace Bridge Over St. Croix Ri,,v(er; STH 64 /.5-Sb - o a -a a ��. �c.z � . Dear Mr. Roslak: We have reviewed the archeological report prepared for the above referenced project. We concur that only one archeological site, the Twin Springs Site, was located that is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This site is in the Alternative N (1). No significant sites are located in the other alternates. We agree that the site should now he evaluated. Minimally, this should involve test excavations conducted throughout the site area in order to determine the age, nature, extent, and integrity of the site. The work should-also include development of a cultural context within which the site can be evaluated. If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact me at (608) 262 -0991. Sincerel , Robert rmi am Staff Archeologist RAB:lkr cc: LynnpRusch 1758N /I • R E LL=�/ in cMV. Q.R1AL.YSIF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 L� MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOUNDED IN 1849 IJuly 13, 1989 ' Commissioner Leonard W. Levine Department of Transportation Transportation Building ' John Ireland Boulevard 4th Floor St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 ' Dear Commissioner Levine: Fort Snelling History Center, St. Paul, MN 551 1 1 • (612)726-1171 ah jti >> I J /J � 9•, Lo 6 C, 041. � RE: Stillwater Bridge, Minnesota Highway 36 over the St. C ?R'' Stillwater, Minnesota I am pleased and honored to congratulate you upon the entry of your ' property on the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register, as you know, is a listing of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects considered to be worthy of preservation. An ' information sheet describing the program is enclosed. By recognizing the significance of your property and planning for its preservation you are participating in a national movement which aims 1 to preserve, for the benefit of future generations, our cultural heritage. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Dennis Gimmestad, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Minnesota Historical Society, Fort Snelling History Center, St. Paul, Minnesota 55111, phone: 612 - 726 -1171. Again, congratulations on your receiving this important designation. ' Sincerely, Y� c> ' $-Nina M. Archabal State Historic Preservation Officer Enclosures: Copy . of Nomination National Register Program CC: The Honorable Wallace L. Abrahamson Mr. Charles Woodward, Mayor of Stillwater President Stillwater City Hall Washington County -216 No. 4th Street Historical Society Stillwater, MN 55082 P.O. Box 167 Stillwater, MN 55082 Mr. Maurice Stenerson, Chairperson Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Stillwater City Hall Mr. Jeff Hess 216 No. 4th Street 710 Grain Exchange Bldg. Stillwater, MN 55082 Minneapolis, MN 55415 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS ndix 8 193 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ' 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 i@ Telephone (612) 296 -6300 OL ' MINNESOTA 1990 ' March 29, 1989 Mr. Jeff Erickson ' Minnesota Department of Transportation, District 9 3485 Hadley Avenue North Oakdale, Minnesota 55109 Lear Mx. Erickson: RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a new St. Croix River Crossing This letter serves to respond to your request regarding hazardous waste sites ' in the vicinity of the DEIS in Stillwater, Minnesota. We understand that you are requesting information regarding verified or potential hazardous waste sites at or near the above- referenced property. Regarding your request, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff are willing to advise you as to whether there is information in the following MPCA ' files which indicates that there has been a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant at or near the above- referenced Property. ' The MPCA staff have conducted a limited file evaluation on the referenced property. The file evaluation included the review of the following: ' (1) EPA - National Priorities List (NPL); (2) EPA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); (3) MPCA - Permanent List of Priorities (PLP); (4) MPCA - Regulatory Compliance, Hazardous Waste Enforcement Log; (5) MPCA - List of Permitted Solid Waste Facilities; (6) MPCA - Hazardous Waste Permit Unit Project Identification List; (7) MPCA - 1980 Metropolitan Area Waste Disposal Site Inventory; and (8) MPCA - 1980 Statewide Open Dump Inventory. ' Our file evaluation has revealed that the following sites are within the specified area of the corridors: Regional Offices: Duluth - Brainerd - Detroit Lakes - Marshall • Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Jeff Erickson Page Two ' March 29, 1989 ° a list of leaking underground storage tanks reported within the 55082 zip code area; and ' ° a list of hazardous substance and /or petroleum product spills that have been reported in Stillwater, Grant, Oak Park Heights and Baytown. We suggest that you also contact the cities of Stillwater, Grant, Oak Park , Heights and Baytown or Washington County regarding the location of pipelines, underground storage tanks, and possible spills of petroleum products and /or ' hazardous substances which may have occurred in the area. This letter does not constitute an assurance on the part of the MPCA or the state of Minnesota that the property in question is free of any hazardous ' substances, pollutants, contaminants, or other conditions which may adversely affect the public health, welfare or the environment. ° Stillwater City Dump, County Road 12 and Eagle Ridge Trail, Stillwater (2,8); ° Stillwater Gas Manufacturing Site, near Nelson Street and South Main , Street, Stillwater (2); ° Stillwater Gas Manufacturing Site II, 423 South Main Street, Stillwater (2)' ° UFE Industries, Inc., 1850 Greeley Street, Stillwater (2); ° Bellaire Sanitation Service Transfer Station, 8678 North 75th Street, Stillwater (5); ° NSP King Plant Slag Disposal Area No. 1, A.S. King Power Plant, south side of Highway 212, north of 58th Street ' North, West of Peabody Avenue North, Oak Park Heights (5,7,8); ° Railroad Dump, north of Hazel Court, near Dellwood Road, Stillwater (7); ° City Danolition, northeast of Hazel i Street East and 2nd Street North, Stillwater (7); ° Stillwater Dump, north side of County Road 12, West of Birchwood Drive, ' Stillwater (7,8); and ° Lake McKusick Dump, northwest of Boutwell Road North and County Road 12, Stillwater (7,8). ' The file evaluation also included a review of the Underground Storage Tank Information System data base, which contains information about underground storage, leaks, and spills of petroleum products and /or hazardous substances. It is managed and updated continuously by MPCA staff. No underground storage tank installations, leaking underground storage tanks, or spills of hazardous substances and /or petroleum products have been reported under the title or the address given for the property. Enclosed are: ' ° a list of leaking underground storage tanks reported within the 55082 zip code area; and ' ° a list of hazardous substance and /or petroleum product spills that have been reported in Stillwater, Grant, Oak Park Heights and Baytown. We suggest that you also contact the cities of Stillwater, Grant, Oak Park , Heights and Baytown or Washington County regarding the location of pipelines, underground storage tanks, and possible spills of petroleum products and /or ' hazardous substances which may have occurred in the area. This letter does not constitute an assurance on the part of the MPCA or the state of Minnesota that the property in question is free of any hazardous ' substances, pollutants, contaminants, or other conditions which may adversely affect the public health, welfare or the environment. Mr. Jeff Erickson Page nu-ee March 29, 1989 I Please be aware that the informtion provided in this letter is submitted pursuant: to the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 13 and is not intended to relieve from liability any persons who may otherwise be liable under any provision of state or federal law or regulation. Nor is this letter intended to relieve any persons fiat responsibility they may have to investigate property prior to becoming involved in a transaction relating to that property. Lastly, you should be aware that the absence of information on a particular parcel of property does not necessarily mean that there are no problems connected with this property. Minn. Stat. § 115B.17, subd. 14 (1.988) requires that a person requesting this assistance pay the MPCA's cost of providing the assistance. The charge for this file evaluation is $70.00, which includes two hours spent by staff at a rate of $35.00 per hour. A bill for this and any other assistance provided this month will be mailed to you at the'end of the month. If you have any questions regarding this letter or if you would like to review our files, please contact Mary E. Buchen of my staff at (612) 297 -1796. ISincerely, Rot ia 1 d R. Swenson Supervisor, Site Assessment Unit Program UeveloF went Section Ground Water and Solid Waste Division IRRS:rjg Enclosures 1 1 i State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Western District Headquarters 1300 West Clairemont Avenue Call Box 4001 Eau Claire, WI 54702 -4001 April 11, 1989 Mr. Jeff Erickson Intermediate Planner Minnesota Department District 9 of Transportation 3485 Hadley Avenue North Oakdale, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Erickson: File Ref: 4400 Carroll D. Besedny Secretary This is in response to your letter of March 15, 1989, when you requested information about known or suspected environmental problems in the area being considered for utilization in the proposed St. Croix River bridge project in the Stillwater - Houlton area. The attached plat map delineates the exact area that was the focus of our review. It includes Section 22, 23, W 1/2 of the W 1/2 of Section 24, the W 1/2 of the W 1/2 of Section 25, Section 26, 27, 34, the N 1/2 of Section 35, and the W 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 36, T30N, R20W, Town of St. Joseph, St. Croix County. Records that we reviewed included our lists of active and abandoned landfills and our hazardous material spills files. To the best of our knowledge, none of these activities have taken place in the study area. Similarly there are no superfund sites in this area, nor to our knowledge are there any hazardous wastes stored in the area. There have been no reported leaking underground storage tanks in the focus area; however, the presence and integrity of petroleum storage tanks in the selected corridor should be examined closely before property acquisition begins. I hope that this information meets your needs. Feel free to call me at (715) 839 -3708 with additional questions. Si cerely, f Q�� David R. Lundberg Solid Waste Management upervisor Attachments c: Tom Lovejoy SW6 \DL002.dlm 1 1 i 1 0 J 1 1 r i r SECTION 4(F' EVALUATIONS Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 199 r 1 1 G 1 1 1 1 LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY Table of Contents DESCRIPTION OF 4(F) RESOURCE 1 Location and Access ......................... ............................... 1 The Riverway and its Relationship to Similar Areas . ............................... 1 Land Ownership, Zoning, and Administration ...... ............................... 3 Unusual Characteristics ....................... ............................... 4 Present and Planned Uses .................... ............................... 6 THE ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS 9 NO -BUILD Alternative ........................ ............................... 9 North and South Corridor Tunnels ............... ............................... 10 North Corridor Bridge ........................ ............................... 12 Central Corridor Bridge ....................... ............................... 14 South Corridor Bridge ........................ ............................... 15 DISPOSITION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE 17 MITIGATION MEASURES 18 Water Quality and Aquatic Life ................. ............................... 18 Recreation................................. ............................... 19 Bluffs and Shore Areas ....................... ............................... 19 Design/Aesthetics ........................... ............................... 19 Noise..................................... ............................... 20 Air....................................... ............................... 20 COORDINATION 20 END NOTES 22 i i i i M i LIST OF FIGURES 1. St. Croix National Scenic Riverway .......... ..............................1 2 Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway: Boundaries, Jurisdictions, and Mileage ...5 3. Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Study Zones .......................8 4. North Corridor Bridge Crossing ............ .............................13 LIST OF TABLES 1. Watercraft Types on the Lower St. Croix ...... ..............................7 2. Watercraft Types in the Federal Management Zone ........................... 7 3. Watercraft Types in the State Management Zone .............................8 4. Active Watercraft Distribution by Study Zone . ..............................8 5. Lower St. Croix Watercraft Density on Peak Days ............................ a 1 r s s 1 f DESCRIPTION OF 4(F) RESOURCE Location and Access The St. Croix River rises near Solon Springs in northwestern Wisconsin and flows 164 miles in a southerly direction to join the Mississippi River at Prescott, Wisconsin. Aside from its headwater area, the entire length of the St. Croix is included in the Federal National Wild and Scenic River pro- gram. The Upper St. Croix's major tributary- - Wisconsin's Namekagon River - -is also a component of the National Scenic Riverway (see figure 1). At its closest, the St. Croix is only about twenty -five miles from the heart of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The St. Croix River is readily accessible to visitors because of well developed road systems in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. The St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers are crossed by more than two dozen highway bridges and a number of rail bridges. There are five highway bridges spanning the lower fifty -two miles of the St. Croix River, including crossings at Taylors Falls, MN /St. Croix Falls, WI; Osceola, WI; Stillwater, MN/Houlton, WI; Hudson, WI; and Prescott, WI. The closest crossings to the Stillwater bridge are the I -94 bridge at Hudson and the MN TH 243 bridge to Osceola, Wl. These are located approximately six miles south and sixteen miles north (7.5 and 21.5 river miles), respectively. There are numerous access points on both the St. Croix and Namegakon. Between Taylors Falls /St. Croix Falls and Prescott there are approximately seventeen marinas and twenty -two launch ramps, fourteen of which are free. From Prescott to Stillwater, the Army Corps of Engineers maintains a nine foot navigation channel, making this stretch accessible to large boats, including many which come upstream from the Mississippi. Above Stillwater, the river becomes more narrow and shal- low, with many islands. A three foot navigation channel is authorized from Stillwater to Taylors Falls /St. Croix Falls, but it has not been maintained, except for snag clearing. With care, and depending on the water level, large boats can go above Stillwater. However, six miles north of town lies the Arcola Sandbar, just upstream from the Soo Line High Bridge. Above this point, the St. Croix tends to be quite shallow, and is primarily used by canoes and other shallow -draft watercraft. The Riverway and its Relationship to Similar Areas The Upper St. Croix National Scenic Riverway was established in 1968, one of the eight original rivers included under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act passed the same year. Protected under the Act were the St. Croix River from the Gordon dam downstream to the dam at Taylors Falls /St. Croix Falls, as well as the Namegakon River from Lake Namekagon to the St. Croix. Under the initial legis- lation, twenty -seven rivers were listed for future study to determine their suitability for later in- clusion in the system. Included among the study rivers was the Lower St. Croix, which runs from Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls to Prescott. Threatened by overuse, the possibility of future water quality degradation, and growing development pressure along its shoreline, the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway was authorized in 1972. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed in large measure to stem the growing tide of dam construc- tion which, by the 1950s and 1960s, was increasing- ly impounding America's finest rivers. For environmentalists, one of the most bitter losses oc- curred upstream from Grand Canyon National Park, where a spectacular stretch of the Colorado River was flooded behind the Glen Canyon Dam. Spurred by such developments, environmental organizations and other concerned citizens sought legislation to preserve the most deserving of the free - flowing rivers which remained, the principal result being the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix e Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 1 a i UPPER ST. CROIX LAKE ST. CROIX FLOWAGE 89 LAKE NAMEKAGON 0Q 53 MINNESOTA HAYWARD 77� 48 DANBURY hY PtYEp� G 35 SPOONER 70 SIREN 70 �} GRANTSBURG 4Q 48 35 53 51 87 48 48 95 35 RICE LAKE TAYLORS FALLS 8 ST. CROIX 6 TURTLE LAKE FALLS HOSDEOLA 6 63 WISCONSIN 35 85 97 NOTE: Darkened ar" Includes approximate bounder[" of the St. Croix National 95 SOMERSET 84 Scenic Rlverwey. 96 NEW RICHMOND TILL ATER HOULTON 94 38 ST. PAUL • HUDSON 12 94 8 95 85 RIVER FALLS 61 29 Q PRESCOT HASTINGS Figure 1 St. Croix National Scenic Riverway e Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 1 a i 0 1 1 1 In order to qualify for inclusion in the system, a river must possess at least one "outstandingly remark- able" value, either scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other at- tributes'1 The Act further states that the system's rivers must be "preserved in free - flowing condi- tion ... and be protected for the benefit and enjoy- ment of present and future generations." 2 Each river which makes it into the system must be managed to preserve those values which originally qualified it for protection. As of 1987, eighty -three rivers and river segments totalling nearly 8,000 miles were in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act seeks to protect three categories of streams: "wild," "scenic," and "recreational." The Act states that a wild river must be largely undeveloped, accessible only by foot, horseback, or boat, and free of impoundments. Ac- cording to the Act, these rivers are meant to repre- sent "vestiges of primitive America. "4 By this definition, the St. Croix or Namekagon are not con- sidered wild rivers. To qualify as scenic, a river and its shoreline must be devoid of impoundments and most development, but may be accessible in places by road. A recrea- tional river is generally more developed, may have been impounded or diverted in the past, and can be easily accessible by road or rail. The St. Croix system is divided into scenic and recreational stretches: everything above the Washington - Chisago County line (a total of two hundred and ten river miles) is categorized as scenic, below which the river is considered to be recreational (forty -two river miles). For management purposes, the distinc- tion between scenic and recreational is not as impor- tant as the difference between the Federal and State management zones, which will be discussed later. The closest Wild and Scenic River to the St. Croix Riverway is the Wolf in east - central Wisconsin, a stream which was also one of the original eight included in the 1968 Federal legislation. In Min- nesota and Wisconsin, three national forests lie within approximately one hundred miles of the Riverway, including the Superior, the Chippewa, and the Chequamegon; the latter borders on a short portion of the upper Namekagon River. Within the Superior National Forest lies the vast Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness which, along with the St. Croix, is a major destination for canoe campers in the Upper Midwest. There are several other areas administered by the National Park Service (NPS) in the region, including Voyageurs National Park and Grand Portage and Pipestone National Monuments in Minnesota, Isle Royal National Park in Michigan, and Apostle Is- lands National Lakeshore and the Ice Age National Scientific Reserve in northern Wisconsin. The Min- nesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge preserves a long stretch of the Minnesota River, near the southern edge of the Twin Cities. Downstream from the St. Croix lies the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge, which extends nearly three hundred miles from Wabasha, Minnesota to Rock Island, Illinois. Also within a day's drive of the St. Croix Valley are dozens of state parks, state forests, and locally- administered public lands, offering a wide variety of recreational opportunities. A num- ber of these are located at least partially within the boundaries of the Riverway. From a regional perspective, it is evident that the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is located in an area which is richly endowed with natural resources and outdoor recreation opportunities. Of the many natural environments which people enjoy in the Upper Midwest, however, the St. Croix is among the most widely known and heavily used, with a large and devoted constituency. Land Ownership, Zoning, and Administration Land ownership in the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is a mosaic of Federal, state, local, and private holdings. In addition to fee ownership, the Federal Government and the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin have purchased scenic easements from private landholders along many areas of the river. In return for a payment which has generally been ten to twenty percent of the market value of the land, landowners relinquish certain development and im- provement rights to their property. The agreement generally runs with the property, that is, it is passed on from one owner to the next. Incorporated places and other areas outside the Riverway boundaries (but within its viewshed) utilize local zoning con- trols rather than scenic easements to protect the aesthetic integrity of the river's shoreline and bluffs. Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 3 In order to fully understand land ownership on the St. Croix, it is necessary to briefly examine how it is administered. As mentioned previously, the Lower St. Croix section of the Riverway begins at Taylors Falls /St. Croix Falls and extends fifty -two miles downstream to the river's mouth at Prescott (see figure 2). The Federal Government administers everything above Taylors Falls on the Upper St. Croix and Namekagon (except for various state and local public lands), as well as twenty -seven miles of the Lower St. Croix, downstream to the northern city limits of Stillwater. The twenty -five mile stretch from the Federal /State boundary to Prescott is ad- ministered jointly by the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources. The efforts of these agencies and the National Park Service are coordinated through the auspices of the Lower St. Croix Management Commission (LSCMC). In the Federal area, The Lower St. Croix Final Master Plan (1976) called for the acquisition in fee of an approximate four hundred foot strip of land on either side of the river, with scenic easements being purchased behind the fee land. (In reality, this has not always been the case.) Because of limita- tions imposed by the original legislation, Federal and state fee simple and scenic easement acquisi- tions are confined to an area of 320 acres per mile, or as far as the eye can see, whichever is smaller. Because the viewshed along the river is often greater than the area which can be legally included within the boundaries of the Riverway, minimum zoning standards and criteria have been established by the two State Departments of Natural Resources to serve as models for local authorities along the Lower St. Croix. The local ordinances are directed toward the control of characteristics such as lot size and use, density, setbacks, building color, vegetative cutting, grading, and structure heights. The local codes are legally required to be at least as restrictive as those promulgated by the states, although they are generally less strict than the requirements included in a scenic easement. Unusual Characteristics Perhaps the most extraordinary characteristic of the Lower St. Croix is that a river of such size, beauty, cleanliness, and recreational value is so close and accessible to a large metropolitan area. On the Twin Cities side of the St. Croix, more than two million people live within an hour and a half drive of the 4 In the study area, only the North Corridor bridge alternative would directly affect the Federally -ad- ministered zone. in this corridor, the Federal Government owns parcels scattered on both sides of the river, as well as the scenic easements to a significant amount of other property. In addition, it leases part of Mile Long Island from Wisconsin. The State of Minnesota owns the corridor for TH 95, which follows the river closely in this area. For more details about ownership in the North Bridge Corridor, consult the Section 4(f) report for Mile Long Island. In the state - administered area from Stillwater to Prescott, the principal land protection tools are local zoning ordinances and scenic easements. Partially because of high land values, the Master Plan placed little emphasis on fee title acquisition in this sec- tion. While significant parcels of public land exist in Afton and Kinnickinnic State Parks, Scenic Riverway designation has resulted in very little additional public fee simple land purchases south of Stillwater. In general, local land use controls play a much more important role in protecting the river in the state - administered zone than in the Federal section. On the Minnesota side of the state - managed portion of the study area, the incorporated areas of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights occupy most of the shoreline. Each controls development according to its own zoning codes, which meet state requirements for the Riverway. On the Wisconsin side, the land is generally undeveloped and private, although Kol- liner Park (owned by Stillwater) borders a sig- nificant stretch of river on either side of the existing bridge causeway. The shore here consists of steep, forested bluffs, with a scattering of homes on the ridge tops. There are no state scenic easements along this portion of the study area, although land owners must abide by the zoning ordinances adopted by St. Croix County. river; it is also within a day's drive of Chicago, Milwaukee, and Madison, Wisconsin. The Riverway as a whole offers a number of diverse environments. The upper Namekagon, for example, is a small, cold -water trout stream. The St. Croix Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n t 1 r i i e t A A 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 A N E E ae N b E S R d Z E i n N TAYLORS FALLS _ ��� ST. CROIX FALLS OSCEOLA . -- Scenic - —way Designation —----------- W ' Recreational Rlverway Designation 97 iP aX S 35 N ......................... STILLWATER !,ftISSrPP, HASTINGS NEW RICHMOND Federal Juriedic • State Jurisdiction HOULTON HUDSON PRESCOTT Figure 2 Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway: Boundaries, Jurisdictions, and Mileage Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 5 Upper St. Croix National Scenlo RIerW Lower Z Croix National Scenic Rlverway r o / A N E E ae N b E S R d Z E i n N TAYLORS FALLS _ ��� ST. CROIX FALLS OSCEOLA . -- Scenic - —way Designation —----------- W ' Recreational Rlverway Designation 97 iP aX S 35 N ......................... STILLWATER !,ftISSrPP, HASTINGS NEW RICHMOND Federal Juriedic • State Jurisdiction HOULTON HUDSON PRESCOTT Figure 2 Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway: Boundaries, Jurisdictions, and Mileage Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 5 itself begins as a spring, and is shallow and narrow upstream from its confluence with the Namekagon. For most of its length, the Upper St. Croix flows through a wide valley, with low banks and little discernible development. While the St. Croix is not considered to be a dangerous whitewater river, scat- tered rapids do occur above Taylors Falls /St. Croix Falls. At the lower end of Minnesota's St. Croix State Park, the river's gradient increases to a maxi- mum of 8.3 feet per mile, as it enters a seven mile stretch of moderately difficult rapids. The final ten miles of the Upper Riverway is a slow -water area known as the Indianhead Flowage, which was created by a sixty foot hydroelectric dam at St. Croix Falls. Below the dam, the river flows through the impres- sive Dalles area, a narrow metamorphic gorge with pine - covered walls and numerous potholes carved in the rock. The gorge is protected by Interstate State Parks in both Minnesota and Wisconsin, popular places for tourists, rock climbers, canoeists, and campers. Below the Dalles, the St. Croix