Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03/25/2013 AUAR
Fridley Business Park AUAR Fridley, MN Alternative Urban Areawide Review March 25, 2013 Fridley Business Park AUAR TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents 1.Project Title1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2.Proposer1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 3.RGU1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 4.Reason for EAW Preparation1 ......................................................................................................................... 5.Location and Maps1 ........................................................................................................................................... 6.Description2 ........................................................................................................................................................ 7.Project Magnitude Data5 ................................................................................................................................... 8.Permits and approvals required.6 ..................................................................................................................... 9. Land Use.8 ........................................................................................................................................................... 10.Cover Types17 .................................................................................................................................................... 11.Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources18 .................................................................................... 12.Physical Impacts on Water Resources19 .......................................................................................................... 13.Water Use20 ........................................................................................................................................................ 14.Water-Related Land Use Management District22 .......................................................................................... 15.Water Surface Use23 .......................................................................................................................................... 16.Erosion and Sedimentation/Soils.23 .................................................................................................................. 17.Water Quality Surface Water Runoff25 ....................................................................................................... 18.Water quality Wastewater26 .......................................................................................................................... 19.Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions28 ......................................................................................................... 20.Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks36 ....................................................................................... 21.Traffic39 .............................................................................................................................................................. 22.Vehicle-Related Air Emissions41 ...................................................................................................................... 23.Stationary Source Air Emissions41 ................................................................................................................... 24.Odors, Noise and Dust42 .................................................................................................................................... 25.Nearby Resources44 ........................................................................................................................................... 26.Adverse Visual Impacts45 ................................................................................................................................. Fridley Business Park AUAR 27.Compatibility with Plans46 ............................................................................................................................... 28.Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services47 ............................................................................................. 29.Cumulative Impacts48 ....................................................................................................................................... 30.Other Potential Environmental Impacts48 ...................................................................................................... 31.Summary of Issues48 .......................................................................................................................................... Figure # Figure Title 1 EAW/AUAR Regional Location Map 2 AUAR Study Boundary 3 USGS Map 4 Existing Conditions 5 6 7 City Guidance 8 Cover Types 9 Existing Watermain 10 11 Development Scenario 12 FMC Well Locations 13 NIROP Well Locations 14 Existing Stormsewer 15 16 17 Existing Stormsewer Drainage Flows 18 Existing Sanitary Sewer Lines 19 Development 20 21 Groundwater Impacts by TCE 22 Soils BTRAFFIC STUDY ii FRIDLEY BUSINESS PARK Fridley, MN ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) This Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) examines redevelopment scenarios for a 122 acre site in Fridley, MN. 1. Project Title Fridley Business Park AUAR 2. Proposer Honey Badger Acquisitions, LLC. Contact Person Paul Hyde Company Honey Badger Acquisitions, LLC. Address 90 South Seventh Street City, State, Zip Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone 612-904-1513 Prepared By MFRA, Inc. 3. RGU City of Fridley Contact Person Scott Hickok Address 6431 University Ave. NE City, State, Zip Fridley, MN 55432 Phone 763-572-3592 Fax 763-571-1287 E-mail hickoks@ci.fridley.mn.us 4. Reason for EAW Not applicable to AUAR Preparation 5. Location and Maps The index of figures can be found on the following page. County Anoka City Fridley Legal Description Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, ARMAMENT SYSTEMS DIVISION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota Note on Figures: All figures have been placed in the Appendix at their full size and resolution. When appropriate, duplicate figures have been included within the text of the document for ease-of-use and understanding (although at a smaller size and possibly lower resolution). Please refer to the figure in the appendixes for the best quality and readability. The following is a complete list of figures in this EAW which can be found in Appendix . Fridley Business Park AUAR Figure # Figure Title 1 EAW/AUAR Regional Location Map 2 AUAR Study Boundary 3 USGS Map 4 Existing Conditions 5 6 Development Scenario 7 City Guidance 8 Cover Types 9 Existing Watermain 10 11 12 FMC Well Locations 13 NIROP Well Locations 14 Existing Stormsewer 15 16 Develo 17 Existing Stormsewer Drainage Flows 18 Existing Sanitary Sewer Lines 19 20 21 Groundwater Impacts by TCE 22 Soils 6. Description The description section of an AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included: a.Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. The proposed project is the redevelopment of approximately 122 acres within the City of Fridley, MN, just south of I-694 and east of I-94 & the Mississippi River. The property, which includes an existing 1.8M square foot munitions factory on the site, is proposed for initial repurposing of portions of the property and eventual tear down & replacement of the former munitions factory. The final density on the site is anticipated to include a range from 1.59M to 1.84M square feet of industrial, office and potentially retail uses. 2 Fridley Business Park AUAR b.Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. The area to be studied by the AUAR will encompass approximately 122 acres situated just north of the nearly 14-acre FMC superfund site, and includes the 83-acre Naval Industrial Reserve Ordinance Plant (NIROP) superfund site along East River Road in Fridley, MN; and the BAE Figures 1 2 RCRA Site (see and). The overall study area is situated on a broad, flat, glacial drift 1 terrace that is approximately 30 feet above and 2,000 feet east of the Mississippi River. The adjacent land uses include commercial and light industrial to the north, industrial to the south, recreational to the west of East River Road, and commercial/heavy industrial (including Figure 3 significant rail lines) to the east (see ). The 122 acres are currently characterized by a large parking lot to the south, an existing 1.8M square foot building in the center, and a second large parking lot to the north of the Figure 4 building (see ). Between the two parking lots, there are approximately 2930 parking spaces supporting the industrial building. Redevelopment of the site is planned to begin in late 2013 with construction of up to three buildings in the location of the existing southern parking lot (an 84,000 square foot office warehouse building, a 99,900 square foot office/warehouse building, and a 200,000 square foot bulk warehouse building). Redevelopment of the northern parking lot would occur next in 2014 with the construction of three additional buildings (consisting of either a 64,960 square foot office showroom, a 99,900 square foot office/warehouse building, and a 200,000 square foot bulk warehouse building; OR a 37,120 square foot retail building and two (2) 250,000 square foot 6-story office towers). The center portion of the property cannot be redeveloped until removal of the existing building occurs which will not be completed until the end of 2016 at the earliest. Once removed, this portion of the property is envisioned to house six additional buildings: a 60,200 square foot office showroom, a 118,000 square foot office/warehouse, a 165,000 square foot office/warehouse building, a 200,000 square foot building for light manufacturing; and either two office towers (3 and 6 stories; 125,000 & 250,000 square feet respectively) or a 99,900 square foot office/warehouse building and a 200,000 square foot bulk warehouse building. Once fully redeveloped, the site will contain between 1.59 and 1.84 million square feet of office, warehouse, light industrial and possibly retail space. The two site plans Figures 5 and 6 anticipated to be reviewed as part of the AUAR are attached as . 1 NIROP Fridley Third Five-Year Review Report, October 2008, pg 3-1 3 Fridley Business Park AUAR Antici¯ ³¤£ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ 3¢¤ ±¨®² 3´¬¬ ±¸ No Build Development Option A: Development Option B: LAND USES (Existing Conditions) 1.59M sq ft 1.84M sq ft Industrial 1.8M square feet Office/Showroom 125,160 sq ft 60,200 sq ft Office/Warehouse 666,700 sq ft 301,900 sq ft Bulk Warehouse 800,000 sq ft 365,000 sq ft Light Manufacturing 200,000 sq ft Office Only 875,000 sq ft Retail 37,120 sq ft Total square feet 1,800,000 square feet 1,591,860 sq ft 1,839,220 sq ft The proposed area for redevelopment is currently covered by approximately 87% impervious surfaces; both redevelopment scenarios anticipate that total to be reduced. Reworking of the site will involve general grading as necessary to facilitate proper drainage, trench cuts for the installation of needed utilities, and grading as needed for overall stormwater management including on-site ponding. The mitigation plan established in this AUAR identifies actions necessary to ensure that soils disturbed for grading and infrastructure installation are adequately monitored for contaminants, and outlines the procedures to be followed should unexpected issues arise. The existing known and unknown soil contamination and potential regulated waste located on site (due to the historic industrial use of the site), and which is managed by the Land Use Controls Remedial Design (LUCRD) imposed on the property, will be properly managed and mitigated during and concurrent with the development grading and excavation through regulatory approved plans described herein. This will include additional soil and regulated waste investigations. There currently exists a groundwater pump and treat (P&T) system which hydraulically contains TCE-contaminated groundwater on the NIROP site, treats the water and then discharges to the Mississippi River. The most recent 5-year review of the P&T system concluded that the groundwater remedy had been constructed in accordance with all requirements and that: onment because there are no known completed pathways to receptors. However, for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, hydraulic containment must be maintained and optimal performance of the extraction system 2 must be achieved to ensure long-term protectiveness. 2 NIROP Fridley Third Five-Year Review Report, October 2008, pg ES-1 4 Fridley Business Park AUAR Redevelopment of the site will be designed and constructed in conjunction with the groundwater remedy at the site (for which the Navy will continue to be responsible) and in such a manner that will not detract from its efficacy. There will be no new public roads constructed as part of the proposed redevelopment. The FMC Superfund Site to the south of the NIROP site is not a part of this development or AUAR study. The FMC site is a regulated site where contaminated soils were purposely placed many years ago and which is monitored and reported on every year. The facility where the soils were placed, along with the pumping and the monitoring systems that are in place, were engineered to be protective of the human health and the environment. Any issues associated with that facility will be addressed by the MPCA which has regulatory authority for the FMC site. c.Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. Purpose is reuse of an underutilized and contaminated site d.Are future stages of this development (including development on any other property) planned or likely to happen? No e.Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? No MITIGATION MEASURES: Mitigation measures for the potential development scenarios are detailed throughout this AUAR. 7. Project Magnitude Data Total project acreage .............................................................................................. 122 acres Total Building Area ........................................................................ 1.59 to 1.84 million sq ft 5 Fridley Business Park AUAR Building Areas for specific uses No Build Development Option A: Development Option B: LAND USES (Existing Conditions) 1.59M sq ft 1.84M sq ft Industrial 1.8M square feet Office/Showroom 125,160 sq ft 60,200 sq ft Office/Warehouse 666,700 sq ft 301,900 sq ft Bulk Warehouse 800,000 sq ft 365,000 sq ft Light Manufacturing 200,000 sq ft Office Only 875,000 sq ft Retail 37,120 sq ft Total square feet 1,800,000 square feet 1,591,860 sq ft 1,839,220 sq ft Building Heights ................................. 40 feet for Industrial/Warehouse buildings; 90 feet for 6-story office towers MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100. #´±±¤³«¸ !²²´¬¤£ !¯¯±®µ «² Needed Unit of Government Type of Application Status FEDERAL US Environmental Soil & Groundwater Remediation plan approvals for Protection Agency Operable Unit 1 groundwater Land Use Control Remedial Design (LUCRD) changes US Navy Land Use Control Remedial Design (LUCRD) changes US Fish & Wildlife Endangered Species Review Service STATE MN Pollution Control Land Use Control Remedial Design (LUCRD) Agency changes 6 Fridley Business Park AUAR MN Pollution Control Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Agency (continued) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit (NPDES) Quality Assurance Project Plan approval Demolition Permit Notification 401 Certification (concurrent with Corps Section 404 review) Underground and above ground storage tank (UST/AST) removal permit (if needed) Field Sampling Plan approvals Response Action Plan approvals Soil Management Plan, Construction Quality Assurance Plan, Contingency Plan approvals Asbestos Abatement notification Certificate of Completion approval State Historic Archeological/historic sites review Preservation Office DNR MN Natural Heritage Database Review Water Use Appropriation Permit MN Dept. of Design review (if applicable) Transportation MN Dept. of Health Watermain Extension Asbestos Abatement Well Abandonment Well Construction Permit Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Environmental Services LOCAL Anoka County Roadway Access Permit Plat Approval Utility/Drainage Permits City of Fridley AUAR Approval Preliminary/Final Plat Rezoning/Site Plan Review Land Alteration Permit (if required) Land Alteration SWPPP Storm and water quality plan approval* Erosion control plan approval Permit to remove underground fuel tanks (if necessary) 7 Fridley Business Park AUAR City of FridleyPermit to install temporary LP tanks for temporary (continued) heating systems Sign Permit Demolition Permit Building Permits HVAC Permits Plumbing Permits Electrical Permits Permit for fire sprinkler work Permit for fire alarm work *Stormwater rules and requirements are likely to change during the project timeline, and phases of construction may be subject to rule changes. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 9. Land Use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The site has a long history of industrial uses, but is mainly characterized by two historic users: Northern Pump Company (later the FMC Corporation) and the United States Navy. Northern Pump Company, a privately owned business, was constructed in 1940-41 to produce industrial pumping equipment. With the onset of World War II, the plant became the first government owned/contractor operated (GOCO) facility in the United States and was given the mission to produce naval guns for the expanding war effort using U.S. War Department Funds. In 1941, the plant was in full production making 5 inch gun mounts. In June 1942, the Northern Pump Company established Northern Ordnance Incorporated as a subsidiary. Around that same time, the Navy financed additional buildings on private land for use as manufacturing facilities for Northern Ordnance Incorporated. In 1947, the U.S. acquired the 80.3 acres of land underlying the Navy owned buildings and also purchased the 36.6-acre building and the land guided missile launching systems. In 1964, Northern Ordnance was acquired by the FMC Corporation (FMC), and FMC purchased 18 additional acres to the south of the property. These southernmost 18-acres eventually became the FMC Corp superfund site in 1983, while the manufacturing buildings and the North 40 eventually became the NIROP Superfund Site in 1989. On January 1, 1994, FMC's defense business entered into a limited partnership with Harsco Corporation's defense business to form United Defense, Limited Partnership (UDLP). The 8 Fridley Business Park AUAR northern portion of the facility was government owned and operated by UDLP until 2004, and the remainder of the facility was owned and operated independently by UDLP. In 2004, the Navy sold its interest in the property to United Defense Limited Partnership (UDLP) placing the entire building into private ownership. In June 2005, BAE Systems purchased United Defense, and operated as BAE Systems Land & Armaments, L.P. (BAE). In 2005, the property was sold to the current owner, ELT Minneapolis LLC. Currently, ELT Minneapolis, LLC owns the 3 former NIROP property and leases space back to BAE. Today, the proposed development site comprises approximately 122-acres and is mostly covered with buildings or pavement. Existing (2007) land use, proposed future land uses (2030), and Figure 7 current zoning (2012) from official city documentation can be seen on . The main building at the site is very large, approximately 1,859,180 square feet (or approximately 42- acres) under one roof. The historic operations, as detailed, were heavy industrial operations for the production of the Naval weapon systems; this included a foundry, heat treating and painting operations, welding, cleaning, degreasing, cutting, grinding, chemical storage, warehousing, shipping, receiving, truck and train loading/off-loading, waste management, fuel storage, maintenance and the other support operations for both the production and the thousands of personnel working at the site. As part of site manufacturing operations over the years, chlorinated solventsalso known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs)were used as degreasers for metal parts. The primary VOC used on site was trichloroethylene (TCE). Smaller quantities of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethane (TCA) were also used. In the early 1970s, paint sludge and spent liquid solvents (VOCs) were disposed of in pits and trenches in the North 40. During the long history of industrial operations in this area, TCE was leaked, spilled or disposed of on site. The current operations on the site (BAE ceased manufacturing in 2012 and the BAE manufacturing equipment is being selectively removed and re-located to other manufacturing facilities out of state) consists of BAE engineering activities and sub-leases to tenants including the following: Scrap Metal Processors is an industrial scrap metal processing and recycling contractor. Metals are sorted, cut, shredded, and bailed for recycling. Tube Technologies is a manufacturer of in down-hole drilling tools. Steel pipe is stored, cut and painted in the tenant space. Tube Technologies also occupies approximately 10,000- square feet of space for storage in Building 50 located on the north portion of the Site. Minnesota Cut Stone is a stone cutting business. Minnesota Cut Stone occupies two areas inside of the Site building. One of the spaces is used to cut stone and the second space is to store raw and cut materials. Wausau Steel cuts and shears steel bar stock. Steel pipe is stored and cut in the tenant space. 3 -year Review Report from October 2008, and Braun Intertec. 9 Fridley Business Park AUAR Aramark provides food services to the Site building in a cafeteria location in the northeast portion of the Site building. Cassidy Turley is the real estate firm that serves and operates at the Site. The Cassidy Turley tenant space is used for office space. U.S. Government (Navy) has a groundwater treatment equipment area in the northwest portion of the Site building. Vacant Spaces in the building currently include former office, process, welding, heat treating, grit blasting and hydraulic testing areas. detailed by the Navy in their five-year review reports for the NIROP Superfund Site. The most recent report completed in 2008 provides the following: DATE EVENT 1940 to 1941 Naval ordnance manufacturing facility was constructed. 1947 Navy purchased what is now the federally owned portion of NIROP. Northern Ordnance, Inc., a subsidiary of Northern Pump Company, 1942 to 1964 operated the naval ordnance manufacturing complex. FMC Corporation purchased the southern portion of the manufacturing 1964 facility property from Northern Pump Company. Limited disposal of paint sludge and chlorinated solvents in pits and Early 1970s trenches was performed at NIROP. 1980 Navy implemented a program to identify and control environmental September contamination from past use and disposal practices. 1981 Anonymous phone call to MPCA regarding disposal practices at the March FMC-operated facility. Three production wells at the site were sampled by MPCA. TCE was March 16 to April 23 detected at 0.035 to 0.200 mg/L. Wells FMC-1 and NIROP-2 and -3 were discontinued for drinking water April 24 usage. Well FMC-1 was intermittently used for process cooling water until June 1983. TCE was detected at 0.0012 mg/L at the Minneapolis water supply intake, just down-river from NIROP. Earlier in 1981, TCE was detected at the water works intake at unquantifiable levels during four sample rounds. Storm sewer outfalls were sampled for several constituents. Quantifiable levels of volatiles were detected in the sanitary sewer underneath NIROP December 31 and at National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfall 20200, at the NIROP property line. The site was divided into the North Study area (government-owned property) and South Study Area (FMC-owned property) for additional investigations by Hickok and Associates (1981). 10 Fridley Business Park AUAR 1982 March 31 Investigation of the North Study area began. 1983 May Navy authorized the Installation Restoration (IR) Program. Initial: Assessment Study (lAS) for the NIROP site was completed. As a result of the lAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers June (USACE) was assigned to manage remediation at NIROP Fridley. USACE installed 33 monitoring wells on and around the site over the next 3 years. 1983 -1984 Approximately 1,200 cubic yards of soil considered hazardous and 43 drums were excavated from the North 40 (a.k.a. North Study) area and November 18, 1983 to March disposed at an off-site Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)- 1984 permitted facility. Samples were analyzed from the soils at the base of each excavation. Soil samples from the bases of several trenches had total VOC concentrations greater than 1 mg/L. MPCA issued a Request for Response Action at the site to the Navy and May 22,1984 FMC Corporation. Eight rounds of groundwater sampling were completed. The last round 1983 to 1986 was conducted in November 1986 by RMT, Inc. (RMT). 1986 RMT was retained by USACE to complete the Remedial Investigation (RI)/Feasibility Study (FS) for OU1 (groundwater). FMC established an agreement with MPCA to pump contaminated June groundwater until total volatile levels in certain wells were less than 0.270 mg/L. Pumped water was discharged to the local sanitary (Pig's Eye) wastewater treatment plant. 1987 All use of TCE at NIROP was discontinued. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA) March was put into use in place of TCE. RI Report (RMT, 1987) issued for OU1. June During excavation of an on-site utility trench, a strong odor was detected in the trench by construction workers. Soil exposed during the excavation was later monitored by MPCA using an HNu photoionization detector (PID). The trench is along the northern property line of NIROP. September An anonymous phone call to FMC directed the MPCA's attention to a potential hazardous waste site in the vicinity of the Dealers Manufacturing facility, located approximately 1,000 feet east of NIROP. Results of a soil pore gas survey were included in the Quality Control November Summary Report for the Soil Gas Survey (RMT, 1988). 1988 JulyFeasibility Study Report (RMT, July 1988) issued for OU1. 11 Fridley Business Park AUAR 1989 The Navy established the Technical Review Committee (TRC) for the project and convened the first meeting. TRC meetings were held every 3 February 8 months until the beginning of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) in 1995. May 22 Public meeting to present the RI/FS is held in Fridley, Minnesota. July 14 NIROP proposed for listing on the NPL by the EPA. Public Repository is established at Anoka County Branch Library, 410 N. July 31 E. Mississippi St., Fridley, Minnesota. November 21 NIROP listed on NPL by EPA. 1990 Navy issues final Proposed Plan for groundwater remediation for OU1 May1 after review by MPCA and the USEPA. May9 Public meeting to present the Proposed Plan is held in Fridley, Minnesota. Public comment period for the proposed groundwater remedial action is May 1 to May 30 held. A ROD was signed for OU1 by the Navy, MPCA, and EPA. A September groundwater pump and treat alternative was the alternative selected in the ROD. Fifty-five soil borings were advanced to assess the extent of soil contamination in four areas of the facility (background area, North 40 area, Hazardous Waste Storage Area C, and the southeastern area near Well 9- S). The North 40 area included 22 soil borings to investigate potential soil contamination due to past disposal practices, the locations of former October to November Hazardous Waste Storage Area C included 28 soil borings to investigate potential soil contamination associated with the storage area, and the Southeast Area included four soil borings to attempt to delineate the source(s) of volatiles in groundwater monitoring wells in the area. Maximum concentrations of volatiles, up to 62,000 µg/kg, were detected near the decontamination pad (RMT, 1991). 1991 March FFA issued for NIROP Fridley (EPA, 1991). An initial aerial photographic review was conducted by RMT that included photographs from 1945 to 1977. August The installation of four groundwater recovery and containment wells and additional groundwater monitoring wells was completed in late 1991 for OU1. A second review of aerial photographs, including additional photographs, was performed jointly by representatives of the Navy, EPA, MPCA, FMC, December and RMT. As a result of the review and subsequent discussions, additional areas of investigation were identified as OU2 and OU3. May Community Relations Plan issued. 12 Fridley Business Park AUAR 1992 A RAWP (RMT, 1992) was issued for OU2. The RI for the soils OUs addressed soil contamination in the unsaturated zone (i.e. above the water January table) in areas of NIROP Fridley that are not covered by buildings or other surface structures. The scope of the soil RI was to investigate potential outdoor sources that may contribute to groundwater contamination. An Emergency Removal Operation Report (Bay West, 1992) was issued that discussed investigation of the area referred to as the North 40 area. A total of 31 drums were excavated, sampled, and over packed, and the drums, along with approximately 900 cubic yards of soil and debris, were August 20 removed from the excavation. Excavated drums were disposed via incineration at a EPA Superfund RCRA-licensed facility. Associated debris (screened material) was disposed at a sanitary landfill or a RCRA- secure landfill according to analytical results. The groundwater recovery system was completed, and monitoring for OU1 September began. A 90-Day Determination Document (RMT, 1992) was prepared that December evaluated the effectiveness of the OU1 recovery system's operation over the first few months. 1993 An RI (RMT, 1993) was issued for OU2. Results indicated that volatile, September semi-volatile, pesticide, hydrocarbon, and metals contamination was present in the soil at several locations. 1994 Results of East Plating Shop soil sampling were issued to the Navy in a letter report (Bay West, 1994). Two soil borings were completed, and September several metals and cyanide were identified at concentrations greater than background levels determined during the OU2 RI. 1995 A Work Plan (Halliburton NUS, 1995) was issued for investigation of soil and groundwater beneath the East Plating Shop. Proposed field activities March included the installation of six soil borings and three temporary monitoring wells. April 16 First NIROP Fridley RAB meeting was held. MK added extraction wells AT-5A and AT-58 to the GTWF to improve April 1, 1995 to May 4, 1995 hydraulic containment of the Ground Water Treatment Facility (GWTF). Results of East Plating Shop soil and groundwater investigation were issued (Halliburton NUS, 1995). The report identified soil and groundwater contamination under the East Plating Shop. TCE was the May primary contaminant found. Other VOCs, including 1,1,1-TCA, acetone, styrene, and metals such as chromium, lead, and cyanide, were detected at concentrations greater than background levels determined during the OU2 RI. 13 Fridley Business Park AUAR Thirty former Areas of Concern (AOCs), located within the NIROP facility were identified on a Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) map June (UDLP, 1995) in order to confirm that all units were being addressed in future investigations. Results of a site evaluation conducted at the NIROP facility in August 1995 were presented in the Site Evaluation Report (Brown & Root September Environmental, September 1995). Fifty-nine AOCs, the sanitary sewer system, and the storm sewer system were identified as potential areas requiring further investigation. 1996 Revisions to the Final Site Evaluation Report (Brown & Root Environmental, 1995) identified nine additional potential AOCs (AOCs 60 February to 68) that were identified but not previously reported because they were not suspected sources of TCE contamination. MK conducted a North 40 drum removal action. Twenty-three drums and April to June 12 smaller containers were removed along with 100 cubic yards of soil. 1997 The Final Field Sampling Plan for the OU3 RI/FS (Brown & Root June Environmental, 1997) was issued. June 25, 1997 to March 25, Phases I and II of the field investigation for the OU3 RI/FS were 1998 completed. February Updated and reissued Community Relations Plan. The Work Plan for the OU3 RIIFS (Brown & Root Environmental, 1997) July was issued. Phase 1 of MK contract to construct GWTF (outside portion of work) was September to January 1998 issued. 1998 March 30, 1998 to November Phase II of MK contract to construct GWTF (inside portion of work) was 14,1998 issued. August The OU3 RI Report, Revision 0 (TtNUS, 1998) was issued. September First Five-Year Review Report issued. November Community Relations Plan updated and issued. 1999 August The OU3 RI Report, final Revision 1 (TtNUS, 1999), was issued. September Community Relations Plan was updated and re-issued. 2000 OU3 FS issued -EPA and MPCA subsequently request Focused FS February instead. March 1999 AMR issued; Revision 6 RAWP issued. April Anoka County Park (ACP) Groundwater Investigation Report issued. May Basewide Work Plan (CH2MHILL Constructors, Inc., 2000) issued. Focused FS issued -Partnering Team subsequently shelves the FS because June EPA determines proceeding directly to a Proposed Plan is appropriate for this site. 14 Fridley Business Park AUAR Final Work Plan Addendum 1 Modification to the Extraction System and August Abandonment of Production Wells (CH2MHILL Constructors, Inc., 2000) was issued. CH2MHILL Constructors, Inc. completed installation of extraction wells December (AT-7, AT8, AT-9, and AT-10), abandoned AT-2, and abandoned production wells NO.2 and NO.3. 