be- comes shallower and enters a heavily wooded, steep -sided valley marked by occasional limestone and sandstone bluffs, with numerous islands, feeder streams, and backwater areas. Development is still not prominent, but becomes more noticeable as the river continues south. At Stillwater, the river widens and deepens into Lake St. Croix, leaving behind the wilder, island - filled stretches to the north. From here to Prescott, the river has been partially impounded as a result of its confluence with the Mississippi. This effect has been compounded by the construction of Lock and Dam Number Three on the Mississippi at Red Wing, which has raised the natural level of Lake St. Croix by about six feet, with total depths often exceeding thirty feet. While the lower, broader portion of the river features numerous forested bluffs, including Afton and Kin - nickinnic State Parks, it is far more developed than the upper stretches. Immediately downstream from Present and Planned Uses The major developed public facilities on the Lower Riverway are William O'Brien, Interstate, and Afton State Parks in Minnesota, and Interstate State Park in Wisconsin. Less developed public areas include Kinnickinnic State Park and the St. Croix 0 Stillwater and close to the proposed South Corridor, for example, are a marina, a sewage treatment plant, and the Allen S. King power plant, with barge facilities and its prominent 783 foot stack. A large number of permanent and seasonal homes are lo- cated on Lake St. Croix, some of which are quite visible. Nonetheless, this portion of the river still retains a significant amount of its original natural beauty, and is heavily used by recreationalists, espe- cially power boaters. In addition to its natural features, the Lower St. Croix Valley's cultural attractions are an important facet of the river's character, and draw a large number of people to the area. The City of Stillwater is one of the oldest European settlements in Min- nesota. With its well - maintained nineteenth century downtown, and numerous shops and restaurants, Stillwater has been able to preserve important parts of its architectural heritage. The existing lift bridge in Stillwater was recently added to the National Register of Historic Places. Just upstream from Stillwater and very close to the proposed North Corridor bridge route, is the log- ging -era St. Croix Boomsite, which is a National Historic Landmark. Taylors Falls, Marine on St. Croix, and other towns also have buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. The Lower St. Croix Final Master Plan emphasizes that these cultural features are an integral part of the Riverway and should be preserved: All communities along the Lower St. Croix that still retain some... historical flavor should be encouraged in their efforts to maintain their cultural and historical characters In sum, the Lower St. Croix Valley is unusual be- cause of its well - preserved natural beauty, high water quality, numerous recreation opportunities, historic places, and exceptional accessibility to several million people. A large amount of development has occurred south of Stillwater, some of which has significantly eroded the river's aes- thetics. In spite of this, the Riverway remains an inviting and popular destination. Islands Wildlife Area in Wisconsin, and some game refuges in Minnesota. Wisconsin's Willow River State Park lies several miles upstream from the Willow's confluence with the St. Croix. Together, these parks offer a wide array of activities, including Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 1 1 t a a iFl lJ t r 1 A t 1 e t 1 1 camping, hiking, picnicking, bird watching, fishing, cross- country skiing, boat and canoe launching, and interpretive programs. In addition to the previously discussed Federal land, state, local, and privately supported facilities such as boat launches, marinas, and wayside rests also provide recreational oppor- tunities along the Lower St. Croix. In addition to formal recreation places, river islands and other shore areas support an enormous amount of recrea- tional activity, more than would be optimal in some instances. While there is a diversity of outdoor pursuits avail- able along the Riverway, the principal recreational activities on the Lower St. Croix involve watercraft of various types. According to the Minnesota -Wis- consin Boundary Area Commission (MWBAC), the Lower St. Croix is one of the most heavily used recreational boating areas in the Midwest; even before a National Scenic Riverway was established on the Lower St. Croix, boat traffic was beginning to approach higher than desirable levels on some summer weekends and holidays. Partially in response to this congestion, the Riverway Master Plan proposed few new recreational developments on the river. Many of the improvements made in the river corridor since the Master Plan have been developments in existing state parks, rather than the creation of entirely new facilities. In 1976, the Master Plan summarized the congestion problem as follows: Crowding is an important factor influencing watercraft users' enjoyment of the Lower St. Croix ... Overuse of the Lower St. Croix by all types of watercraft is a serious threat to the lower river environment and the quality of the river user's ex- .7 perience In order to keep track of congestion on the Lower St. Croix, the NPS, the Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, and the Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources have performed studies of boating use every other year, as directed by the Lower St. Croix Manage- ment Commission. Since 1970, the amount of boat- ing activity on the Lower St. Croix has more than doubled, increasing at an average annual rate of 5.6 percent a year. According to the 1987 Recreational Boating Study, 115,953 recreational boating trips involving 384,666 people were made on the Lower St. Croix during the boating season, not including excursion boat traffic. Approximately sixty percent of this traffic occurred on weekends or holidays. On a typical peak -use day in 1987, the Lower Riverway had a traffic volume of about 1,291 watercraft. His- torically, slightly less than fifty percent of the watercraft in use at any given time are beached, a figure which emphasizes the great importance of shore -based recreation for St. Croix boaters. s The most common watercraft on the Lower St. Croix include cruisers, runabouts, canoes, and houseboats. Canoes are much more prevalent above Stillwater on the Federal stretch of the River - way. In the state - managed portion, cruisers and runabouts are the most popular type of watercraft, followed by houseboats (see tables 1, 2, and 3). For purposes of determining variations in boating activity on various stretches of the lower river, the 1987 boating study divided the Lower St. Croix up into seventeen study zones (see figure 3). The Stillwater Islands Area (zone thirteen) north of the city limits to the Arcola Sandbar received 10.7 per- cent of all watercraft use on the Lower St. Croix in 1987, the second highest among the study bands. Zone twelve, which covers the Central Corridor, received only 1.8 percent of Riverway boating traf- fic that year. The Bayport Lake section (zone eleven), which includes the South Corridor, Source: Lower St. Croix Management Commission, 1988 TABLE 2 Watercraft Types in the Federal TABLE 1 Management Zone* Watercraft Types on the Lower St. Croix (by percent) 1987 Craft type 1983 1985 1987 Canoe 13.4 12.1 21.3 Fishing Boat 2.8 3.1 3.9 Runabout 42.1 37.8 25.6 Cruiser 18.2 24.6 26.4 Pontoon Boat 2.5 2.5 6.1 Houseboat 15.3 15.0 11.9 Sailboat 4.3 3.9 4.3 Other 1.4 0.9 0.5 Source: Lower St. Croix Management Commission, 1988 TABLE 2 Watercraft Types in the Federal Management Zone* (by percent) Craft type 1983 1985 1987 Canoe 48.0 41.1 56.2 Fishing Boat 4.9 6.0 5.3 Runabout 25.8 27.2 14.9 Cruiser 5.3 9.3 7.3 Pontoon Boat 5.8 5.8 9.7 Houseboat 8.0 8.8 5.8 Sailboat 0.03 0.03 0.07 Other 2.1 1.7 0.8 'Data includes Lower St. Croix only Source: Lower St. Croix Management Commission, 1988 Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix TABLE 3 Watercraft Types in the State Management Zone (by percent) Craft type 1983 1985 1987 Canoe 0.7 0.4 4.9 Fishing Boat 2.1 1.9 3.1 Runabout 48.0 42.2 30.6 Cruiser 22.9 30.8 35.7 Pontoon Boat 1.4 1.2 4.2 Houseboat 17.9 17.5 14.8 Sailboat 5.9 5.4 6.4 Other 1.1 0.6 0.3 Source: Lower St. Croix Management Commission, 1988 TAYLORS FAL 17 OSCEOLA 1s MARINE 15 14 ARCOLA SANGRAR 13 NO SCALE STILLWATER 12 WISCONSIN MNNESOTA 11 e 10 HUDSON 8 8 7 AFTON 5 IQNNICIQNNIC RIVER 4 3 NO SCALE 2 1 PRESCOTT Figure 3 Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Study Zones N received ten percent of the Lower St. Croix's boat- ing traffic (see table 4).10 One way of measuring congestion levels is to deter- mine the number of acres of water surface per moving watercraft at a given time. According to the most recent recreational boating study, there was an average of 15.6 acres per moving craft on the busy stretch of river from Prescott to the Arcola Sandbar. As a result of increasing congestion, the Lower St. TABLE 4 Active Watercraft Distributed by Study Zone (Lower St. Croix Scenic Riverway) Study 1983 1985 1987 Zone Description percent percent percent 1 Prescott Narrows 3.4 2.1 1.6 2 Kinnickinnic S. Lake 7.1 6.4 6.9 3 Kinnickinnic Bay 1.7 2.6 1.6 4 Kinnickinnic Narrows 6.9 8.1 9.5 5 Afton South Lake 6.6 6.4 6.9 6 Catfish Bar /Afton 5.3 5.7 4.4 7 Open Lake 10.0 10.5 10.0 8 South Hudson Bay 3.1 3.0 1.6 9 Hudson Narrows 14.1 12.1 10.3 10 Hudson Bay 0.9 0.5 0.1 11 Bayport Lake 10.1 9.8 10.0 12 Stillwater 4.9 4.8 2.8 13 Stillwater Islands 8.5 10.2 10.7 14 Page's Slough/Islands 1.1 1.2 1.0 15 Marine On St. Croix 2.0 2.0 1.8 16 O'brien- Osceola 6.3 6.3 7.7 17 Taylors Falls /Osceola 7.8 8.4 12.5 Source: Lower St. Croix Management Commission, 1988 Croix Management Commission has mandated studies of the feasibility of water use regulations in zones where watercraft density is between ten and fifteen acres per moving craft. The Commission has also mandated water surface regulations (e.g., "slow -no- wake" areas) in zones where peak day densities are less than ten acres per craft. In 1987, six of the seventeen zones fell into this latter category; five of these are currently being regulated (see table 5).11 According to the watercraft density data, river traf- fic has become seriously congested in zone thirteen, where there was an average of only eight surface acres per moving craft in 1987. To the south in zone twelve, the reading was 16.8 acres, while zone eleven had a figure of 23.2 acres.12 "Slow -no- wake" restrictions have been implemented in zone thirteen in the Andersen Bay area of zone eleven. Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix A 1 F a 1 1 J 1 0 1 1 1 t [1 1 1 TABLE 5 Lower St. Croix Watercraft Density on Peak Days (Acres of Water Surface per Moving Craft) Zone Acres 1983 1985 1987 1 78 6.8 6.2 3.9 2 1158 18.2 20.8 15.2 3 26 5.9 5.3 5.2 4 92 6.6 4.8 2.4 5 1142 36.9 21.2 18.4 6 92 18.7 9.4 8.4 7 2336 38.3 23.0 23.0 8 234 14.0 14.0 19.8 9 73 3.5 2.4 2.0 10 151 47.6 62.7 24.7 11 2024 25.0 27.4 23.2 12 430 23.6 16.4 16.8 13 379 8.0 10.4 8.0 Note: data not available for zones 14 -17 Source: Lower St. Croix Management Commission, 1988 With its restaurants, private marinas, boat launches, parks, city courtesy docks, and upstream islands, the Stillwater area is a popular destination and em- barkation point for St. Croix boaters. In addition to user - operated craft, there are currently three excursion boats operating public and charter cruises from docks on the south end of downtown Stillwater, north of the proposed Central Corridor, as well as in the Dalles area. Because most Stillwater cruises go upstream, the operator has proposed to move his docks north of the existing lift bridge. Fishing in an important subset of watercraft -based recreation, although bank and ice fishing also oc- curs. Fishing is good for a wide range of species, including walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass, and catfish. Popular areas include the mouths of tributaries such as the Apple, Kinnickinnic, the King Plant discharge canal, the Hudson Narrows, and the St. Croix - Mississippi confluence. As previously mentioned, the Army Corps of En- gineers dredges the river below Stillwater to main- tain a nine foot deep, three hundred foot wide navigation channel. The Stillwater Barge Terminal, which is leased by the Aiple Towing Company, receives only a few barges a season. The terminal, which is south of the lift bridge, would presumably be removed if a Central Corridor bridge becomes the chosen alternative. Aiple also operates a sporadical- ly used drydock for barge repair. This, too, would likely be removed if a Central Corridor bridge is built. The City of Stillwater is interested in regain- ing control of both sites when the lease is up in order to convert the area into a parking area, assuming a Central Corridor bridge is not constructed. Histori- cally, there has been no barge traffic north of the proposed Central Corridor. THE ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS There are fourteen different crossing options which, for the purposes of this section, will be divided into five major alternatives, or groups of alternatives. Briefly, they are as follows: NO- BUILD; North and South Corridor sub - aqueous tunnels; North Corridor bridge; Central Corridor bridge options; and three major South Corridor bridge routes, with NO -BUILD Alternative There are three main options included under a NO- BUILD decision. They include no action /continued maintenance of the old bridge; constructing a new bridge inplace when the old structure becomes un- a number of variations. In the following section, the salient effects and comparative impacts of these alternatives will be discussed. All of the alterna- tives-- including NO- BUILD- -will have some effect on the Riverway. If there is to be a crossing of any sort in the Stillwater area, there is no feasible way to avoid an impact on the St. Croix River. safe; and Transportation System Management (TSM)- -that is, any low to medium cost means of maximizing existing facilities. If traffic continues to increase as projected, these measures hold the Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix possibility of partial short -term relief, rather than a long -term solution. For a more detailed analysis of the NO- BUILD options, see the Alternatives sec- tion of the draft EIS and a report entitled Congestion at the Stillwater Bridge, prepared by the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commis - sion'13 The NO -BUILD option is the only alternative which would not have a direct and immediate effect on the National Scenic Riverway. The long -term