2001 2000 AMR issued; Minor Modification Fact Sheet for OU1 Remedy was March issued. Technical Memorandum that finalizes the 1999 AMR and ACP April Groundwater Investigation Report issued (TtNUS, 2001). Final Work Plan Field Application to Enhance In-situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents Via Vegetable Oil Injection (Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., 2001) was issued. May CH2MHILL Constructors, Inc. completed abandonment of extraction wells AT-1A and AT-4, installed packer at extraction well AT-3A, and upgraded software/hardware for the GWTF system. Start-up period for the GWTF system with new extraction wells begins. September Vegetable Oil Pilot Study Work Plan finalized. December ACP Vegetable Oil Pilot Study -oil injected. 2002 March 2001 AMR issued. RI for OU3 and Supplemental RI Information Report (OU2) were finalized April (TtNUS, 2002). Excavation of PAH-contaminated soil in Area A4 of the North 40 was June completed per an Action Memorandum issued (TtNUS, 2002). The Proposed Plan for OU2 and OU3 was finalized. The Public Meeting August 2002 for the Proposed Plan was held on August 22. 2003 March The revised OU1 RAWP was finalized. September The HOD for OU2 and OU3 was finalized and signed. Draft Work Plan for Installation of New Wells to Confirm Groundwater September Capture was provided to support ongoing capture analysis. Draft report on capture evaluation by United States Geological Survey December (USGS, 2003). 2004 USGS Report, Cross-borehole Radar to Monitor Field-Scale Vegetable Oil January Injection, issued. March Draft 2003 AMR issued NIROP plant sale to United Defense Limited Partnership (UDLP) 17 June completed. MPCA informal regional bedrock aquifer study was unable to confirm that August bedrock PCE contamination at the northeastern NIROP boundary was from the Kurt Manufacturing Site. 15 Fridley Business Park AUAR 2005 March Draft 2004 AMR issued. June Sale of property to ELT Minneapolis LLC. Five additional groundwater monitoring wells (and three additional September borings) installed just beyond the line of groundwater extraction wells to help confirm capture efficiency. September Revision 1 of the 2003 RAWP was issued. 2006 March Final Vegetable Oil Pilot Test Technical Memorandum issued. The pump test at Wells 11-S and 17-S pump test is completed. The test was designed to determine which aquifer zone influences these wells, and April concluded that both are more heavily influenced by the intermediate zone pumping wells. April Draft 2005 AMR issued. August Draft 2006 RAWP update issued. November Final Vegetable Oil Application Report issued. 2007 January RCRA Corrective Measures Study completed for BAE Systems RCRA site Draft 2006 AMR issued (delayed due to federal budget continuing July resolution). Final USGS Report, Evaluation of the Contributing Area for Recovery September Wells, is issued. 2008 2007 Annual Monitoring Report for the NIROP Site issued October The following is supplemental information to the 2008 Navy five year review: 2009 Source Area Evaluation and Natural Attenuation Technical May Memorandum completed for BAE Systems RCRA site November 2008 Annual Monitoring Report for the NIROP Site issued 2010 Membrane Interface Probe Investigation, BAE Systems RCRA site January - December 2011 2009 Annual Monitoring Report for the NIROP Site issued June Updated Source Area Investigation and Natural Attenuation Evaluation Technical Memo issued for BAE Systems site Three additional groundwater extraction wells were designed and September installed near the southwest corner of the main building to augment the existing extraction wells for the Groundwater Treatment System intermediate-zone groundwater 16 Fridley Business Park AUAR Over the two-year period from 2011 to 2012, three high-capacity Ongoing extraction wells were installed to enhance the remediation of the site. 2012 2011 Annual Monitoring Report for the NIROP site issued November In summary, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) have determined that past disposal practices on the site have resulted in releases of hazardous substances causing extensive ground water contamination. This AUAR reviews these issues in more detail in questions 11, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20. Importantly, the development scenarios to be considered by the AUAR will shift use of this site away from heavy industrial to significantly less impactful uses such as offices, warehousing, retail and/or light manufacturing. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Wetlands identified by type (Circular 39) - Watercourses rivers, streams, creeks ditches - Lakes identify protected waters status and shoreland management classification - Woodlands breakdown by classes where possible - Grassland identify native and old field - Cropland - Current development - 0«¤ ²¤ ±¤¥¤± ³® &¨¦´±¤ 8 ¥®± µ¨²´ « £¤¯¨¢³¨® ®¥ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨¦ ¢®µ¤± ³¸¯¤² ¶¨³§¨ ³§¤ ²³´£¸ ±¤ COVER TYPES Acreage Existing Buildings (impervious) 45.0 acres Impervious Surfaces 48.6 acres* Green Space (within the proposed 28.4 acres development area) TOTAL 122 acres * Some of the listed impervious surfaces consist of aging parking lots and gravel staging areas that likely are not 100% impervious at this time due to their condition. 17 Fridley Business Park AUAR MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 11. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources a.Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. b.Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Describe any measures that will be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Provide the license agreement number (LA-___) and/or Division of Ecological Resources contact number (ERDB 20110417) from which the data were obtained and attach the response letter from the DNR Division of Ecological Resources. Indicate if any additional survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results. The Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park which borders the Mississippi River, directly west of the site, is the only nearby area of fish and wildlife habitat. According to the N five- For the purposes of this AUAR, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System was queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within approximately one-mile of the proposed project. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) is a collection of databases that contain information abo species, native plant communities, and other natural features. Per this search, the only potential impact identified was the following: Several rare mussels, including the black sandshell (Ligumis recta), a state-listed special concern species, have been documented in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the proposed project. As mussels are particularly vulnerable to deterioration in water quality, especially increased siltation, it is important that effective erosion prevention and sediment control practices be implemented and maintained near the river. Question 16 of this AUAR and the mitigation plan provide a description of what will be done to ensure that effective erosion prevention and sediment control will occur in conjunction with any of the development scenarios being studied. 18 Fridley Business Park AUAR Due to inactivity over the years in some portions of the main building, it is possible that local wildlife may be utilizing the structure. Prior to demolition activities, an examination of the grounds will be conducted to ascertain the presence (or non-presence) of animals within the building. An inventory of identified animals will be created and compared against a listing of protected species within the State of Minnesota to ensure that any such animals are properly relocated or otherwise addressed prior to demolition of the building. Should any state-listed bats or migratory bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Act have active nests within the structure, such nests will not be removed or destroyed while the nest is still active. The history of contamination on the site and its impact on groundwater quality raises obvious concerns on fish habitat in the Mississippi River. However, the cleanup levels targeted by the existing on-site groundwater treatment facility are specifically designed to protect all human exposure pathways to contaminated groundwater including the consumption of fish from contaminated waters. Development of either scenario under consideration will not impair the regulatory approved groundwater remediation system(s) or the ability of the responsible party to operate that system(s). Furthermore, redevelopment of the site will be designed and constructed in conjunction with the long-term solutions for groundwater at the site. Importantly, development of the site will allow expedited assessment and remedial action for soil contamination in areas currently inaccessible due to the large main building. MITIGATION MEASURES: Please see the mitigation plan under question 19 for measures to be implemented should changes be implemented to the groundwater treatment facility. 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? No water resources were identified within the proposed project study area, and the proposed project will not involve any physical or hydrologic alterations of any surface waters. One building will be relocated as part of any future development. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 19 Fridley Business Park AUAR 13. Water Use Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or a change in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? __X__Yes _____No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells: public supply affected, changed to be made, and water quantities to be used: the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations and unique well numbers and DNR appropriations permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are not wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed. With respect to possible individual appropriations by future projects, a general assessment of the likely need for such should be included, and if there is potential for major appropriations or environmental issues assessment of those should be included along with discussion of mitigation for potential problems. The site will continue to be served by the City of Fridley municipal water supply system for Figure 9 domestic water use and fire protection (see showing existing watermain infrastructure). st Connections will be made to the existing 20 inch watermain in 51 Way at the north end of the property. The City of Fridley has acknowledged that water demands of 170,000 gpd are well within the capacity of the existing Water Treatment Facility and distribution system, and that water demand generated by either development scenario will not impact aquifers as up to 1.8 million gpd of clean and usable water is provided to Fridley by the City of New Brighton. The Site did have three (3) water supply/production wells, but these wells were properly abandoned a number of years ago due to the groundwater contamination issues. An existing water tower on the site is currently dry, and may or may not remain as part of the redevelopment depending upon its utility to provide additional pressure for fire safety based on future water flow tests. Should the water tower be retained, equipment will be put in place to isolate the water tower from the City of Fridley water distribution system. No supply wells or production wells are planned and they would not be able to be permitted due to the groundwater impacts at the site. Projected water needs for the development scenarios being studied were based on the Metropolitan Council Sewer Availability Charge Procedure Manual. The following tables Figures 10 outline water usage expectations for d (see and 11 ). 20 Fridley Business Park AUAR Building Type Sq ft. SACs GPD A Showroom 64,960 21.7 5945.8 B Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 99,900 21.1 5781.4 C Warehouse 200,000 28.6 7836.4 D Showroom 60,200 20.1 5507.4 E Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 99,900 21.1 5781.4 F Warehouse 200,000 28.6 7836.4 G Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 118,000 24.9 6822.6 H Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 165,000 34.9 9562.6 I Warehouse 200,000 28.6 7836.4 J Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 84,000 17.8 4877.2 K Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 99,900 21.1 5781.4 L Warehouse 200,000 28.6 7836.4 Total 1,591,860 297 81,405 Building Type Sq ft. SACs GPD A Retail 37,120 12.4 3397.6 B Office 250,000 104.2 28550.8 C Office 250,000 104.2 28550.8 D Showroom 60,200 20.1 5507.4 E Office 125,000 104.2 14275.4 F Office 250,000 52.1 28550.8 G Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 118,000 24.9 6822.6 H Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 165,000 34.9 9562.6 I Light Manufacturing 200,000 28.6 7836.4 J Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 84,000 17.8 4877.2 K Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 99,900 21.1 5781.4 L Warehouse 200,000 28.6 7836.4 Total 1,839,220 553 151,550 21 Fridley Business Park AUAR There are ten (10) groundwater recovery wells that are part of the groundwater remediation system operating at the Site. These wells provide hydraulic containment of groundwater to prevent or limit contaminated groundwater flow from the Site to the Anoka County Park (ACP) and the Mississippi River. The wells pump groundwater at a combined rate of approximately 600 gallons per minute (gpm) under a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) appropriations permit. Discharge of the treated water is under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the MPCA. There are a significant number of groundwater monitoring wells located at the site. These wells are not for water supply but are a component of the groundwater remedial system. Maps of wells Figures 12 and 13 for the FMC site & NIROP site are attached as . Redevelopment of the site will require the proper abandonment and re-construction of some of the pumping and monitoring wells as well as housing of the treatment system. This work will be done under the review and approval of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), MPCA, MN DNR and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). When the development is complete, there will exist a number of wells on the property associated with the groundwater treatment system that are the responsibility of the Navy and BAE Systems and, for which, the EPA and MPCA have regulatory oversight. These wells will include pumping wells and monitoring wells. As is the case today, there will be no production wells on the property. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures for water use are necessary as the facility will be utilizing City water. Please see the mitigation plan under question 19 for measures to be implemented should changes be made to the groundwater treatment facility. 14. Water-Related Land Use Management District Does any part of the project involve a shoreland district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designed wild or scenic river land use district? _____Yes__X__No The subject site is not located within a Shoreland District or Scenic Riverway District, nor does it contain any areas of floodplain. The Mississippi River segment to the west of the site along the Anoka County Regional Park is designated as a National Recreation Area. 22 Fridley Business Park AUAR If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. N/A. Such districts should be delineated on appropriate maps and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be described. If any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the AUAR area are envisioned, this should be discussed. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 15. Water Surface Use This item need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies. No recreational water bodies are included in or adjoin the proposed study area. Accordingly, the proposed project will not change the number or type of watercraft on any waterbodies. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 16. Erosion and Sedimentation/Soils. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres:__122__ cubic yards:_300,000_. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. The highest elevation on the site is 837 near the existing water tower and 827 at the bottom of the existing stormwater pond. Most of the site is between elevations of 833 and 836 with the exception of some small isolated areas. Excavation of native soils, which will be stockpiled on site, will be necessary for building foundations. The most critical area for erosion protection will be the proposed stormwater ponding areas. To protect those slopes, erosion control blanket will be placed as soon as feasible after the slopes are constructed. Erosion control mesh, if and when used, will meet the DNR These requirements will be placed on the project SWPPP to ensure compliance. 23 Fridley Business Park AUAR Permanent vegetation will be established and vegetation types will be clearly labeled on the final SWPPP, grading, and erosion control plans. Permanent vegetation installation procedures will 5 edition, as may be amended in the future. Trees and large scale shrubs should be native plants or non-invasive non-natives. Where appropriate, some open spaces may be planted with native prairie vegetation that comes from a local seed source. Approximately 122 acres will be re-graded with 300,000 cubic yards (estimated) to be moved. Because of the size of the overall project (over one acre of disturbed soil), a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Stormwater Construction Activity Permit would be required. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would also be prepared to address the temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control. Erosion and sediment control practices will Control Agency (MPCA) and will satisfy requirements for general storm water permit. This will include the design and implementation of temporary and permanent erosion control plans required by the NPDES. The development of this site will require submittal of the plans to the MPCA for additional review because of the size and proximity to the Mississippi River, which is considered impaired for fecal coliform, mercury in fish tissue and pcb in fish tissue. The development of this site will also comply with the requirements of the City of Fridley stormwater management requirements and the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization stormwater management rules. MITIGATION MEASURES: A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared to ensure compliance to applicable regulations. The plan will include references to the following: Erosion control blanket will be placed as soon as feasible after the slopes are o constructed d o o s may be amended Best management practices will be followed as prescribed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 24 Fridley Business Park AUAR 17. Water Quality Surface Water Runoff a.Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil, and causes water to run off the surface Fridley City Code Chapter 208 requires that post- last ten (10) years of how that land was used. Based on this definition and the fact that the use of this property has been consistent for the past ten years, the existing site being contemplated for redevelopment is significantly covered by impervious surfaces (primarily buildings, parking lots, and hard-packed gravel rail staging areas). Limited areas of green space can be found primarily Stormwater runoff is collected on site and routed to the Mississippi River through three separate Figure 14 stormwater lines, which are 42 inch, 48 inch and 72 inches in diameter (see ). The 72 inch storm sewer main includes an outfall treatment device at the east bank of the Mississippi River. The proposed development scenarios to be studied by the AUAR will also include significant impervious surfaces, but such surfaces would be accompanied by water quality treatment and Figures 1516 discharge rate controls in accordance with current day regulations (see and ). Specifically, stormwater would be treated prior to discharge according to the MPCA requirements for Permanent Stormwater Management System in the NPDES Construction Permit and the City of Fridley requirements for stormwater treatment and rate control. It is anticipated that storm water treatment would include the construction of detention ponds to remove 80% of total suspended solids prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff. Storm water ponds and outlet control structures would be designed and constructed to minimize sediment transport. The proposed stormwater ponds would be designed to have adequate capacity to provide storage and sediment control for storm water runoff during construction of the development. Permanent best management practices would also include seeding, mulching and sodding. Stormwater infiltration will be avoided through the construction of lined ponds because of the contaminated nature of the on-site soils. b.Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site, include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. The study area currently drains into three storm sewer lines which discharge into the Mississippi River to the west. These storm sewer lines are 42 inch, 48 inch and 72 inches in diameter. Figure 17 highlights the location of these three existing lines and discharge points, as well as the general area generating the stormwater which drains through these lines. 25 Fridley Business Park AUAR MITIGATION MEASURES: Development under either scenario will require that the design of lined stormwater ponds conform to storage and sediment control standards. Areas for stormwater ponds as identified on the scenarios being studied were intentionally oversized to demonstrate an ability of the site to accommodate significantly more storage than present day requirements, which in turn will provide flexibility should standards change over time. Stormwater ponds will be designed at a minimum to remove 80% of total suspended solids for a 1.5 inch storm event. Discharge rates will not exceed the existing rates for 2, 10 and 100 year storm events. 18. Water quality Wastewater a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. b.Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. c.If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the faci the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. The site is currently served by a privately owned and maintained 15-inch sanitary sewer main at Figure 18 the south end of the proposed redevelopment area (see ). This 15-inch sewer is directly tied into the (4-NS-521) to the west of the site. The interceptor is routed to the Metropolitan Council Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant. Because the 15-inch sewer main is private, and because sanitary flows from this development would continue to discharge directly into the Metropolitan Council interceptor, there will be no impacts or additions to the local City of Fridley wastewater infrastructure. Future maintenance of the existing 15-inch sanitary line will be done privately through the use of an Owners Encumbrance Agreement, business park association, or similar arrangement. Wastewater discharge from the redevelopment would be domestic (commercial) wastewater. The estimated volumes for the development shown below are estimated based on the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Service Availability Charge (SAC) Procedure Manual dated January 2012. One SAC unit equals 274 gallons per day. 26 Fridley Business Park AUAR Figure 19 (see ) Building Type Sq ft. SACs GPD A Showroom 64,960 21.7 5945.8 B Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 99,900 21.1 5781.4 C Warehouse 200,000 28.6 7836.4 D Showroom 60,200 20.1 5507.4 E Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 99,900 21.1 5781.4 F Warehouse 200,000 28.6 7836.4 G Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 118,000 24.9 6822.6 H Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 165,000 34.9 9562.6 I Warehouse 200,000 28.6 7836.4 J Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 84,000 17.8 4877.2 K Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 99,900 21.1 5781.4 L Warehouse 200,000 28.6 7836.4 Total 1,591,860 297 81,405 Figure 20 (see ) Building Type Sq ft. SACs GPD A Retail 37,120 12.4 3397.6 B Office 250,000 104.2 28550.8 C Office 250,000 104.2 28550.8 D Showroom 60,200 20.1 5507.4 E Office 125,000 104.2 14275.4 F Office 250,000 52.1 28550.8 G Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 118,000 24.9 6822.6 H Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 165,000 34.9 9562.6 I Light Manufacturing 200,000 28.6 7836.4 J Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 84,000 17.8 4877.2 K Office / Warehouse (25%/75%) 99,900 21.1 5781.4 L Warehouse 200,000 28.6 7836.4 Total 1,839,220 553 151,550 27 Fridley Business Park AUAR Based on SAC guidelines, daily maximum wastewater generated by the proposed development was determined to be between 81,405 gpd and 165,825 gpd. At a peaking factor of 4.0, the proposed development is expected to generate a peak wastewater flow of 227 and 460 gallons per minute. experienced an average wet weather design flow of 251 mgd with an average daily influent of 167.91 mgd over the past 12 months. The Metropolitan facility is capable of treating the volume and composition of wastewater projected to be generated by either of the proposed redevelopment scenarios without pretreatment or other plant facility improvements. The receiving water body from the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant is the Mississippi River. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 19. Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: minimum average, to bedrock: minimum average Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. The overall site is situated on a broad, flat, glacial drift terrace that is approximately 30 feet above and 2,000 feet east of the Mississippi River. The NIROP Fridley site is underlain by an unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifer that overlies a bedrock aquifer. The water table is generally 16 to 20 feet below the ground surface in the unconsolidated aquifer, which has a saturated thickness of approximately 100 feet. A discontinuous clayey glacial till layer is present at various depths below the ground surface. The underlying bedrock consists of Prairie du Chien Dolomite and Jordan Sandstone, which are referred to as the PCJ aquifer. The basal unit of the St. Peter Sandstone, that overlies the PCJ aquifer across the northern portion of the site, acts as a confining layer where it is present. Where it is absent, the unconsolidated aquifer is hydraulically connected to the PCJ aquifer. Groundwater flow in the unconsolidated aquifer is generally from the northeast to the southwest, towards and discharging to the Mississippi River. 28 Fridley Business Park AUAR Groundwater in portions of the unconsolidated aquifer beneath this area contains Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). The VOCs typically detected are listed as follows (from greatest frequency detected to least detected): TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, trans 1,2-DCE, 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), 1,1 DCE, PCE, vinyl chloride, and 1,1,1 TCA. The concentrations vary widely across the site; however, TCE has been detected more frequently and at higher concentrations than any other VOC. TCE is therefore assumed to be the primary indicator parameter for monitoring contamination and the remedial system on this site. Results of laboratory analyses of samples collected from groundwater monitoring and extraction wells during each calendar year are presented and discussed in the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) issued for that year. The Figure 21 most recent map of groundwater impacts by TCE is included as (Figure 5-5 TCE Concentrations For 2001, 2006 and 2011 Monitoring Rounds Shallow Zone Wells, NIROP - Fridley, MN) A groundwater containment and extraction system currently operating on the site has altered the groundwater flow characteristics. The containment and extraction system was necessary as, in May of 1983, an initial assessment study identified that drummed wastes were disposed of in the North 40. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed and sampled in the area to investigate potential impacts from the discovered drum disposal. From November 1983 to March 1984, approximately 1,200 cubic yards of contaminated soil and 43 drums were excavated and disposed. A remedial investigation/feasibility (RI/FS) study was conducted from June 1986 to May 1989, and the site was listed on the National Priorities List in November 1989. Following the RI/FS, a proposed plan to hydraulically contain TCE-contaminated groundwater was implemented which ultimately resulted in the existing on-site treatment facility coming on-line in December 1998, with discharge of treated water into the Mississippi River under an approved 4 NPDES permit. Soil investigations overview The development at the site will include the further remedial investigation of soils above the water table, and new building construction will include a vapor barrier system under building slabs. A vapor barrier system would include impermeable membranes and passive or active venting of potential accumulated vapors from beneath each building as appropriate. The project will meet MPCA requirements for clean soil cover under the paved areas and building slabs as well as clean soils in below-ground utility corridors. All soil investigations will be performed according to plans reviewed and approved by the MPCA. The results of that further investigation may be that some site soils require remedial action such as treatment or off-site disposal. Any additional requirements from MPCA will be developed once the specific environmental investigation is done for each new building. 4 -year Review Report from October 2008, pg 3-1 29 Fridley Business Park AUAR Any of these remedial actions, and any actions necessary to allow for general site grading for the development, will be implemented in accordance with Response Action Plan approvals by the MPCA. Green remediation practices, as promulgated by the MPCA, will be incorporated into the Response Action Plans. In addition, all work associated with soil excavation, grading, loading, hauling, treatment, placement and compaction, and permanent cover; will also have oversight by the EPA and MPCA as may be appropriate. Response Action Plans require definition and implementation of soil management plans, construction quality assurance plans, erosion and sediment control plans, storm water management plans, dust control measures, soil sampling and analysis, stockpile soil management, contractor oversight, construction contingency plans, documentation and reporting. The result of the Response Action Plan implementation will be a reduction in the mass of contaminated soil at the site from what now exists, either through soil treatment on-site, soil treatment off-site or soil disposal off-site. There will also be a reduction in the potential for contaminated soil to be a threat to human health or the environment through the identification and remedial actions of any additional contaminated soils identified. b.Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. Figure 22 As shown on , the soils on the site consist of the following: UuB ------- Urban land-Udorthents (cut & fill land) complex, 0% to 6% slopes UhuB ------ Urban land-Hubbard complex, 0% to 8% slopes Ub --------- Urban land-Becker complex, 0% to 3% slopes The contaminated groundwater at the site is greater than 20 feet below ground surface and, therefore, will not be encountered during the development and operation of the site. MITIGATION MEASURES: Soil Excavations When soil excavations are performed for environmental investigations, soil remedial actions, site grading and for utility construction, environmental professionals will be present to perform observations and testing to define soil for contamination and for management of those soils. This work will include monitoring for organic vapors, particulate, contaminant of concern concentrations, debris, solid waste and potential hazardous waste. This work will be defined through preparation and approval of Quality Assurance Project Plans, Field Sampling and Analysis Plans, Site Remedial Investigation Plans, Site Specific Health and Safety Plans, Site Specific Response Action Plans, Soil Management Plans and will be documented in Response 30 Fridley Business Park AUAR Action Plan Implementation Reports. The work of investigating and correcting soils at the site will be planned and prescribed by these plans. All work will be overseen, to some extent, by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Region 5 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as the Upper Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization and the City of Fridley. The known impacts to soils at the site have been documented in the reports as provided in the Administrative Record for the NIROP Site, the BAE Systems RCRA Site and the FMC Site. The remedial investigations that will be performed for the different phases of development will provide a graphical summary of those previous investigations and current investigations. The applicable and site specific Soil Reference Value (SRV) and Soil Leaching Value (SLV) will be provided at that time. The soils beneath the building will be further assessed in the next few years. Soil gas sampling and analysis will be performed both outside the building footprint and beneath the building. Appropriate risk-based response actions will be planned and implemented at the site. In the event that unanticipated conditions are encountered during any of this work, a Contingency Plan, approved by the MPCA will provide the framework for ensuring that the unanticipated conditions do not lead to a health and safety concern for on-site workers as well as for long-term human health and the environment. The following Contingency Plan will be the model for the MPCA approval. Contingency Plan It is possible that unanticipated conditions may be encountered during the proposed work at the site. Unanticipated conditions include, but are not limited to, underground storage tanks, wells, buried debris, buried asbestos-containing material, buried drums or other containers, and buried foundations from historical structures that were previously unknown or unexpected. In the event that unanticipated conditions are encountered, the MPCA VIC staff, and the Navy and EPA Region 5 staff as appropriate, will be notified and a course of action will be discussed. If unanticipated USTs are encountered, an attempt will be made to identify the contents of the UST prior to making arrangements for UST removal as described above. If buried debris or building materials are encountered, these will be managed in accordance with procedures for disposal of demolition debris or solid waste. Buried drums, leaking containers, piping, sumps and impacted soils as a result of chemical releases will be reported to the MPCA and a contingency plan will be developed and implemented. The contingency plan will include the following elements: First Response, Communications, and Isolation. 