effects of a NO -BUILD decision, however, are likely to be substantial and increasingly severe over time, as conflicts grow between boat and auto traffic at the old bridge. For the five year period from 1980 to 1985, the number of bridge openings more than doubled, going from 621 to 1,473 openings per year. 14 It is anticipated that boating traffic on the Riverway will continue to increase at a rate of at least five percent a year. 15 If the frequency or duration of "up" times on the lift bridge are increased in order to accommodate increases in watercraft passages, the traffic capacity of the bridge's road- way will diminish. According to Mn/DOT es- timates, auto traffic on the existing bridge will more than double in the next few decades under a NO- BUILD scenario, going from an average of 12,400 vehicles per day in 1986 to 28,200 in 2014. By comparison, traffic over the lift bridge would be reduced to about 10,575 in 2014 if a new South Corridor bridge were constructed. This is assuming the existing bridge, which was built in 1931, can be kept in operation that long. In addition to growing conflicts with boat traffic, the impacts of an increasing number of vehicles using the old bridge include noise, air pollution, economic losses, and aesthetics. The effects of increasing noise pollution would be felt most directly in Stillwater, where long lines of idling cars and trucks back up through the heart of town when the lift is up. Under a NO -BUILD scenario, the carbon monoxide (CO) levels generated in downtown Stillwater would be the highest of any location along any of the study corridors. (However, no CO stand- ards would be exceeded for this or any of the other alternatives until at least 2004, and no mitigation would be necessary.) The direct economic costs of traffic delays in and around Stillwater amount to many thousands of lost person -hours per year, as well as the effects of late shipments and additional fuel consumption. The aesthetic impacts are more complex, in part because they are closely related to the others. While the traffic tie -ups can be easily discerned from adjacent areas of the river, the effects are, once again, felt most acutely in the downtown area of Stillwater. The increasing volume of traffic going through the center of Stillwater is at odds with the City's comprehensive plan, which emphasizes the importance of maintaining a historic district which is appealing to pedestrians. As detailed in the economic impacts section of the draft EIS, it is questionable whether downtown Stillwater can continue to function as intended without a new crossing to divert traffic. As noted earlier, the degradation of Stillwater's historical ambiance conflicts with one of the recommendations in the Riverway Master Plan, which stresses the impor- tance of preserving the character of historical com- munities on the river. In spite of the potentially serious long -term effects of a NO -BUILD alternative, it would obviate the impacts associated with each of the new crossing options, which will be discussed in the next sec- tions. It is probable that a new crossing would encourage new development in St. Croix County, increasing the amount of traffic crossing the river. From this perspective, a new crossing would, in a sense, "create" some of the demand it was designed to serve. Nonetheless, it is likely that St. Croix County will continue to grow rapidly even if a new crossing is not constructed. A new bridge or tunnel should be regarded as one factor encouraging growth in west - central Wisconsin, but in no sense would it be the sole cause. North and South Corridor Tunnels Two of the crossing alternatives include sub- aqueous tunnels in the North and South Corridors. The principal advantage of a sub - aqueous tunnel is that it would substantially reduce the visual impact of a river crossing. The main disadvantage of tun- nels is their cost: The range for a North or South 1•. Corridor tunnel is $123,000,000 to $179,000,000, not including the extra equipment which would be necessary. In addition to cost, a tunnel would have a number of adverse environmental effects on the Riverway, including potential impacts to bluffs, the possibility of serious aquatic disturbances due to Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix �J i 1 �7 r] 1 11 1 �L] 1 1 I t 1 r 1 t 1 construction - related sedimentation, noise from steep approach grades which are exposed, and air quality impacts. Additionally, a North Corridor tun- nel could have a major adverse effect on Brown's Creek, a state - designated trout stream. A major aim of the Lower St. Croix Master Plan is to protect the scenic integrity of the river valley from new development. Of the BUILD proposals, a tunnel would come closest to upholding this goal. Aesthetic perceptions of a river crossing will vary, however, and in many cases will be influenced by whether one is on the river, or crossing it. For those crossing the river, a bridge would be aesthetically preferable to a tunnel, as it would allow people to see the Riverway. For some, the view from a bridge would be their only exposure to the St. Croix, an experience which would be largely missing in a tunnel. Of course, the Riverway was established to preserve the existing river environment, and a bridge would necessitate a change in the ambiance along the chosen segment, especially in the North Corridor. If a BUILD decision is made, the primary means for deciding between a bridge and a tunnel would be to determine whether the large cost of the latter outweighs the visual impact of the former on river users. One of the most important considerations in evaluat- ing the scenic impacts of the crossing proposals is the effect they will have on the bluffs which border portions of the study area. Both the North and South Corridor tunnels would have west portals which are relatively close to the river, while the eastern tunnel sections would go under the steep bluffs on the Wisconsin side, continuing under- ground for a considerable distance before emerging on top, well back from the river. While it is possible that sections of the western approach would be visible from certain points on the river, this would not be true on the Wisconsin side. However, preliminary information indicates that rock and soil conditions in the bluffs are not well suited for boring. If this proves true, cut and cover tunneling techniques requiring extensive bluff cutting may be necessary. Additional impacts to bluffs and other shore areas are possible due to the construction of ventilation and other auxiliary structures, as well as from dredge spoil deposition. A major adverse environmental impact of a sub- aqueous tunnel would be caused by the disturbance of bottom sediment during construction. While the effects of this are likely to be temporary, they are also apt to be more severe than those caused by bridge construction. At this point, it is difficult to accurately predict the extent of the impacts because the method of tunnel construction and dredging has not yet been selected. For a discussion of the various options, see Mn/DOT's special tunnel report. As a result of dredging, turbidity in downstream areas is expected to increase, reducing light penetration and altering biological productivity. Suspended sediment will gradually settle out downstream. Depending on the amount of sedi- ment, the potential exists for substantial short-term and possible long -term impacts on bottom- dwelling (benthic) organisms for an undetermined area downstream. Fish should be able to move out of the disturbed area, although impacts on benthic or- ganisms could have a secondary effect and downstream spawning areas could be disturbed by silt. Perhaps the most serious aquatic environmental concern involves the Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel (Lampsilis higginsi), a Federally endangered species which probably lives - -in relatively small numbers - -in and /or around the study area. The South Corridor tunnel, in particular, would likely have a considerable impact on mussel beds, espe- cially on the Wisconsin shoreline. In addition to Lampsilis higginsi, a number of other rare mussels live in the vicinity of the study areas. (See threatened & endangered section of the draft EIS.) Some noise increases along portions of the River - way are likely with a tunnel. Although traffic cross- ing under the river will not be audible, the steep grades (generally between four and five percent) will mean that vehicles will generate more noise than if they were operating on a flat surface. The effects of this will be more pronounced on the Minnesota side for both tunnel proposals, as much of the sloping grade will be above ground. As detailed in the noise impacts section of the draft EIS, however, noise levels from tunnels and all the other BUILD alternatives will meet state and Federal standards and criteria which are applicable to the Riverway, and will not require specific mitigation. In addition to noise, it is possible that headlight glare from eastbound traffic will be visible from the river with the tunnel proposals. The steep grades will also increase the amount of air pollution generated. In addition, auto exhaust in a tunnel - -which normally would be spread out along the entire length of the roadway- -will be collected Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 11 and released from ventilators, increasing concentra- tions in certain places. It is possible that ventilation structures could be located so there would be little, if any, impact on people using the river. One of the most serious environmental effects of a tunnel in the North Corridor would result from a longitudinal encroachment of approximately 1,500 feet along Brown's Creek. This would dramatically alter the rugged, forested character of this small valley, as well as change the course of the lower creek channel (the portal would be several blocks west of the creek's present mouth). Relocation of the creek channel, combined with the possibility of increased siltation due to construction, could harm North Corridor Bridge From a visual perspective, a bridge in the North Corridor would have the most dramatic impact on the National Scenic Riverway of any of the crossing proposals. The crossing would be accomplished by a high bridge spanning the wooded bluffs on either side of the river, just above the point where the channel widens and deepens to form Lake St. Croix. The Riverway at this point is not wilderness (TH 95 hugs the west side of the river here), yet it has a very scenic and unspoiled appearance, more so than the Central or South Corridors. For canoeists and other recreationalists coming downstream from the north, the bridge would mark the end of the wilder and more intimate St. Croix above Stillwater. The high bridge would have the effect of making develop- ment more discernible further up the river than previously, although numerous islands in the chan- nel upstream would help mask its presence. The bridge would also disrupt views up and down the river from various shore locations. Some of the most serious adverse impacts of the North Corridor bridge would occur where the span goes over Mile Long Island, a very popular camp- ing and picnic area (see figure 4). If it is necessary to construct a bridge pier on the island, it is likely that at least a few campsites on the island would be permanently lost. Campers at nearby sites would be confronted by the large physical presence of the bridge, its shadow at certain times of the day, traffic noise, the possibility of exhaust fumes and precipita- tion runoff, and increased light at night (MPCA day and night noise standards for camping areas would not be exceeded). The overall result of these chan- ges would be a markedly different ambiance on the the stream's trout fishery. Trout are highly sensitive to siltation and other contamination, and require sufficient cover and an abundance of aquatic food sources in order to thrive. Should these habitat requirements be damaged during construction, mitigation efforts might be employed. Habitat im- provement work has proven successful on many Minnesota trout streams, although this would be an unusual case. While Brown's Creek is not one of the better trout streams in the state, its diminution or loss as a fishery would be notable, as there are few trout streams within an hour's drive of the Twin Cities. island than at present. Because good island camping areas are in high demand, pressure on other areas might increase slightly as a result of a bridge here. In addition to Mile Long Island, a North Corridor bridge would require the use of some Federal scenic easement land on either side of the river, and pos- sibly a small portion of Federal fee simple land in Wisconsin, depending on the exact alignment and placement of piers. On both sides of the river, the affected property would be primarily heavily wooded bluff land. To a certain extent, the amount of disturbance would be limited because little bluff cutting would be required; in simple terms, the bridge would be similar to a ruler placed flat across the rim of a bowl. Nonetheless, the presence of a bridge at this site would substantially alter the char- acter of the area. A North Corridor bridge would be located only about 1,000 feet downstream from the historic Boomsite Wayside. This area includes attractive river frontage on the Minnesota shore, picnic tables, a historical marker, parking areas, and rest rooms. A North Corridor bridge would be a dominating visual presence, and would diminish the wild ap- pearance of the river valley at this popular recreation site. In addition to the impacts which would be directly evident from the river valley, a bridge in the North Corridor would have some potentially important adverse effects further inland. First, there are a large number of wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed route and some of these would likely be taken for highway construction. In addition, the new ap- 12 Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix s P 1 a 1 1 1 11 11 t ri i r BOOM SITE • in N WAYSIDE MILE 4 ISLAND ..\\� \� NORTH CORRIDOR BRIDGE Ff1 €.. CO. M ^ HOULTON STILLWATER 1361 Figure 4 North Corridor Bridge Crossing Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 13 proach road would probably have the effect of stimulating new development in portions of Grant and Stillwater Townships, which are now rural. This would conflict with the growth control policies of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, which would like to see large -scale development confined to areas where sewers and other costly services are already in place, such as along TH 36 on the north edge of Oak Park Heights. How new development along North Corridor approach roadways would affect the Riverway is unclear at this point, but would partially depend on how effectively local zoning regulations are enforced. Construction in the North Corridor could affect a plant species which is uncommon in Minnesota, the Virginia Water Horehound (Lycopus virginicus). It is possible that the corridor could be routed to avoid these plants or, if this is not feasible, they might be transplanted to another suitable location. There is a Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest several miles upstream from the North Corridor site, but construction of a bridge here is expected to have no important impact on this or any other areas used by eagles. The corridor also lies within the potential breeding range of the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), a Federally endangered species. A crossing in the North Corridor, or at any of the other sites, should have no substantial impact on any falcons in the area. In addition to the environmental concerns men- tioned above, bridge construction in any of the corridors would result in some sediment disruption and possible disturbances to adjacent mussel populations, including rare or uncommon species. (See mitigation section for more on mussels.) Sedi- ment layers are deep in the study areas, up to seventy feet in some places. No accurate estimate of sedi- ment disruption can be made until the number and Central Corridor Bridge Of all the BUILD alternatives, the various Central Corridor bridge options would maximize use of the existing routes to the greatest extent. In Wisconsin, a Central crossing would come ashore in or adjacent to Kolliner Park, near the old bridge causeway and go up the hill below Houlton, on or close to the existing STH 64 corridor. In Minnesota a new Central Corridor bridge would confine construction to areas which have already been developed. The new highway would curve north into Stillwater fol- placement of piers has been decided. It is possible, however, that there will be less opportunity for bottom impacts in the North Corridor because the bridge would have a shorter crossing length than the other corridors -- approximately 2,500 feet, com- pared to a minimum of 2,650 feet in the Central Corridor and 3,200 feet in the South Corridor. This shorter length could reduce the need for piers in the river. A pier on Mile long Island rather than in the river would further reduce the potential for tem- porary construction - related bottom disruption. In any of the corridor sites, it is probable that bridge construction activity will have a short -term impact on fishing in the immediate area, and that other water sports will be temporarily less attractive be- cause of cloudy water and noise. All things considered, a bridge in the North Corridor would have the most serious environmental impact on the Riverway of all the BUILD alternatives. It would span the most scenic corridor and bisect a popular recreational island. The connecting high- way on the Minnesota side would cut through an area rich in wetlands. From the perspective of people crossing the river, however, the North Cor- ridor would be the most aesthetically intriguing route. On either side would be steep, wooded bluffs. Upstream would stretch the island - filled channel and forested banks of the Federal section of the St. Croix. To the south would be a number of other islands and, as the river widens out, the town of Stillwater. People crossing the river at this point would get a much better sense of why the St. Croix is a National Scenic Riverway than they would at a Central or South Corridor crossing, or at the Hudson 1 -94 bridge. Nonetheless, preserving a river in order to provide scenic views for motorists is not central to the intent and purpose of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. lowing the current Highway 36 route, before veering out across the river about a half -mile south of the present bridge. There are several variations on a Central Corridor bridge, all of which would have a number of similar effects (for more details about the various options, refer to the Alternatives sections of the draft EIS). First, the new highway on the Minnesota shore would run close to the river on one side and hug the 14 Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 1 1 t r PJ 1 1 bluffs on the other. This alignment would affect the Riverway in a number of respects. Because at least some of the approach would be elevated in all the central options, views of the sedimentary bluffs in Stillwater would be partially obscured. One of the alternatives, however, is an integrated roadway which would reduce the visual impacts on the bluffs. Another disadvantage of the Central Cor- ridor is that traffic would be funneled very close to the water on the Minnesota approach, increasing noise, air quality, and visual impacts on the River - way. These effects would be compounded by the bridge's relatively low clearance over the river. In all the Central Corridor alternatives, it would be necessary to relocate the existing rail lines closer to the river, further increasing impacts along the shoreline and on the Riverway. Additionally, the presence of the highway and the relocation of the rail lines could alter prospects for redeveloping this portion of the waterfront. Compared to the other BUILD options, a Central Corridor decision would be the least congruent with Stillwater's aim to preserve its downtown, even though through traffic would be kept out of the central city. A new bridge in the Central Corridor would alter the view of the St. Croix from areas along the Stillwater waterfront. Because the bridge curves diagonally across the river, it would occupy a fairly large portion of the field of vision of a person looking out from the south end of Lowell Park, for example, or adjacent commercial sites. On the Wisconsin side of the river, the main dif- ferences between the variations are related to the degree of congruence with the existing corridor, bridge height and grade, and whether or not an on -land tunnel is employed. In general, the less the existing corridor is used, the more disturbances there will be to the bluffs west of Houlton. All of the Central Corridor alternatives would have South Corridor Bridge In the South Corridor, there are three principal bridge alternatives, two of which have several variations. In spite of the differences between the South Corridor options, they all have a few impor- tant similarities. One of the most important charac- teristics about the South Corridor is that, on the Minnesota side, the shore is already heavily developed. In the immediate vicinity of the western at least an indirect effect on Kolliner Park (see Section 4(f) on Kolliner Park for more details). Although Kolliner Park is currently little used, boaters do come ashore at the Legion Beach area, and there is the possibility that the park could be further developed in the future. A Central Corridor bridge would diminish the attractiveness of Kolliner Park as a recreational space, although it would still retain much of its wild appearance. An on -land tunnel would reduce the long -term im- pacts to Kolliner Park, but it would require that the bridge slope down closer to the river as it ap- proaches the Wisconsin shore. The road would enter the base of the bluff and emerge on the plateau northeast of Houlton, well back from the river. If this option is chosen, a considerable amount of bluff - cutting could be avoided, providing it is pos- sible to bore through the hillside. Although soil and rock conditions are not well known at this point, preliminary indications are that at least part of the tunnel would have to be excavated from the surface and then covered over. This would have a tem- porary adverse effect on the bluffs, with long -term impacts dependent on the extent to which restoration is possible after construction. To summarize, a Central Corridor crossing would have the advantage of confining new construction to the area around the existing corridor, where there is already considerable development on the Min- nesota side, and an existing road cut in Wisconsin. The main disadvantages would be the auditory and visual disruption around the Stillwater bluffs and shoreline, and some disruption of the natural en- vironment in Kolliner Park and the bluff top above it. If the existing bridge is left in place, a new Central Corridor crossing would create a crowded visual appearance on the river in front of Stillwater. The effects of the existing bridge will be discussed in more detail in a later section. approach is a sewage treatment plant, a marina, a power plant, and a set of railroad tracks. Slightly to the south is a prison, the Andersen Window Com- pany, and the community of Bayport. Like the western approach in the Central Corridor, a new South Corridor bridge would not affect an area of the Minnesota shore which has a particularly natural appearance from the river. Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 15 The Wisconsin side of the St. Croix is very different, composed of heavily wooded, steep bluffs. All of the South Corridor bridges would have an effect on these bluff areas, but there is some variation depending on the crossing option. The most nor- therly alternative would utilize an existing ravine, which would make the approach less visible from points up- and downstream along the river. A nine hundred foot optional tunnel going through the top of the bluff would reduce the need for cutting off the crest of the hill. Unlike the'Buckhotn site" option discussed above, the middle South Corridor alternatives would pass just south of the sewage treatment facility on the Minnesota side. On the Wisconsin side, the three options for this route would have different effects on the bluff. One of the options would have an eleva- tion of 70 feet on the Minnesota shore and 157 feet over the Wisconsin shore. With the second option, the Minnesota and Wisconsin shore elevations would be 45 and 113 feet, respectively. (Both would have 3 percent grades.) The third option would employ the same elevations and grade as the second alternative, but would utilize a 920 foot on -land tunnel to reduce bluff impacts on the Wisconsin shore. There are three variations to the southern -most of the South Corridor bridge alignments. On the Min- nesota side, a long stretch of approach would be elevated above the shore area, beginning just west of TH 95, which would pass underneath. As with the middle alternatives discussed above, it may be necessary to relocate the railroad tracks closer to the river if a full diamond interchange is used. The degree of bluff cutting required on the Wisconsin shore will depend on the height of the bridge and the steepness of its grade as it touches shore. One of the options in this corridor is relatively high (between 126 and 143 feet) above the river and flat (only a .5 percent grade). This will reduce the need for bluff cutting, as well as diminish noise. On the negative side, this would be the longest bridge in the South Corridor, at 6,200 feet. The other two southern- most options in this corridor would slope upward toward the Wisconsin bluff top at grades of roughly 2.6 to 3.0 percent. The effect on the Riverway of these two options would be quite similar. The potential damage to mussel populations appears to be greatest in the South Corridor, especially along the Wisconsin shore. As previously noted, there is a high probability that low numbers of the Federally endangered mollusk L. higginsi reside in the area, mixed in with larger populations of other species. In addition, the south alignment of the South Corridor crosses a site containing a species of plant which is endangered in Wisconsin, the Dotted Blazing Star (Liatris punctata). Should this colony be affected, it might be possible to move the plants to another suitable site. To summarize, the major environmental effects of a South Corridor bridge would involve the bluffs on the Wisconsin shore, the dense mussel beds along the east shoreline, and the aesthetic impact of a large structure going across the river. On the more developed Minnesota side, there would be little damage to the natural environment. Like the Central Corridor alternative, however, a bridge here would displace a large number of residences in Oak Park Heights. 10 Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 1 E I r 1 I 1 �J C n 1 1 DISPOSITION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE The disposition of the existing bridge has become a complex issue, with a number of arguments sup- porting both removal and retention if a new crossing is built. Reasons supporting retention of the bridge include its importance in meeting local transporta- tion, economic, and social needs; its historical sig- nificance; and its importance in Stillwater's comprehensive plan. Major arguments supporting removal include the aesthetic impact of two nearby crossings on a National Scenic Riverway; the elimination of boating delays; and the cost of main- taining both crossings. Construction of any of the BUILD alternatives would replace the old bridge's primary transporta- tion function. However, the structure would con- tinue to meet important local transportation needs by providing a direct link between downtown Stillwater and Houlton. None of the BUILD alter- natives would provide such a convenient connec- tion between these areas, which have long- standing social and economic ties. Replacing the existing bridge with another crossing in the same place was dismissed as a study option because it does not address the congestion problem in downtown Stillwater. Another important factor affecting the future of the bridge is its local and national historic significance. The bridge is a key component of the Lower St. Croix River's cultural landscape and an important example of a particular engineering style which is rare in the Upper Midwest. The structure was recently added to the National Register of Historic Places; eventually there may be National Historic District in adjacent downtown Stillwater. As stipu- lated in the 1987 Transportation Act, state transpor- tation agencies have an obligation to preserve historic bridges where ever possible. In addition, Section 4(f) requirements prohibit the use of Federal -aid funds for the removal of historic struc- tures unless there are no feasible and prudent alter- natives. Elimination of the lift bridge would profoundly af- fect the appearance of the historical Stillwater waterfront and conflict with the new plan the City has produced for its downtown area. The plan stres- ses the role of the existing bridge in providing access between the downtown area and Kolliner Park, a large tract of a land on the Wisconsin shore which is owned by Stillwater. Removal of the existing crossing would