31 Fridley Business Park AUAR First Response First Response includes assessing the situation and obtaining air monitoring data with a photoionization detector, oxygen detector, or combustible gas indicator in accordance with procedures in the site-specific Health and Safety Plan. If conditions are safe, samples will be collected for field screening by visual observation and for jar headspace screening with a photoionization detector. This field screening data will be used to assess the hazard and develop a plan for response. Communications Communications include notifying the Remedial Project Manager, who will notify the MPCA project manager of the unanticipated condition, the preliminary assessment of the hazard, and the expected response. The response may include collecting samples of wastes, soil, or water for chemical analysis or performing containerization or isolation activities prior to arranging for disposal. Isolation Isolation includes placing small containers or small quantities of soils into 55-gallon drums for containment, or backfilling the excavation if larger containers or large quantities of impacted materials are present. The anticipated response for large quantities of hazardous materials is the notification of an emergency response contractor to develop a plan to isolate and contain the hazardous materials until treatment or disposal options can be determined. At least five new 55-gallon drums will be available to containerize hazardous materials if necessary. If buried debris such as concrete or wood is encountered; the material will be excavated and stockpiled. It is anticipated that buried debris can be disposed of in a landfill for demolition debris or municipal solid waste. Regulatory Approved Plans The following regulatory approved plans will be developed for the site as well as individual building lots as the development progresses. Site-Wide Phase I Environmental Site Assessment This document will be prepared and produced in compliance with both ASTM 1527-05 and EPA AIA standards. In addition, the MPCA VIC program has guidance on Phase I Site Investigations that require review of historical documents, the information from which is important on a redevelopment project. Due to the long industrial use of the site and the remedial investigations and certain response actions that have been undertaken, there are both historical recognized environmental conditions (HREC) and recognized environmental conditions at this site. Both situations are important to a redevelopment scenario in that a HREC may still require a response action under the development plan at this site. 32 Fridley Business Park AUAR Site-Wide Remedial Investigation and Response Action Plan Work Plan This document will be similar to a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP) that has been developed for the site under the CERCLA process. It will be developed in accordance with MPCA Response Action Plan (RAP) guidelines. The purpose of the Site-Wide Response Action Plan Work Plan will be to provide Site-wide guidance on the environmental investigations, design and remedial action elements that will be applicable for each Phase of the development/response action implementation. The RAP will describe the general investigation requirements of soil and waste, standard operating procedures (SOP) for investigation, general data analysis and data presentation requirements, general response action elements for soil, waste and groundwater, applicable regulations and permits, permit conditions that will be necessary, project management requirements, communications, work controls, contingency planning, and health & safety requirements. The Site-wide RAP will be submitted to the MPCA for review and approval. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Investigation and Cleanup The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) will be developed to provide specific guidance and requirements on the remedial investigations and subsequent response actions for soil, waste and groundwater. Adherence to the QAPP will ensure that the development and response actions are undertaken in a manner that is quantifiable and reproducible such that overall project objectives are met. The QAPP will define field sampling and analysis criteria, laboratory analytical requirements (the laboratory QAPPs will be included), data analysis and presentation requirements, remedial design criteria and response action data collection requirements. The QAPP will generally follow the guidelines as defined by the US EPA document QA/R-5 Instructions on the Preparation of a Superfund Division Quality Assurance Project Plan, June 2000. The QAPP will be submitted to the MPCA for review and approval. Field Sampling and Analysis Plans Field sampling and analysis plans (FSP) will be developed for each Phase of the development as the development schedule defines. The FSP for each Phase will be defined by the body of historical data that exists on known and potential soil and groundwater contamination. Bibliographies of the documents reviewed and used will be included. Scaled site plans with known features and historical geotechnical and environmental data will be prepared as a basis for proposed investigation points/locations. The FSP will describe data collection objectives and expected outcomes; it will provide Standard Operating Procedures ( SOPs) specific to the work proposed; data analysis and data presentation objectives; it will include laboratory QAPPs and other information as required to plan for, collect and utilize data to assist with planning for response actions. The FSPs will be submitted to the MPCA for review and approval. 33 Fridley Business Park AUAR Site Groundwater Infiltration Assessment An analysis of the potential effects on the existing groundwater remediation system due to the temporary removal of the pavements and buildings at the site will be made. This analysis will utilize the existing groundwater flow model and the objectives of the analysis will be to define what actions, if any, will be required to ensure that the existing system operates as it currently does both in the interim condition when the existing pavements no longer exist and the site infiltration potential is greater than the current situation. In addition, this analysis will be used to model the affect that unlined storm water ponds might have on the groundwater treatment system. The results of this work will be used in the design of the storm water management system for the development. Response Action Plans Response Action Plans (RAP) will be developed for each Phase of the project based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the Groundwater Infiltration Assessment and the remedial RAP for each Phase will provide specific remedial investigation results, historical information pertaining to existing structures, buried utilities, pavements, road ways, rail lines, etc. that will require abandonment, demolition, re-design and movement, new construction, permits required and permit conditions to be administered and monitored, and other response action elements that generally describe the concurrent development and environmental responses. The results of pilot studies, treatment procedures developed and other similar information such as focused feasibility studies are developed in this task and included in the RAP. Vapor Barrier System design basis requirements will be included. Each individual RAP will be submitted to the MPCA for review and approval. Building Plans and Specifications The development of the site requires detailed plans and specifications for the building and utility construction. These plans and specifications are developed in an iterative fashion with the RAP to ensure that the buildings/utilities and the approved response action construction are compatible as they will occur concurrently. The plans include grading plans, landscape plans, foundation plans, utility plans, and storm water system (constructing and final) plans. The plans and specifications are submitted to the MPCA for review. Soil Management Plans A detailed Soil Management Plan will be generated as a stand-alone document used to guide the site excavations and grading on a Phase by Phase basis. Each SMP will provide specific guidance on defined soil types, excavation requirements, soil stockpiling requirements and plans, soil treatment design and engineering plans (if any), concrete crushing, stockpiling and re-use requirements, soil sampling and analysis requirements during the RAP implementation, specific requirements for dust monitoring (sampling and analysis), stormwater management from soil stockpiles and from the grading and disturbed soil areas. The SMP will include scaled cross-sections of existing and proposed soil profiles for each building and related parking, drive and green space areas. 34 Fridley Business Park AUAR Project Manual/Engineering Plans and Specifications for Soil Correction The construction that essentially transforms the site from where it is at today (buildings, utilities, pavements, contaminated soils, wastes) and prepares the site for the actual building construction requires detailed plans and specifications that will be defined within each Phase. Each Phase requires some level of effort for abatement of regulated wastes, building demolition, utility abandonment and/or reconstruction, well abandonment and reconstruction, soil excavation, hauling, stockpiling, placement, compaction, grading and the controls on all of this work. Engineering plans will be developed that show and describe the planned work including excavation depths, volumes, expected contamination, lay-down areas, staging areas, soil correction requirements, testing, vapor barrier system design, utility construction details, grades, slopes, and other details that can be reasonably defined in advance. The plans show in detail what the sub-grades should look like so that the work of building a new building can proceed. The engineering specifications provide the framework and boundary conditions on the work, including abatement, demolition, soil excavation and stockpiling, soil treatment, design aspects of vapor barriers, venting systems wells, pumps, electrical controls, soil gradations, etc. The specifications follow the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) 16 or 52 Division format. The specifications and the other documents of the Project Manual (Contract, Terms and Conditions, Insurance and Bond requirements, special conditions, Schedules, Unit Prices, General Conditions) provides the contract for ensuring that the work is performed as planned. Engineering Plans and Specifications for Groundwater System Modifications The existing groundwater system includes 10 pumping wells, conveyance piping, controls, a treatment system within the existing main building and related features. The development may require that some components of the system be redesign and reconstructed. The most significant of this will be the treatment system currently housed within the main building that will be demolished. This system will require re-design and movement to another building on-Site. Other likely components include some of the pumping wells and conveyance piping. In addition, there are groundwater monitoring wells that will have to be abandoned and reconstructed. Any re-design and reconstruction will be planned and designed to minimize any affect on the operational efficacy of the existing system. The redesign will be performed by engineers with the requisite experience and capabilities for the work. Coordination, review and approval by the Navy, EPA and MPCA are inherent to this process. 35 Fridley Business Park AUAR Regulated Waste Assessment of Buildings on Site The existing buildings contain asbestos and other regulated wastes. Reportedly all PCB containing equipment has been removed. There has been extensive asbestos abatement over the years within the building, the results of which will require documentation to determine what remaining asbestos will require removal prior to demolition. Additional regulated waste assessment will include investigation/sampling and analysis/documentation of Freon, mercury, PCB, miscellaneous chemicals used in the facility and asbestos. Response Action Plan Implementation Reports Planning, oversight and documentation of the development and response action work will be provided through extensive documentation that will be presented in comprehensive Response Action Plan Implementation reports. Each Phase of the development will result in a RAP Implementation report that will contain correspondence; daily notes and photographs; field directives and change orders; field and confirmatory sampling and analysis results for soil, regulated wastes, dust, air emissions; registered surveys of the work, treatment and/or disposal manifests, permit reporting, and other documentation that is produced during the work. These reports will be submitted to the MPCA for review and approval. 20. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks a. Describes types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including soils animal manure, sludge and ash, producing during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. For AUAR estimate the total quantity of municipal solid waste generated and information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be included. The Site currently generates general solid waste due to the office workers at the facility and the few tenants at the Site. The Site operations were generating some hazardous wastes until production ceased earlier this past year. Certain amounts of regulated wastes are being generated such as bulbs and ballasts. There still remain above-ground storage tanks for propane and petroleum fuels. This wastes and storage of petroleum products will slowly be reduced as the leases at the Site expire and the need for heat and fuel is reduced. When the building is demolished in 2016 or after, the need for bulk petroleum fuel storage on-site will be minimized. The generation of regulated solid and liquid wastes by future tenants is anticipated to be at levels typical of office/warehouse/light manufacturing facilities elsewhere. 36 Fridley Business Park AUAR Currently the Site has contaminated soils in a number of areas, from the ground surface, or just beneath building structures, down to the underlying water table. These soils are in different stages of investigation or may be unknown. The implementation of the Response Action Plans will further identify and remediate these soils. Any soils transported off-site as hazardous waste will be done so in strict accordance with RCRA and state and federal transportation and disposal rules. The Response Acton Plans will incorporate the Federal EPA Area of Contamination (AOC) policy, as recognized and practiced by the State of Minnesota, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Existing soil to groundwater impacts will be reduced by the planned development. Modeling of the short-term potential for increased groundwater impacts by the removal of the main building, and prior to the construction of new buildings will identify measures necessary to prevent or minimize those potential impacts. The existing groundwater remedial system will remain in- place as a contingency to short term leaching impacts. Storm water pollution prevention design and construction for the development will also incorporate measures to protect groundwater at the site. This may include the lining of storm water ponds if the modeling described above shows that need. Stormwater retention basin design will be incorporated into the Response Action Plans for review by the MPCA. The design of stormwater retention basins will also be reviewed and approved by the City of Fridley. b.Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternative considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. If any tenants of the new development require storage of petroleum products or other liquid chemicals, that storage will designed and permitted in accordance with the applicable codes such as the International Building Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code and other requirements that the City of Fridley may require of similar installations. The generation of municipal solid waste and any regulated wastes at the new development will be defined by the tenants of the new buildings. The City of Fridley and the developer will require up-to date recycling in accordance with the Minnesota State Building code at the time. Waste minimization will be encouraged through design and encouraged of the tenants. Past Contamination The hazardous materials and petroleum products that were used on-site in past industrial operations and the contaminants on-site as a result of the industrial operations are described in the reports prepared for the Navy, BAE Systems and predecessor entities. All of these reports are available at the office of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN. The MPCA 37 Fridley Business Park AUAR will require that the contaminants of concern (COC) at the site, that have been identified in all of the remedial investigations to-date, be tabulated and provided within the Site-Wide Response Action Plan Work Plan to be developed. The main COC that has been identified in soil and groundwater at the site is trichloroethylene (TCE), a volatile organic compound. There have been a number of soil and groundwater remedial actions at NIROP since 1981. These actions are detailed in the referenced reports, available at the MPCA. The most notable are petroleum contaminated soil removal, soil vapor extraction for TCE and the groundwater treatment system that continues to operate at the NIROP facility. This groundwater treatment system will operate and be monitored for a number of years. The proposed development will not interfere with ongoing and future remedial efforts. The proposed development will actually augment those efforts through the planned remedial investigations, response actions and risk- based site redevelopment. The FMC, State of Minnesota lead, CERCLA site that is located adjacent to the south is not part of the proposed development. The proposed development will not affect the efficacy of that site remedial action and the FMC site will not affect the proposed development. There exists known soil and groundwater contamination at the site that is regulated by the EPA and MPCA. There will be additional remedial investigations of the buildings for regulated materials and soil for petroleum and non-petroleum contamination such as volatile organic compounds (VOC) that will be overseen by both the EPA and MPCA. Potential exposure routes to existing and future identified contamination will be managed through the risk-based closure requirements of the MPCA. Specifically, soil vapor intrusion to new buildings will be managed through vapor barriers systems as appropriate. The NIROP site may have hazardous materials currently in the building such as asbestos. Prior to demolition, all hazardous materials will be assessed via a regulated waste survey of the buildings on the site. Prior to building demolition, all regulated wastes will be abated/removed in accordance with: 1) State and Federal regulations, 2) the permits currently held by the entities operating in the building at the site and 3) the lease(s) held by the current and future owner of the property. As a result, there will be no exposure to hazardous materials currently on site for future site users. c.Indicate the number, location, size and us of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. The MPCA approved Response Acton Plans described in this AUAR will provide for the management of all regulated materials and wastes that may exist at the site currently. 38 Fridley Business Park AUAR MITIGATION MEASURES: Please see the mitigation measures under question 19 for procedures to be implemented with soil excavations. Please see the mitigation measures under question 17 for procedures to be implemented with regards to stormwater. All hazardous materials will be assessed via a regulated waste survey of the buildings on the site Prior to building demolition, all regulated wastes will be abated or removed in accordance with applicable regulations. 21. Traffic For most AUAR reviews, a relatively detailed traffic analysis will be needed, especially if there is to be much commercial development in the AUAR area or if there are major congested roadways in the vicinity. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the response to item 22 and to the noise aspect of item 24. Per EQB documents, instead of the information called for in the EAW form, the following information will need to be provided in the AUAR: a.A description and map of the existing and proposed roadway system, including state, regional, and local roads to be affected by the development of the AUAR area. This information should include existing and proposed roadway capacities and existing and projected background (i.e. without the AUAR development) traffic volumes; b.Trip generation data trip generation rates and trip totals for each major development scenario broken down by land use zones and/or other relevant subdivisions of the area. The projected distributions onto the roadway system must be included; c.Analysis of the impacts of the traffic generated by the AUAR area on the roadway system, including: comparison of peak period total flows to capacities and analysis of Levels of Service and delay times at critical points (if any); d.A discussion of structural and non-structural improvements and traffic management measures that are proposed to mitigate problems; Note: in the above analyses the geographical scope must extend outward as far as the traffic to be generated would have a significant effect on the roadway system and traffic measurements and projections should include peak days and peak hours, or other appropriate measures related to identifying congestion problems, as well as ADTs. 39 Fridley Business Park AUAR Spack Consulting, Inc. completed a traffic study to analyze the two development scenarios being considered by the AUAR . Based on that study, it was determined that most of the public intersections and the proposed driveways studied will operate acceptably through the 2032 Build scenarios; however, a few of the intersections are forecasted to operate unacceptably. For the study intersections to operate acceptably at Level of Service D or better in the 2032 build-out for Scenario A, the following improvements will need to be made: Add a second westbound left turn lane to the East River Road/I-694 Northern Ramps intersection. Add traffic signal control to the East River Road/Driveway 4 intersection. For the study intersections to operate acceptably at Level of Service D or better in the 2032 build-out for Scenario B, the following improvements will need to be made: Upgrade East River Road to a six lane divided roadway through the interchange at I-694. Add traffic signal control to the East River Road/Driveway 4 intersection. The development is expected to be built in phases, so iterative sensitivity analyses were performed to determine when the above improvements will be needed. Transportation improvements will be needed after Scenario A is 80% complete or Scenario B is 50% complete. MITIGATION MEASURES: Based on the analyses contained in the traffic study, it is recommended: Each exiting driveway from the site onto East River Road have an outbound left and right turn lane with the exiting driveways being stop sign controlled. No improvements be built for the first phase of development. If the development plan from Scenario A is built, the East River Road intersections at Driveway 4 and the I-694 Southern Ramps should be studied for potential improvements after the development is 65% occupied. If the development plan from Scenario B is built, the East River Road intersections at Driveway 4, the I-694 Southern Ramps, and the I- 694 Northern Ramps should be studied for potential improvements after the development is 40% occupied. Public right-of-way should be secured through the platting process at the East River Road/Driveway 4 intersection to ensure a traffic signal could be built there in the future. 40 Fridley Business Park AUAR 22. Vehicle-Related Air Emissions monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measured on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. For AUAR also be followed for an AUAR. Mitigation proposed to eliminate any potential problems may be presented under item 21 and merely referenced here. The project is located in an area in which conformity requirements apply, but the project is not considered regionally significant because it does not add a through-lane for traffic, and the scope of the project does not indicate that air quality impacts would be expected. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved a screening method to identify intersections that need hot-spot analysis; the threshold being intersections with an Average Annual Daily Traffic volume of at least 79,400. No intersections in the project area exceed this benchmark AADT, and therefore no hot-spot analysis is required. MnDOT concurs with this analysis. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 23. Stationary Source Air Emissions Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emission such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW for a listing) and any greenhouse gases Guidelines (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro- fluorocarbons, hydrofluorcarbons, perfluorcarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. An air stripper to remove Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from extracted groundwater is located on the site. The quantity of air emissions from the unit is negligible and does not require a permit; however, it is acknowledged as the air stripper will need to be operated into the foreseeable future. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 41 Fridley Business Park AUAR 24. Odors, Noise and Dust For AUAR Dust, odors and construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan; however, any dust control or construction noise ordinances in effect (will address concerns). If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources a noise analysis is needed to determine if any noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic analysis of item 21. Demolition of existing site features will include the beneficial re-use of concrete which creates a dust concern. The re-use of pavements and concrete (that currently is in the form of drive area and parking pavements, building walls, structural members, floors and foundations of the buildings) is a beneficial re-use in accordance with State of Minnesota Rules. The remedial investigations of the site will include concrete as necessary to ensure that future remedial actions are protective and human health and the environment. Concrete, that does not have an impervious coating, may have absorbed historic releases of liquids such petroleum based oils and chlorinated solvents used in the degreasing operations. The chlorinated solvents used in the degreasing operations are volatile such that significant releases of solvents in the building would have mostly volatilized into the ambient air of the facility. Some of the liquid may have seeped into uncoated concrete and some may have traveled through cracks or other openings to the underlying soil. The presence of an organic solvent such as TCE in the pores of the concrete would have lead to the partitioning of the VOC into the vapor state with some VOC remaining as a liquid. Over time, and due to a number of factors, some of the VOC vapor would be transported back out of the concrete and into the facility ambient air which would then cause additional partitioning. The amount of VOC remaining in the concrete today is unknown but would be a very minute amount due to the relative low porosity of concrete and high volatility of the chlorinated solvent. The investigation of soil and regulated wastes at the site will include investigation of concrete floors that may be contaminated by substances regulated by the Toxic Substance Control Act B). If PCBs are detected above the regulatory threshold of 50 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg), that concrete will be managed and disposed off- site in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations. Other concrete on site will be processed and beneficially re-used on-site as engineered fill in accordance with the State of Minnesota Beneficial Solid Waste re-use regulations and MPCA Green Remediation Practices for redevelopment of properties, especially Brownfield sites. This material may also be used off-site as engineered fill and/or for road or highway road-base construction. This is a standard practice throughout Minnesota as it negates landfill disposal, the mining and transportation of virgin sand and gravel resources or the mining of virgin limestone that is then processed into Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) Class 5 gravel. 42 Fridley Business Park AUAR The concrete will be processed (crushed) on-Site into a MNDOT Class 7 gravel or alternatively, depending on its re-use location on-Site, into a 4-inch minus engineered fill. In either case, the work of crushing will be done in accordance with City work hour restrictions and State and local nuisance noise and dust regulations. Dust monitoring will be performed in accordance with the State of Minnesota primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for particulate and, potentially, a site-specific standard that will be developed for particulate matter than may have site-specific contaminants associated with that particulate. The perimeter monitoring during demolition and the implementation of Site-Specific health and safety plans will include monitoring ambient and breathing zone air for volatile organic compounds as well as particulate. A sampling and analysis plan for particulate matter will be developed consistent with EPA Ambient Air Monitoring Guidelines (EPA-450/4-87-007). The crushing operations and monitoring will be defined in the MPCA approved RAPs, Soil Management Plans, Health and Safety Plans as well as the Construction Site Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plans. The monitoring will include fixed-base particulate dust monitoring stations as well as mobile real- time monitoring for particulate. The site-specific nuisance dust threshold criteria, determined for the site, will be applied at the property boundaries. The Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan that will be developed and implemented by contractors working at the site will also have a short-term worker dust standard that will be used for worker protection in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Noise monitoring will also be included in the implementation of the health and safety plans and nuisance dust and noise monitoring and control operations. The health and safety plans will provide metrics for responding to exceedance of site-specific concentrations of contaminants of concern such that means and methods will be altered to prevent further exceedance, both within and at the property lines . The monitoring for dust and noise at the site will provide the criteria for dust and noise control measures. The suppression of dust will be accomplished in a number of ways depending on the circumstances. This may include watering of unit operations, placement of calcium chloride dust suppressants in accordance with Minnesota Department of Transportation specifications, seeding and mulching, suspension of work operations when the wind direction and speed make suppression impractical, lowering unit operation drop heights and truck speeds, and moving operations within the site. Noise control may include temporary barrier walls, moving operations, strict adherence to work hour requirements and suspension of operations based on weather conditions. The crushed concrete will be used as engineered fill on which buildings and pavements will be constructed. The prevention of exposure pathways to contaminants of concern in soil or crushed concrete, such as dermal, inhalation and from soil to groundwater, will be provided through the construction of the pavements and building floors, through construction of vapor barrier systems, and through limiting infiltration of precipitation through the pavements or building floors. 