jeopardize possible future efforts by Stillwater to develop facilities in the park. Conversely, constructing a new river crossing while maintaining the old one would increase the presence of the built environment on the river. If the lift bridge were to remain in place, both new and old bridges would be visible from many points along the St. Croix near Stillwater - Houlton; the stretch of river near the crossings would appear more developed than it already is. The future of the existing bridge is an especially important consideration for the Central Corridor BUILD options, due to the proximity of the cross- ings. If the old bridge is left in place next to a new Central Corridor crossing, there would be a much greater sense of crowding on the river in front of Stillwater. The additional obstructions in the water could make recreational boating in front of Stillwater less desirable and /or more hazardous. The presence of two bridges coming together in Kolliner Park would reduce its present appeal and future potential as a recreational area. Another argument for removing the existing bridge (or keeping its lift permanently up if it remains) is that it would eliminate boating delays, increasing the accessibility of the river above Stillwater for large watercraft. In conjunction with a North or South Corridor BUILD decision, removal of the old bridge would make Kolliner Park a more desirable place for certain types of recreation (e.g., boat camp- ing and nature observation), as the noise and visual distraction of bridge traffic would be eliminated. Finally, the additional cost to Mn/DOT and Wisc/DOT of supporting two river crossings is an important factor. At some point in the future the Minnesota and Wisconsin transportation agencies Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 17 (who own the structure) will initiate the environ- mental processes required to evaluate the disposi- tion of the bridge. Unless local government or private owners can be located, the transportation agencies will propose that the bridge either be relo- cated to another site or demolished. MITIGATION MEASURES There are six broad areas in which a new river crossing will affect the National Scenic Riverway. These impacts, which to varying degrees would be present in each of the corridor study areas, are as follows: water quality and aquatic life; recreation; bluffs and other shore areas; bridge design /aes- thetics; noise; and air quality. These categories are not mutually exclusive; one impact (e.g., water quality) could easily affect another area (e.g., recreation). Water Quality and Aquatic Life As mentioned previously, water quality impacts are likely to be short -term effects resulting from con- struction. The extent to which bottom material is disturbed by construction operations will be partial- ly determined by what BUILD alternative is selected, if any, and the method of dredging employed. A tunnel in either the North or South Corridors would have the most disruptive impacts on bottom sediments. These impacts could be min- imized if immersed tube or earth pressure balance shield methods are used, rather than cut and cover tunneling (see the special Mn/DOT tunnel report for more details about these methods). In order to min- imize impacts from dredging, as much of the dis- lodged material as possible must be captured, removed from the water, and disposed of at an environmentally sound on -shore location. A number of mitigation measures are possible to reduce harm to mussel beds and the Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel in particular. According to Mn/DOT research, if L. higginsi is present in the study area, as seems likely, it probably only represents 0.3 to 0.5 percent of the mussel population. If a South Corridor tunnel became the chosen alternative, the only way to avoid a substantial impact on L. higginsi would be to have divers remove all mussels from a large area surrounding the construction zone and move them to other suitable habitat. More will be learned about the long -term effects of such an opera- tion from data collected at a mussel relocation project conducted on the St. Croix River at Prescott, Wisconsin. According to a Mn/DOT aquatic biologist, the lon- gitudinal area to be searched would vary according to the means of construction employed, but if a trench -type placement were used for tunnel sec- tions, the affected area should include everything three hundred feet upstream from the trench center and a thousand feet downstream. Assuming, for example, that the affected area goes from the Wis- consin shoreline out one hundred feet into the river, the search area would be 130,000 square feet, or three acres. 16 The cost of divers searching this area on a yard by yard basis and relocating all mussels would fall between $50,000 and $200,000. This procedure would be less expensive than seeking out and moving only specific, rare mussel species. 17 A South Corridor bridge would have less effect on mussels than a tunnel. Mitigation should be suffi- cient if bridge piers are kept at least three to five hundred feet from the shoreline. If design con- siderations preclude this, mussels should be removed from the affected area. In the North Corridor, a tunnel would require that mussel collections be conducted from the main channel to the Wisconsin shoreline. Mussels would be released in suitable habitat upstream from the construction site. If a bridge is selected for the North or Central Corridors, areas under the piers plus a twenty foot buffer zone should be cleared of mus- sels. None of the alternatives in any of the corridors should affect the continued existence of L. higginsi in the Lower St. Croix' 18 In addition to underwater construction activities, poor on -shore erosion control practices can degrade water quality. It is especially important that good sediment - control techniques be employed during I is Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 1 1 t [1 1 C 1 1 1 1 1 E 1 1 t 1 construction on steep bluffs, where exposed soil could quickly develop gullies. Additionally, bridge Recreation All of the BUILD alternatives, as well as the NO- BUILD option, have implications for watercraft on the Riverway. A NO -BUILD decision means the likelihood of increasing conflicts between boaters trying to go under the lift bridge, and motorists going over it. Improved management of traffic, boats, and bridge would be the only potential NO- BUILD means of reducing problems. A new bridge in any corridor could have some effect on navigation as a result of its piers. Impacts could be diminished by reducing the number of piers re- quired and attempting to place them outside the main navigation channe](s). One means of mitigat- ing the impacts of a new crossing on recreational boating would be to expand the "up" time on the lift bridge, which would be less heavily used by motorists. Of course, removal of the old bridge would eliminate the bottleneck, but create an incon- venience for some motorists. The effect of a new bridge on Riverway recreation Bluffs and Shore Areas All of the BUILD alternatives will have varying effects on the bluffs, wetlands, vegetation, and other terrestrial features adjacent to the St. Croix. These impacts can be reduced by good location choices, as well as mitigation measures such as transplanting rare or uncommon species, or creating new natural features in other areas. Avoiding wet- lands in the North Corridor, for example, would be the best means for reducing damage, but if this was Design/Aesthetics If there is a BUILD decision, a number of factors will have an important influence on natural resource impacts and Riverway aesthetics. In the Central Corridor, for example, a bridge of tradition- al design and materials would likely blend into the historic Stillwater area more effectively than an overtly modern structure. Similarly, a high bridge with little grade will generally have less physical impact on bluffs and surrounding vegetation than and highway design must attempt to reduce the erosion potential of runoff from the road surfaces. would be most notable in the North Corridor. The area around the North Corridor bridge site has a higher density of active watercraft than the other study areas, with a large amount of shore use, espe- cially on Mile Long Island. It would be difficult to mitigate the effects of a pier on Mile Long Island, aside from trying to locate it away from prime camping places, or creating new beaching/camping spots elsewhere. Conversely, constructing a pier on Mile Long Island could make it unncocssary to plan; one in the river. Pursuant to Section 147 of the 1976 Fedcral -Aid Highway Act, Mn/DOT and Wisc/DOT will ex- plore the possibility of constructing a new boat launch ramp on or adjacent to the right -of -way of a new river crossing. The DOTs will coordinate their efforts with the NPS, the state DNRs, and the other agencies and organizations with an interest in Riverway Management. not feasible, new wetlands of similar value might be created elsewhere. The need for bluff cutting can be reduced by utilizing a natural ravine or existing road cut, as several of the Central and South Corridor choices do. Site will be a critical determinant of terrestrial impacts, because the various locations offer significant variations in land use and topog- raphy. one which comes ashore only part way up a hillside. Wise site, type, and design choices can reduce, if not eliminate, the adverse environmental and aesthetic impacts of a new river crossing. In the event of a BUILD decision, Mn/DOT and Wisc/DOT are committed to involving the public, c(x)perating agencies, and other interested parties in the type and design decision process. Towards that IDraft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 19 end, the DOTs have agreed that limiting the number affecting any type and design decision. of piers in the river will be an important factor Noise Sound impacts from a new bridge or tunnel can be minimized by keeping grades as flat as possible. Well - placed earth barriers and vegetation can also help minimize noise. Similarly, if an approach road follows a natural ravine, the slopes on either side can help block the sound. Conversely, an approach which hugs the river, as on the Minnesota side of the Central Corridor, is going to produce noise along a longer stretch of shore area. The heights of the various bridge proposals vary considerably and Air Air quality impacts are likely to be of greatest con- cern in tunnels, in a NO -BUILD decision, or with a Central Corridor bridge. As noted earlier, the ex- haust which collects in a tunnel must be discharged at discreet points, leading to greater concentrations of contaminants than would otherwise be the case. Should a tunnel become the preferred alternative, care will be taken to ensure that exhaust facilities are located where they cause minimum irritation to area residents and Riverway users. A NO -BUILD decision would mean that increasing amounts of traffic would continue to pass through downtown will affect noise impacts, although even the lowest structures being considered will produce noise levels on the river which are under state and Federal standards (1,100 dBA) for park and recreation areas. The bridge deck will help buffer the river surface from traffic noise, while other design fea- tures such as safety barriers will have an effect on the outward movement of -the sound envelope. Finally, measures must be taken to minimize the impact of construction noise. Stillwater, stopping and idling when the bridge is up, or traffic lights are red. It may be possible that certain traffic management strategies could be used to reduce pollution concentrations (e.g., creation of one -way streets). A Central Corridor bridge decision would likely have the effect of putting vehicles and their exhaust in close proximity to the river for a longer period of time, as well as funneling a large amount of traffic through a southeastern strip of Stillwater. Whether mitigation would be required to offset the resulting effects is not certain at this time. COORDINATION There are many interests participating in the process of reaching a decision concerning a new St. Croix River crossing. The National Park Service, the Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources, the Lower St. Croix Management Com- mission, the Minnesota and Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, the Voyageurs Region National Park Association, and the Sierra Club have been especially interested in the potential effects on the National Scenic Riverway. The environmental review process has included numerous meetings, tours, draft reviews, and considerable correspon- dence between the DOTS and the participating agen- cies and special concern groups. In particular, valuable information for this docu- ment has been supplied by various memoranda and reports supplied by Steve Johnson and Dan Mc- Guiness, former and present directors, respectively, of the Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Com- mission. The 1987 recreational boating study sup- plied by the Boundary Commission has proven especially useful as a source of background data for evaluating recreational boating impacts. A sig- nificant amount of correspondence with all of the above mentioned groups, as well as others, has proven helpful in providing the criteria needed to evaluate Riverway impacts. To facilitate access to correspondence and coordina- C 1 [I Ci 1 1 1 I zu Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix I J 1 1 1 11 1 1 u t 1 1 tion information, Mn/DOT has assembled a special volume containing supporting documents for the Stillwater - Houlton River Crossing Studies. This volume includes inter - agency discussion on a num- her of key issues, including visual impacts, the fu- ture of the existing bridge, and the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 21 END NOTES 1) U. S. Congress, Wild and Scenic RiversAc4 Pub. L. 90 -542, October 2, 1968. 2) Ibid. 3) National Wild & Scenic River System, Sierra Club, April, 1988, p. 12. 4) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 5) U. S. Department of Interior/National Park Ser- vice. Final Master Plan: Lower St. Croix Nation- al Scenic Riverway, February 1976, p. 6. 6) Steve Johnson, Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, memorandum to Mike Louis, Mn/DOT, regarding St. Croix River traffic, April 15, 1987. 7) U. S. Department of Interior, Final Master Plan: Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, p. 23. 8) Dan McGuiness, 1987 Recreational Boating Study: Lower St. Croix National Scenic River - way, Lower St. Croix Management Commission, 1988. 9) Ibid. 10) Ibid. 11) Ibid. 12) Ibid. 13) West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Congestion at the Stillwater Bridge, July 1985. 