43 Fridley Business Park AUAR Confirmatory sampling and analysis of soil and concrete as well as sampling and analysis of vent barrier systems will provide validation that exposure pathways are being managed and that exposure to the contaminants is not occurring. MITIGATION MEASURES: The investigation of soil and regulated wastes at the site will include investigation of concrete floors that may be contaminated by substances regulated by the Toxic Substance Concrete with PCBs above the regulatory threshold of 50 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg), will be managed and disposed off-site in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations Work of crushing will be done in accordance with City work hour restrictions and State and local nuisance noise and dust regulations Dust monitoring will be performed in accordance with the State of Minnesota primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for particulate Perimeter monitoring during demolition and the implementation of Site-Specific health and safety plans will include monitoring ambient and breathing zone air for volatile organic compounds as well as particulate A sampling and analysis plan for particulate matter will be developed consistent with EPA Ambient Air Monitoring Guidelines (EPA-450/4-87-007) Monitoring will include fixed-base particulate dust monitoring stations as well as mobile real- time monitoring for particulate Suppression of dust will occur in accordance with best practices based on conditions encountered in the field 25. Nearby Resources Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? _ _Yes _ X _No There will be no impact to nearby archaeological, historical and/or architectural resources as a result of this project. The State Historic Preservation Office ran a cultural resources database search for the subject property and determined the closest instance of a historical or architecturally important site is the Sullivan Farm House at 5037 Madison Street in Colombia Heights (approximately 1.3 miles due east of the proposed development). Separating this resource from the proposed development is nearly one mile of residential housing, University Avenue, large lot industrial sites along Main Street NE, and the corridor of BNSF railroad branch lines. 44 Fridley Business Park AUAR Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? _ __Yes __X __No There are no prime or unique farmlands nor any agricultural preserves on or near the site. Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? _ X _Yes __ __No If development of the AUAR will interfere or change the use of any existing such resource, this should be described in the AUAR. The RGU may also want to discuss under this item any proposed parks, recreation area, or trails to be developed in conjunction with development of the AUAR area. Directly west of the study area on the western side of East River Road is the Anoka County Riverfront Islands of Peace Regional Park which borders the Mississippi River. The facility includes picnic areas, picnic shelters, a park building and walking/biking trails connecting to the greater Fridley trail systemincluding the Mississippi River Regional Trail. The proposed development will not interfere or change the use of this park; however, development of the subject property will include appropriate bicycle and pedestrian trail connections to provide safe and convenient access to the amenities and trails available in the Regional Park. Scenic views and vistas? ____Yes __ X __No The proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact on scenic views or vistas. If anything, redevelopment of the area under one of the proposed scenarios should dramatically improve the look and feel of the area. Other unique resources? ____Yes _X_No MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 26. Adverse Visual Impacts Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare form intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? ____Yes __X_No No adverse visual impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed development, and all improvements contemplated under the development scenarios being studied should result in visual improvement for the surrounding area. The existing water tower on the site has been 45 Fridley Business Park AUAR use as a location for cellular antennas, construction of a new monopole, or the placement of cellular antennas on the proposed structures is a possibility. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 27. Compatibility with Plans Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, lane use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? __X__Yes ______No If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved, if no, explain. The 2030 Fridley Comprehensive Plan, approved in 2009, guides the subject property a special zoning -considered by the City to be the most appropriate zoning district for implementation of a redevelopment project. The intent of the district is to provide the City with site plan review authority to determine if the proposed project pment Plans. It also provides flexibility to allow a development that fits the site and the developed surroundings better than straight zoning can sometimes provide. The possible proposed uses of retail, showroom, office, warehouse and light manufacturing are allowed within the S-2 Redevelopment District. In this case, the proposed uses will not represent a dramatic land use change and are consistent with th a redeveloped site with greater amenities and a long- term solution to the on-site contamination issues. The City has determined there will be no nsive Plan, nor will the development be subject to any significant (floodplain or shoreland) overlay district regulations. For AUAR the AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its comprehensive plan complies with the requirements set out at 4410.3610, subpart 1. The AUAR document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in the context of the comprehensive plan. If this has not been done as part of the responses to items 6, 9, 18, 21 and others, it must be addressed here: a brief synopsis should be presented here if the material has been presented in detail under other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan elements to allow for any of the development scenarios should be 46 Fridley Business Park AUAR noted. If there are any management plans of any other local, state, or federal agencies applicable to the AUAR area, the document must discuss the compatibility of the plan with the various development scenarios studied, with emphasis on any incompatible elements. The City of Fridley staff, in its Role as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) in this process has determined that the options for redevelopment plans as propose comply with statutory requirements in that they do comply with the approved Comprehensive Plan, prepared by the City of Fridley and officially approved by the Metropolitan Council. relation to the existing comprehensive plan. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 28. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? __ __Yes ___X__No If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see for details). EAW Guidelines Completion of the AUAR study did not identify any need for immediate expansion of utilities, roads, infrastructure or public services. Further traffic study following construction of Phase 1 of either development scenario may show required roadway improvements to maintain service levels on existing roadways. The City may view redevelopment of this area as an opportunity to improve and expand transit service to the City of Fridley as East River Road was historically a stop on public transportation lines as indicated by the existing bus shelters along the road. With the site becoming a major employment hub yet again, Metro Transit could be encouraged to reconsider adding East River Road back into one of its daily routes, and/or servicing the area via a Northstar shuttle. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary at this time. 47 Fridley Business Park AUAR 29. Cumulative Impacts Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize and other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts. This item is not applicable in an AUAR as the entire AUAR document is an examination of the cumulative impacts of development in a geographical area. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 30. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. The subject site is adjacent to a number of BNSF railroad branch lines which are used by the Northstar Commuter Rail line. Nothing in the redevelopment plans being studied indicated there would be any potential impacts to this rail corridor. It is anticipated that the AUAR fully addresses all other environmental impacts that could be created by the development scenarios being studied. MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are necessary. 31. Summary of Issues Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. 48 Fridley Business Park AUAR Executive Summary The Fridley Business Park Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) examines redevelopment scenarios for a 122 acre site within the City of Fridley, MN, just south of I-694 and east of I-94 & the Mississippi River. The site includes the 83-acre Naval Industrial Reserve Ordinance Plant (NIROP) superfund site along East River Road in Fridley, MN; and the BAE RCRA superfund site. The FMC superfund site, which has been heavily studied and is subject to on-going five-year inspections, is located just south of AUAR study area and is not part of the AUAR. The 122-acre site is currently characterized by a large parking lot to the south, an north of the building. The building is proposed for initial repurposing of portions of the property, and eventual tear down & replacement. The final density on the site is anticipated to include a range from 1.59M to 1.84M square feet of industrial, office and potentially retail uses. The proposed area for redevelopment is currently covered by approximately 87% impervious surfaces; both redevelopment scenarios anticipate that total to be reduced. Reworking of the site will involve general grading as necessary to facilitate proper drainage, trench cuts for the installation of needed utilities, and grading as needed for overall stormwater management including on-site ponding. The mitigation plan established in this AUAR identifies actions necessary to ensure that soils disturbed for grading and infrastructure installation are adequately monitored for contaminants, and outlines the procedures to be followed should unexpected issues arise. The existing known and unknown soil contamination and potential regulated waste located on site (due to the historic industrial use of the site) will be properly managed and mitigated during and concurrent with the development grading and excavation through regulatory approved plans described within the AUAR. This will include additional soil and regulated waste investigations. There currently exists a groundwater pump and treat (P&T) system which hydraulically contains TCE-contaminated groundwater on the NIROP site, treats the water and then discharges to the Mississippi River. Redevelopment of the site will be designed and constructed in conjunction with the groundwater remedy at the site and in such a manner that will not detract from its efficacy. The Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park which borders the Mississippi River, directly west of the site, is the only nearby area of fish and wildlife habitat in the area. There are several rare mussels that have been documented within the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the proposed project. To address this concern, the AUAR fully examines the issues of stormwater control and quality along with effective erosion prevention and sediment control to occur in conjunction with any of the development scenarios being studied. Development of either scenario under consideration will not impair the regulatory approved groundwater remediation system(s) or the ability of the responsible party to operate that system(s). Furthermore, redevelopment of the site will be designed and constructed in conjunction with the long-term solutions for groundwater at the site. Development of the site will also allow for expedited assessment and remedial action for soil contamination in areas currently inaccessible due to the large main building. 49 Fridley Business Park AUAR It is acknowledged that inactivity in the building over a number of years may have resulted in wildlife utilizing the structure. Prior to demolition activities, an examination of the grounds will be conducted to ascertain the presence (or non-presence) of animals within the building. An inventory of identified animals will be created and compared against a listing of protected species within the State of Minnesota to ensure that any such animals are properly relocated or otherwise addressed prior to demolition of the building. The site will continue to be served by the City of Fridley municipal water supply system for domestic water use and fire protection. The City of Fridley has acknowledged that water demands of either scenario are well within the capacity of the existing Water Treatment Facility and distribution system. An existing water tower on the site is currently dry, and may or may not remain as part of the redevelopment depending upon its utility to provide additional pressure for fire safety based on future water flow tests. Should the water tower be retained, equipment will be put in place to isolate the water tower from the City of Fridley water distribution system. No supply wells or production wells are planned and they would not be able to be permitted due to the groundwater impacts at the site. There are ten (10) groundwater recovery wells that are part of the groundwater remediation system operating at the Site. These wells provide hydraulic containment of groundwater to prevent or limit contaminated groundwater flow from the Site to the Anoka County Park (ACP) and the Mississippi River. There is also a significant number of groundwater monitoring wells located at the site. These wells are not for water supply, but are a component of the groundwater remedial system. When the development is complete, there will exist a number of wells on the property associated with the groundwater treatment system that are the responsibility of the Navy and BAE Systems and, for which, the EPA and MPCA have regulatory oversight. These wells will include pumping wells and monitoring wells. As is the case today, there will be no production wells on the property. As part of this project, approximately 122-acres will be re-graded with an estimated 300,000 cubic yards to be moved. Because of the size of the overall project (over one acre of disturbed soil), a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Stormwater Construction Activity Permit would be required. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would also be prepared to address the temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control. Erosion and sediment contro the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and will satisfy requirements for general storm water permit. This will include the design and implementation of temporary and permanent erosion control plans required by the NPDES. The development of this site will require submittal of the plans to the MPCA for additional review because of the size and proximity to the Mississippi River. Additionally, the development will also comply with the requirements of the City of Fridley stormwater management requirements and the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization stormwater management rules. 50 Fridley Business Park AUAR An overall lack of stormwater management defines the current site; stormwater runoff is collected on site and routed to the Mississippi River through three separate stormwater lines. The proposed development scenarios will include water quality treatment and discharge rate controls in accordance with current day regulations. Specifically, stormwater would be treated prior to discharge according to the MPCA requirements for Permanent Stormwater Management System in the NPDES Construction Permit and the City of Fridley requirements for stormwater treatment and rate control. It is anticipated that storm water treatment would include the construction of detention ponds to remove 80% of total suspended solids prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff. Storm water ponds will be lined because of the contaminated nature of the on-site soils, and outlet control structures would be designed and constructed to minimize sediment transport. The proposed stormwater ponds would be designed to have adequate capacity to provide storage and sediment control for storm water runoff during construction of the development. Permanent best management practices would also include seeding, mulching and sodding. Wastewater discharge from the redevelopment would be domestic (commercial) wastewater, and would enter the metropolitan wastewater system through a 15-inch sanitary sewer main directly tied into a -NS-521) to the west of the site. The interceptor is subsequently routed to the Metropolitan Council Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant. The proposed development is expected to generate a peak wastewater flow of 227 and 460 gallons per minute. The Metropolitan facility is capable of treating the volume and composition of wastewater projected to be generated by either of the proposed redevelopment scenarios without pretreatment or other plant facility improvements. The development at the site will include the further remedial investigation of soils above the water table, and new building construction will include a vapor barrier system under building slabs. A vapor barrier system would include impermeable membranes and passive or active venting of potential accumulated vapors from beneath each building as appropriate. The project will meet MPCA requirements for clean soil cover under the paved areas and building slabs as well as clean soils in below-ground utility corridors. All soil investigations will be performed according to plans reviewed and approved by the MPCA. The results of that further investigation may be that some