14) Ibid., p. 36. 15) Steve Johnson, memorandum, April 15, 1987. 16) Minnesota Department of Transportation, En- dangered Mussel Survey, 1987, p. viii. 17) Greg Busacker, Mn/DOT Aquatic Biologist, memorandum to Mike Louis, Mn/DOT, on aquatic endangered species determination at Stillwater, July 1, 1988, P. 1. 18) Minnesota Department of Transportation, En- dangered Mussel Survey, p. viii. Lz Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for the Lower St. Croix 1 1 1 IJ I 1� 1 r 1 1 t Fil i 1 1 1 MILE LONG ISLAND 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table of Contents DESCRIPTION OF 4(F) PROPERTY 1 Location, Size, and Access .................... ............................... 1 Property Characteristics and Usage ............. ............................... 2 Ownership................................. ............................... 2 Relationship to Similar Land in the Area .......... ............................... 3 ALTERNATIVES 3 MITIGATION MEASURES 4 COORDINATION 4 ENDNOTES 4 1 r e s i i i LIST OF FIGURES 1. Jurisdictional Boundaries on Mile Long Island . ..............................2 2. Federal Property Rights on the Wisconsin Shore ..............................4 3. Federal Property Rights on the Minnesota Shore ..............................5 1 1 n 1 u DESCRIPTION OF 4(F) PROPERTY Size, Location, and Ownership Mile Long Island is a large, publicly -owned island in the St. Croix River, lying immediately upstream from the City of Stillwater's northern limits. The island is close to a mile long and is approximately thirty -three acres in size. A bridge in the North Corridor would cross over the south - central portion of the island, and possibly require that a pier be constructed on it. Several jurisdictional boundaries cut across Mile Long Island. The island hugs the east shore, and the bulk of it - -some thirty -one acres - -is owned by Wis- consin. On the western side, a small, 2.4 acre peninsula protrudes across the Minnesota boundary (see figure 1). The southern tip of the island is bisected by the demarcation between the Federal and state ad- ministration zones of the Scenic Riverway. The area south of this line (about 4.4 acres) is ad- ministered by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. North of the Federal -state border, Wis- consin leases its portion of the island to the National Park Service (NPS), nearly twenty -six acres in all. The lease is renewable every three years. By reciprocal agreement, the island is patrolled by NPS rangers, as well as conservation officers from the two states. Access, Usage, and Property Characteristics Mile Long Island is separated from the Wisconsin shore by a narrow channel and has no direct land access. The island is heavily used by water -based recreationalists, and provides significant beaching areas. Some people make day trips to the island to swim, picnic, fish, or observe nature, while others spend the night. The NPS estimates that an average of 150 people per day use the island during summer weekends. According to an aerial survey taken by the Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Commis- sion (MWBAC) on three summer weekends in 1987, between eighteen and forty -one boats were beached on the island at a given time during the day. On peak weekends during the summer, Mile Long Island's beaching areas are ninety to ninety -five percent filled. The only facility present is a floating comfort station periodically provided by the NPS. No additional facilities are proposed. The wealth of good beaching opportunities on the island make it somewhat unusual in the area. On Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for Mile Long Island the Lower St. Croix, good public beaching places are at a premium, and on many private islands beaching fees are charged. While there are many public islands further upstream, they are generally not as accessible to motor boats. There are a number of marinas and boat launches in the Stillwater area, and the island is generally accessible to larger watercraft. Part of Mile Long Island's uniqueness lies in its ready accessibility to Stillwater residents and visitors from the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. According to information supplied by the NPS Ac- ting Regional Director (Omaha) in 1987, Mile Long Island is classified primarily as an "active" recrea- tional area. The NPS also notes that sightseeing opportunities are present in the area. This is par- ticularly evident in the fall, when the island's sugar maples and other hardwoods provide spectacular color, and in the early spring, when the island is covered with incipient greenery. Because of its various attributes, the NPS considers Mile Long 12 -na PUBLIC LAND NUMBER FEDERAL LAND 1i -n3 FEDERAL (LESS THAN FEE) NUMBER PRIVATE LAND 12 -na TRACT NUMBER (FEE) 1i -n3 TRACT NUMBER (LESS THAN FEE) 19 -185 { {{ { 113 -1" i FEDERAL STATE 13 -103 13 -151 13 -105 ... .. .. V OJ��y -6. v ::...... .;.. v 13 -101 • :::::::::.::::.. .............. . ,... ............... 13 -144 ........... •::•�• 13 -182 Q�� •i �`� / 6 r� 0 Figure 1 Jurisdictional Boundaries on Mile Long Island Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for Mile Long Island 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Island to be "highly important to the needs of river users." 1 Relationship to Similar Land in the Area Mile Long Island is at the southern end of a long string of islands, which end where the river widens and deepens into Lake St. Croix below Stillwater. Consequently, Mile Long Island has more in com- mon with the narrower, less developed river channel above it than what follows downstream. The shore opposite the island on both sides of the river is rugged and quite heavily forested, although the Min- nesota side includes TH 95. The Federal Government holds both fee simple and scenic access rights on either side of Mile Long Island. 2 On the Wisconsin side of the river, much of the land adjacent to the island is in the area known as the Twin Springs Addition. In this area, the NPS owns in fee a number of parcels with river frontage, which are wedged in between scenic easement areas (see figure 2). Back from the river, as well as further upstream, the NPS owns the scenic easements to a long stretch of contiguous parcels. Across the river on the Minnesota side, the Federal Government holds both fee and scenic easement rights to a large number of irregularly shaped parcels (see figure 3). The largest contiguous area held in fee is in the vicinity of Fairy Falls, on Silver Creek. Close to where the proposed bridge would intersect the Minnesota shore, there is a state boat launch and a wayside rest; the latter includes a logging era boom site that is a National Historic Landmark. A North Corridor bridge would be clearly visible from this area. The Wisconsin side also includes an historic boom site. Between the Federal -state management boundary and Prescott, Wisconsin and Minnesota have pur- chased scenic easement rights along significant stretches of the river. Fee ownership along this reach is mainly concentrated in the state parks. In incorporated areas such as Stillwater, zoning restrictions are used to help maintain the scenic integrity of the Riverway. ALTERNATIVES TO A NORTH CORRIDOR BRIDGE In addition to a North Corridor bridge, there are a range of possibilities in the Central and South Cor- ridors, as well as a North Corridor Tunnel. (Refer to the draft EIS for more specific details about these alternatives, as well as the NO -BUILD option.) The North Corridor bridge proposal is the only alterna- tive which would directly affect Mile Long Island, or the Federal interests on the Minnesota and Wis- consin shoreline. A North Corridor tunnel or any of the Central or South Corridor alternatives would be impossible to see from the island, although a slight noise increase is possible depending on steepness of the approach grade and various acoustical factors such as distance and atmospheric conditions. None of the BUILD alternatives would exceed any ap- plicable day or nighttime noise standards for Mile Long Island or the river around it. 1 Edward D. Carlin, Acting Regional Director, National Park Service, memorandum to Robert Hopkins, Mn/DOT, regarding the St.Croix National Scenic Riverway, October, 1987. 2 A scenic easement grants the purchasing governmental unit the right to limit or prohibit development or improvements which conflict with Riverway aesthetics. Examples of restrictions include tree clearing, and building height and color. Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for Mile Long Island 3 PUBLIC LAND FEDERAL LAND TWIN SPRINGS ADDITION Figure 2 Federal Property Rights on Wisconsin Shore 4 Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for Mile Long Island 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PUBLIC LAND FEDERAL LAND FEDERAL (LESS THAN FEE) PRIVATE LAND 12-na TRACT NUMBER (FEE) 1z-n3 TRACT NUMBER (LESS THAN FEE) n 13 -199 13 -m 13 -114 .� L 19 j � S 1 Figure 3 Federal Property Rights on Minnesota Shore Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for Mile Long Island 5 R7 If the Central Corridor became the preferred alter- native, Section 4(f) land owned by the City of Stillwater (Kolliner Park) on the Wisconsin side of the river would be directly affected. Another Sec- tion 4(f) involvement would occur if the old Stillwater Bridge were to be removed at some point in the future, as it was recently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Removal of the old bridge would also have a temporary effect on Lowell Park on the Minnesota side. A crossing in the South Corridor would invoke Section 4(f) by virtue of the fact that it would - -like the other alternatives -- bisect a National Scenic Riverway. 4(F) IMPACTS OF A NORTH CORRIDOR BRIDGE A bridge in the North Corridor would cross directly over the Federally administered section of Mile Long Island, possibly requiring a pier on it. The bridge would likely have a substantial impact on the quality of recreational experience available on the island. The visual effect would be the most noteworthy, an impact which would be intensified by the bridge's height - -it would essentially go from one bluff to another. Noise would increase approximately 10 -15 dBA over existing levels, but would remain below state and Federal standards and criteria for camping areas. Recreationalists would also possibly be af- fected by shadows, runoff, and lights at night from vehicles and the bridge itself. While it is unlikely that much of the island would be physically changed by a North Corridor bridge, it is reasonable to as- sume that several campsites would be lost or rendered undesirable, and that the ambiance river users currently enjoy on and around Mile Long Island would be altered. Where the North Corridor bridge comes ashore on the Wisconsin side, it would affect Federal scenic easements and possibly a few small tracts of NPS fee simple land. (See tracts 12- 173,12 -191, 12 -192, 12 -210, and 12 -211 in the lower left corner of figure 2.) Until the design process is further advanced, it will not be certain where piers would be necessary, what tracts would be directly affected, or how much NPS property - -if any - -would be required for the approach roadway. On the Minnesota side of the river, a new bridge would cross over TH 95 and touch down on NPS scenic easement land (see tract 13 -105, figure 3). Again, the specific location of piers and approach is not clear at this point. Further inland, the road swings across private land, up and around other NPS scenic easement parcels. Head- ing southwest, the road would go north of Park Service fee holdings in the vicinity of Silver Creek (tract 13 -136, figure 3), before coming to an inter- change near Brown's Creek. MITIGATION MEASURES If a bridge were built across Mile Long Island, its presence would be difficult to escape; approximate- ly 185 feet high, it could not be hidden. Nonethe- less, a visually pleasing design would help mitigate the bridge's impact. Mn/DOT is committed to in- volving the public in the type and design process if there is a BUILD decision. Advanced computer graphics technology might be employed to help interested individuals visualize what various alter- natives would look like from different angles. If it became necessary to construct a pier on the island, care must be taken so that its location has a minimal effect on recreational activities. The design process should ensure that a pier blends as harmoniously as possible with the surrounding environment (e.g., natural materials such as local stone could be used). Bluff cutting for the approaches should be kept to a minimum. Good erosion control practices must be employed during construction, especially on the 6 Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for Mile Long Island 1 Fj t 1 steep slopes on either side of the river. Bridge and highway design will attempt to reduce the erosion potential of bridge and highway runoff. Every effort should be made to ensure that motorists are able to appreciate the spectacular vistas while crossing a North Corridor bridge. If possible, a viewing area on one or both sides of the bridge would be appropriate. Ideally, pedestrians and bicyclists should have access to the bridge. Department of Interior Land and Water Conserva- tion ( LAWCON) funds have not been used to ac- quire or improve any portion of Mile Long Island. However, LAWCON money has been used to pur- chase NPS scenic easements. Any LAWCON land used for bridge and highway construction must be replaced by other land of at least equal market value and similar recreational usefulness. COORDINATION Information on the 4(f) status of land in the North Corridor was obtained from a number of sources. Much of the descriptive material included here on Mile Long Island was derived from a 1987 letter from Edward D. Carlin, who was then Acting Regional Director at the NPS's Omaha office. At Mn/DOT's request, Albert L. Seidenkranz (then Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for Mile Long Island Acting Superintendent of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway) forwarded legal descriptions of property in the North Corridor. Additional assis- tance was provided by Steve Johnson of the Min- nesota DNR, and Dan McGuiness of the Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission. 7 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KOLLINER PARK i i i i Table of Contents DESCRIPTION OF 4(F) PROPERTY 1 Size, Location, and Ownership ................. ............................... 1 Access, Usage, and Property Characteristics ...... ............................... 1 Relationship to Similar Land in the Area .......... ............................... 3 ALTERNATIVES TO A NORTH CORRIDOR BRIDGE 3 4(F) IMPACTS OF A NORTH CORRIDOR BRIDGE 6 MITIGATION MEASURES 6 COORDINATION 7 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Location of Kolliner and Lowell Parks ....... ..............................1 DESCRIPTION OF 4(F) PROPERTY Location, Size, and Access A Central Corridor crossing would directly affect highway (or land tunnel) would be on or slightly to Kolliner Park, located in Wisconsin at the east end the north of the existing corridor. of the existing lift bridge (see figure 1). Kolliner Park is an irregularly shaped, fifty acre strip of land Currently, the river provides the primary access to which includes more than a mile of St. Croix the park, with most activity occurring around an area shoreline. The park is bisected by STH 64, which known as Legion Beach. Direct vehicle access to comes down from the bluff top and passes over a the park has not been allowed for some time; parking 760 foot causeway west of the park before it reaches along the highway is difficult because of the heavy the old bridge. A new Central Corridor bridge traffic. Nonetheless, some people still reach the would come ashore just to the south of where the park by walking in from the road. causeway leaves the shoreline. The new approach U) N a°c � a 3 35 CO.RD. 64 gg P ' a aOth 8T. N. `{ 1 KOLUNER PARK N5 u =h ^ CO. RD. E TC.S.A.H. 12 STILLWATER 36 as LOWELL PARK U1 `^ 351 5 s5 r Figure 1 Location of Kolliner & Lowell Parks Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for Kolliner Park 1 Property Characteristics and Usage Much of Kolliner Park is composed of rugged, heavily vegetated bluffs below the town of Houlton. Currently, there are no usable developed facilities in the park, although it has historically been used for picnicking, boating, swimming, and camping. There are no official figures available for current park usage, but it can probably be considered light by most standards. Beginning in the 1920s and 30s, Kolliner Park was equipped with some facilities, and it was hoped it would become a tourist attraction. Legion Beach, in particular, was a popular swimming area. However, the park's popularity began to wane and Legion Beach was closed about sixteen years ago. In 1976, the Stillwater Jaycees attempted to resurrect the park by making it one of their community projects. Pic- nic tables and garbage cans were installed, and a parking area was paved. Unfortunately, these im- provements were soon damaged or destroyed. A gate was installed across the entrance in an attempt to reduce the illicit partying and attendant littering which was occurring on the grounds. Today, the remains of the former picnic grounds and a large old fireplace persist around Legion Beach. In spite of the park's present lack of development, it retains a high amenity value, with significant poten- tial for future recreational use. The City of Stillwater, which owns the property, considers the park to be a "passive" recreational area which is "extremely important to the recreational needs of the Ownership The City of Stillwater has owned the property since 1917, when the East Side Lumber Company donated the property to the town. Accompanying the deed was a letter from company president David Bron- son, which included the following statement: In giving this to the City it is the feeling and desire that the bluffs will be preserved from devastation or commercial usage and the beauty of them kept for all our people and to this end we hope you will see 5t to put the property under the jurisdiction of your Park Board. We hope that in the years to come the shore rights will also prove of additional value to the City.4 City and surrounding communities... a very impor- tant part of our history and environment. "1 Accord- ing to the 1988 Stillwater Downtown Plan, the City would like to "maintain the natural appearance of the site" as viewed from across the river, creating a stron�er tie between the park and the downtown area. Future use of the park largely depends on whether a new river crossing is built, and if so, where it is located. If the existing bridge is retained and a new river crossing is constructed in the North or South Cor- ridors, Kolliner Park would maintain its close links to Stillwater and become more valuable for certain types of uses. Because traffic over the lift bridge would be substantially less than a NO -BUILD decision, the crossing would be more attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists wishing to visit the park from downtown Stllwater 3 Assuming, on the other hand, that the existing bridge is removed and a new North or South Corridor crossing is built, Kolliner Park would become less useful as part of Stillwater's park system, but could become more attractive for other types of recreation, especially those based on the water. Activities such as canoeing, beach camp- ing, and bird watching would likely be more appeal- ing without a river crossing of any sort bisecting the park. Of the various BUILD alternatives, a Central Corridor crossing would have the least beneficial impact on Kolliner Park and its prospective future uses. According to advice provided to Stillwater from its City Attorney in 1980, it is unclear from the deed what specific legal responsibilities the City has towards this land. In the 1920s, the City attempted to mine gravel in the park, but stopped after receiv- ing a letter from the donor. In regard to the mining, the letter reminded the City that "it was to obviate just such (a) use ... that the property was given to you. "S It is not certain whether the City would be able to transfer the property to another owner, if it desired to do so 2 Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for Kolliner Park 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 11 1 C C 1 1 1 1 1 1 J Relationship to Similar Land in the Area Kolliner Park is part of a long strip of forested bluff land in Wisconsin which extends upstream from Houlton for several miles and downstream to the vicinity of Hudson. On the Minnesota side, directly across the old bridge from Kolliner Park, is Stillwater's Lowell Park. Lowell Park is small (only 2 1/2 acres), but much more heavily used and developed than Kolliner Park. The City Coordinator estimates that between 20,000 and 30,000 people visit the park annually, filling it to capacity (3,000 -4,000 people) during the Fourth of July and Lumberjack Days. The City considers Lowell Park to be an "active" recreational area of historical significance, a space which is an integral component of the historical downtown busi- ness district. b Facilities include a pavilion, restrooms, benches, picnic tables, boat moorings, drinking fountains, and riverside walkways. Construction of a new Central Corridor bridge would have no direct, physical effect on Lowell Park. Should a decision be made to remove the old lift bridge at some point, it would be necessary to obtain a temporary construction easement in the park. ALTERNATIVES Aside from the previously discussed disposition of the existing bridge, a crossing in the North or South Corridors would have no effect on Kolliner Park. A NO -BUILD decision would have no direct impact unless the approach roadway were widened. How- ever, the park would continue to be affected by vehicles waiting to get over the lift bridge. A NO- BUILD decision would also necessitate that the old bridge be maintained or removed at some point in the future, which might have an effect on the park. There are four Central Corridor Build alternatives (see the draft EIS for a detailed discussion). The impacts of the various alternatives would be fairly similar, as the old highway corridor would be fol- lowed closely and the bridge alignments would be similar. The major differences between the alternatives would be determined by variations in bridge height and grade, and whether an on -land tunnel is employed on the Wisconsin side of the St. Croix. Bridge height and grade would determine where the structure would touch down on the eastern side of the river, and influence the amount of bluff cutting which would be necessary. The principal aim of an on -land tunnel would be to reduce bluff impacts. If such a tunnel were con- structed, one portal would be close to the river near the existing bridge, with the other emerging well outside the park boundaries, on the blufftop behind Houlton. The aesthetic benefits of an on -land tunnel would, to a certain extent, be determined by the degree to which boring into the bluff is feasible. Preliminary indications are that soil and rock conditions are not ideal, in which case a significant amount of cut and cover construction would be necessary. In the short - term, at least, this would have a pronounced impact in and around the construction area. Irrespective of the specific alternative selected, a new bridge in the Central Corridor would have a major visual impact on recreationalists using the southern portion of the park. A new bridge would also have a significant effect on people looking across the river from Lowell Park. Views of the older, historic bridge (if it remains) would be im- paired for individuals downstream from the new crossing. Additionally, there would likely be in- creased traffic noise in Kolliner Park. Removal of the existing bridge with a new Central Corridor crossing would eliminate pedestrian access between Stillwater and Kolliner Park, reducing its utility to the City. Conversely, taking out the lift bridge would also reduce physical impacts to the park, and diminish the congested feeling associated with two river crossings located adjacent to each other and converging on the same point. 1 Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for Kolliner Park 3 MITIGATION MEASURES A number of measures can be taken to mitigate harm to Kolliner Park, if the Central Corridor is chosen as the preferred alternative. First, any new bridge and approach should be designed so they blend into the surrounding terrain as much as possible; tasteful landscaping and plantings would help integrate the new structures with the environment. If the selected alternative requires that piers be used in the park, they should be designed and placed in a way which minimizes erosion. It is particularly important that clearing and construction activities include tem- porary erosion control measures (e.g. straw), espe- cially on the steeper slopes and along the river. Bridge and highway design should attempt to mini- mize the impact of roadway runoff on the park. Finally, the contractor must be required to adhere to applicable state noise and air quality standards, to the extent possible. Department of Interior Land and Water Conserva- tion (LAWCON) funds have not been used to im- prove or acquire any portion of Kolliner Park. Consequently, the Section 6(f) compensation and replacement measures are not applicable. COORDINATION Much of the descriptive information about Kolliner Park was obtained from a letter written by Mr. Niles L. Kriesel, Stillwater City Coordinator. The letter is dated March 17, 1987, and was a response to specific questions regarding the Section 4(f) and 6(f) characteristics of Kolliner and Lowell Parks. Mr. Kriesel also included additional information with his correspondence, including a legal opinion ad- dressing specific questions about Stillwater's responsibilities towards Kolliner Park, LAWCON information, and a map detailing the boundaries of public land adjacent to the lift bridge and causeway. ENDNOTES 1) Niles L. Kriesel, Stillwater City Coordinator, memorandum to Mike Louis, Mn/DOT, regarding Kolliner Park, March 17, 1987. 2) City of Stillwater Downtown Plan. Draft Final Report, September, 1988. 3) Ibid. 4) David T. Magnuson, Attorney for City of Stillwater, letter to Niles L. Kriesel, Stillwater City Coordinator, regarding title of Kolliner Park, May 13,1980. 5) Ibid. 6) Kriesel. 1 1 Fi Ll 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for Kolliner Park 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [J 1 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FROM MN /DOT: STILLWATER- HOULTON RIVER CROSSING STUDIES For those who desire more detailed information on environmental impacts associated with a new river crossing, the full set of environmental documents will be available for review at the following locations until the time of the public hearings: MINNESOTA Stillwater Public Library 223 North Fourth St. Stillwater, MN 55082 (612) 439 -1657 City of Stillwater Government Offices City Hall 216 North Fourth St. Stillwater, MN 55082 (612) 439 -6121 Bayport Public Library 260 North Third St. Bayport, MN 55003 (612) 439 -7454 City of Bayport Government Offices City Hall Bayport, MN 55003 (612) 439 -2530 City of Oak Park Heights Government Offices City Hall 14168 - -57th St. North Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 (612) 439 -4439 Washington County Government Center 14900 61st St. North P.O. Box 6 Stillwater, MN 55082 (612) 439 -3220 Minnesota Department of Transportation Oakdale Office/Metro District 3485 Hadley Ave. North Oakdale, MN 55128 (612) 779 -1208 Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, Mn 55155 (612) 296 -3000 WISCONSIN Hudson Public Library 304 Locust St. Hudson, WI 54016 (715) 386 -3101 St. Croix County Government Center County Courthouse 9114th St. Hudson, WI 54016 (715) 386 -4600 Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission 619 Second St. Hudson, WI 54016 (715) 386 -9444 (612) 436 -7131 Somerset Public Library 122 Spring St. Box 129 Somerset, WI 54025 (715) 247 -5228 Wisconsin Department of Transportation District 6 Office 718 West Clairemont Ave. Eau Claire, WI 54701 (715) 836 -2857 The complete set of environmental studies is listed below. If you wish to order one or more of the studies, mail your request(s) to Mn/DOT's Oakdale Office (listed on previous page). A charge to cover printing costs will be charged for most of the documents, as indicated. If a fee is required, send a check made out to the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation with your request. Drab EIS Summary Document (no charge) _ Stillwater- Houlton Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) /Section 4(f) Evaluations ($3.50) _ Economic Issues and Impacts Special Study ($2.50) _ Threatened and Endangered Species Special Study ($2.50) _ Natural Resource Impacts Special Study ($2.50) — Recreational Use of the St. Croix River Special Study ($2.50) — Wild and Scenic River Impacts Summary Report ($5.00) Visual Impacts Special Study ($2.50) Social Impacts Special Study ($2.50) Energy, Noise, and Air Quality Impacts Special Studies ($2.50) _ Agricultural Issues and Impacts Special Study ($2.50) _ Historical and Archaeological Impacts Special Study ($2.50) — North and South Corridor Tunnel Impact Special Study ($2.50)