site soils require remedial action such as treatment or off-site disposal. Any additional requirements from MPCA will be developed once the specific environmental investigation is done for each new building. Any of these remedial actions, and any actions necessary to allow for general site grading for the development, will be implemented in accordance with Response Action Plan approvals by the MPCA. Green remediation practices, as promulgated by the MPCA, will be incorporated into the Response Action Plans. In addition, all work associated with soil excavation, grading, loading, hauling, treatment, placement and compaction, and permanent cover; will also have oversight by the EPA and MPCA as may be appropriate. Response Action Plans require definition and implementation of soil management plans, construction quality assurance plans, 51 Fridley Business Park AUAR erosion and sediment control plans, storm water management plans, dust control measures, soil sampling and analysis, stockpile soil management, contractor oversight, construction contingency plans, documentation and reporting. The result of the Response Action Plan implementation will be a reduction in the mass of contaminated soil at the site from what now exists, either through soil treatment on-site, soil treatment off-site or soil disposal off-site. There will also be a reduction in the potential for contaminated soil to be a threat to human health or the environment through the identification and remedial actions of any additional contaminated soils identified. Following development under either scenario, the generation of regulated solid and liquid wastes by future tenants is anticipated to be at levels typical of office/warehouse/light manufacturing facilities elsewhere. If any tenants of the new development require storage of petroleum products or other liquid chemicals, that storage will designed and permitted in accordance with the applicable codes such as the International Building Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code and other requirements that the City of Fridley may require of similar installations. The MPCA approved Response Acton Plans described in the AUAR will provide for the management of all regulated materials and wastes that may exist at the site currently. A traffic study to analyze the two development scenarios being considered determined that most of the public intersections and the proposed driveways studied will operate acceptably through the 2032 Build scenarios; however, a few of the intersections are forecasted to operate unacceptably. For the study intersections to operate acceptably at Level of Service D or better in the 2032 build-out for Scenario A, a few improvements to turn lanes and traffic signals may be needed. Upon full build-out, East River Road may need to be upgraded to a six-lane divided roadway through the interchange at I-694. The scope of the project does not indicate that air quality impacts would be expected. Demolition of existing site features will include the beneficial re-use of concrete. The re-use of pavements and concrete (that currently is in the form of drive area and parking pavements, building walls, structural members, floors and foundations of the buildings) is a beneficial re-use in accordance with State of Minnesota Rules. The remedial investigations of the site will include concrete as necessary to ensure that future remedial actions are protective and human health and the environment. The investigation of soil and regulated wastes at the site will include investigation of concrete floors that may be contaminated by substances regulated by the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). Concrete meeting unusable thresholds will be managed and disposed off-site in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations. The crushing operations and monitoring will be defined in the MPCA approved RAPs, Soil Management Plans, Health and Safety Plans as well as the Construction Site Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plans. 52 Fridley Business Park AUAR The AUAR identified no potential impacts to nearby resources, nor are any adverse visual impacts proposed. All proposed uses are in conformance with current zoning and comprehensive plan designations, and there are no anticipated impacts to public services. The following is a summary of the mitigation measures specifically listed within the AUAR: EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MITIGATION MEASURES: A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared to ensure compliance to applicable regulations. The plan will include references to the following: Erosion control blanket will be placed as soon as feasible after the slopes are constructed o o o Best management practices will be followed as prescribed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency WATER QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES: Development under either scenario will require that the design of lined stormwater ponds conform to storage and sediment control standards. Areas for stormwater ponds as identified on the scenarios being studied were intentionally oversized to demonstrate an ability of the site to accommodate significantly more storage than present day requirements, which in turn will provide flexibility should standards change over time. Stormwater ponds will be designed at a minimum to remove 80% of total suspended solids for a 1.5 inch storm event. Discharge rates will not exceed the existing rates for 2, 10 and 100 year storm events. SOIL MITIGATION MEASURES: All soil work will be defined through preparation and approval of Quality Assurance Project Plans, Field Sampling and Analysis Plans, Site Remedial Investigation Plans, Site Specific Health and Safety Plans, Site Specific Response Action Plans, Soil Management Plans and will be documented in Response Action Plan Implementation Reports. When soil excavations are performed, environmental professionals will be present to perform observations and testing to define soil contamination and for management of those soils. In the event that unanticipated conditions are encountered during any of this work, a Contingency Plan, approved by the MPCA will provide the framework for ensuring that the unanticipated conditions do not lead to a health and safety concern for on-site workers as well as for long-term human health and the environment. 53 Fridley Business Park AUAR A complete listing of regulatory approved plans to be developed for the overall site and/or individual building lots is outlined in the AUAR SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTE MITIGATION MEASURES: Please see the mitigation measures under question 19 for procedures to be implemented with soil excavations. Please see the mitigation measures under question 17 for procedures to be implemented with regards to stormwater. All hazardous materials will be assessed via a regulated waste survey of the buildings on the site Prior to building demolition, all regulated wastes will be abated or removed in accordance with applicable regulations. TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES: Each exiting driveway from the site onto East River Road have an outbound left and right turn lane with the exiting driveways being stop sign controlled. No improvements be built for the first phase of development. If the development plan from Scenario A is built, the East River Road intersections at Driveway 4 and the I-694 Southern Ramps should be studied for potential improvements after the development is 65% occupied. If the development plan from Scenario B is built, the East River Road intersections at Driveway 4, the I-694 Southern Ramps, and the I- 694 Northern Ramps should be studied for potential improvements after the development is 40% occupied. Public right-of-way should be secured through the platting process at the East River Road/Driveway 4 intersection to ensure a traffic signal could be built there in the future. ODORS NOISE AND DUST MITIGATION MEASURES: The investigation of soil and regulated wastes at the site will include investigation of concrete floors that may be contaminated by substances regulated by the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), Concrete with PCBs above the regulatory threshold of 50 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg), will be managed and disposed off-site in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations Work of crushing will be done in accordance with City work hour restrictions and State and local nuisance noise and dust regulations Dust monitoring will be performed in accordance with the State of Minnesota primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for particulate 54 A APPENDIX Figure # Figure Title 1 EAW/AUAR Regional Location Map 2 AUAR Study Boundary 3 USGS Map 4 Existing Conditions 5 6 7 City Guidance 8 Cover Types 9 Existing Watermain 10 11 Development Scenario 12 FMC Well Locations 13 NIROP Well Locations 14 Existing Stormsewer 15 16 17 Existing Stormsewer Drainage Flows 18 Existing Sanitary Sewer Lines 19 Development 20 21 Groundwater Impacts by TCE 22 Soils FIGURE 1 Fridley Business Park AUAR Burns Twp. Oak Grove East Bethel Columbus Twp. Ramsey Andover Ham Lake ¬ « 101 Anoka Rogers Dayton ¬ « 65 Coon Rapids Champlin Blaine ¬ « Hassan Twp. §Lino Lakes ¨¦ § ¨¦ 10 94 35W Circle Pines Lexington ¬ « 610 Osseo Spring Lake Park Brooklyn Park Corcoran Maple Grove Mounds View ¬ « 252 North Oaks Fridley § ¨¦ 94 Shoreview Arden Hills Brooklyn Center New Brighton £ ¤ Vadnais Height 169 Hilltop § ¨¦ ¬ « Crystal 51 494 Columbia Heights ¬ « 55 New Hope Medina Robbinsdale St. Anthony Plymouth Roseville ¬ « ¬ « 36 100 Medicine Lake Maplewood Lauderdale Golden Valley Falcon Heights Long Lake Minneapolis § ¨¦ ¬ « 394 12 Wayzata Orono § ¨¦ Woodland 94 St. Louis Park St. Paul Minnetonka Beach Deephaven Minnetonka Hopkins ¬ « Tonka Bay 7 Greenwood Lilydale Shorewood Edina Excelsior Legend Project Regional Location h N FIGURE 2 Fridley Business Park AUAR § ¨¦ 94 h N Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community AUAR Boundary FIGURE 3 Fridley Business Park AUAR § ¨¦ 94 USGS Map Legend h N FIGURE 4 Fridley Business Park AUAR Hardpacked Gravel Rail Staging Area Unused Watertower NIROP 1,859,180 sq ft 2930 Parking existing building Spaces BAE RCRA FMC § ¨¦ 94 h N Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community Existing Conditions FIGURE 5 Fridley Business Park AUAR h Development Scenario "A" N FIGURE 6 Fridley Business Park AUAR h Development Scenario "B" N FIGURE 7 Fridley Business Park AUAR 2013 Zoning 2007 Existing Land Use h N 2030 Future Land Use City Guidance: Zoning & Land Use FIGURE 8 Fridley Business Park AUAR Total AUAR Study Area = approx 136 acres Total Development Site = approx 122 acres Existing Buildiings = approx 45.0 acres Existing Hard Surfaces = approx 61.3 acres Development Area Green Space = approx 15.7 acres Non-Development Green Space = approx 14 acres AUAR Study Area Cover Types Impervious Surfaces Building Coverage Green Space (pervious) FIGURE 9 Fridley Business Park AUAR Existing Watermain FIGURE 10 Fridley Business Park AUAR Scenario "A" Watermain FIGURE 11 Fridley Business Park AUAR Scenario "B" Watermain FIGURE 14 Fridley Business Park AUAR Existing Stormsewer FIGURE 15 Fridley Business Park AUAR Scenario "A" Stormsewer FIGURE 16 Fridley Business Park AUAR Scenario "B" Stormsewer FIGURE 17 Fridley Business Park AUAR 42" 72" 48" h N Existing Stormsewer Lines FIGURE 18 Fridley Business Park AUAR Existing Sanitary Sewer FIGURE 19 Fridley Business Park AUAR Scenario "A" Sanitary Sewer FIGURE 20 Fridley Business Park AUAR Scenario "B" Sanitary Sewer FIGURE 22 Fridley Business Park AUAR UhuB UuB Ub UuB W Soils on the site UuB Urban land-Udorthents (cut & fill land) Un complex, 0-6% slopes UhuB Fo UhuB Urban land-Hubbard complex, 0-8% slopes Fo Ub Urban land-Becker complex, 0-3% slopes Fo Fordum-Winterfield complex, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community Soils h N B APPENDIX Traffic Study completed by Spack Consulting. Traffic Impact Study Industrial Park Fridley, MN I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. By: __________________________________ Michael P. Spack, P.E., P.T.O.E. License No. 40936 Date: January 25, 2013 th .ã {·u [Òz t ©r ab ÞÞÞu{¦ -/Ò·zmu- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.Introduction and Summary ....................................................... 1 2.Proposed Development ............................................................ 3 3.Analysis of Existing Conditions ............................................... 7 4.Projected Traffic ...................................................................... 11 5.Traffic and Improvement Analysis ......................................... 16 6.Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................... 21 7.Appendix .................................................................................. 22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Location Map .................................................................................. 4 Figure 2.2 Site Plan for Scenario A ................................................................ 5 Figure 2.3 Site Plan for Scenario B ................................................................ 6 Figure 3.1 Existing Conditions at Study Intersections ................................. 9 Figure 4.1 Trip Distribution ........................................................................... 15 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Land Use Comparison for Development Scenarios ..................... 3 1 Table 3.1 Existing Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS) ................................ 11 Table 4.1 Traffic Generated by Development Scenario A ........................ 13 Table 4.2 Traffic Generated by Development Scenario B ........................ 14 1 Table 5.1 AM Peak Hour 2032 Level of Service (LOS) ............................... 16 1 Table 5.2 PM Peak Hour 2032 Level of Service (LOS) ............................... 17 Table 5.3 2032 Build Improvements ............................................................. 18 Table 5.4 - Daily Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... 20 1.Introduction and Summary a. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives st An industrial park is proposed at East River Road & 51 Way NE in Fridley, MN. Two different development options for the site are currently being analyzed and the development could range between 1.59 (Scenario A) and 1.84 million square feet (Scenario B) of industrial, offi development. The project location is on the site of a former mu factory and the site is currently occupied by a 1.8 million square foot industrial building with several parking lots. This study addresses the potential traffic impact of the industr development. The objectives of this traffic study are: i. Document how the adjacent existing public transportation system operates. ii. Analyze how the adjacent public transportation system will oper in 2032 if there is no development. iii. Analyze how the adjacent public transportation system will oper in 2032 with full development of the industrial park site for bo the proposed development options. iv. Recommend improvements (if needed) to ensure traffic on the public infrastructure within the study area will operate accepta 2032 with full operation of the industrial park. The following public street intersections are analyzed in this s i. East River Road & I-694 Northern Ramp ii. East River Road & I-694 Southern Ramp st iii. East River Road & 51 Way NE iv. East River Road & Site Driveway 1 v. East River Road & Site Driveway 2 vi. East River Road & Site Driveway 3 vii. East River Road & Site Driveway 4 th viii. East River Road & 44 Avenue NE th ix. East River Road & 37 Avenue NE st x. 51 Way NE & Site Driveway 1/East River Road Service Road st xi. 51 Way NE & Site Driveway 2 st xii. 51 Way NE & Site Driveway 3 b. Executive Summary Most of the public intersections and the proposed driveways stud operate acceptably through the 2032 Build scenarios. However, a the intersections are forecasted to operate unacceptably. For t intersections to operate acceptably at Level of Service D or bet 2032 build-out for Scenario A, the following improvements will n made: Add a second westbound left turn lane to the East River Road/I- Northern Ramps intersection. Add traffic signal control to the East River Road/Driveway 4 intersection. For the study intersections to operate acceptably at Level of Se better in the 2032 build-out for Scenario B, the following impro need to be made: Add a second westbound left turn lane to the East River Road/I- Northern Ramps intersection. Add a second westbound left turn lane to the East River Road/I- Northern Ramps intersection. Upgrade East River Road to a six lane divided roadway through t interchange at I-694. Add traffic signal control to the East River Road/Driveway 4 intersection. The development is expected to be built in phases, so iterative analyses were performed to determine when the above improvements be needed. Transportation improvements will be needed after Sce is 80% complete or Scenario B is 50% complete. Based on the analyses contained in this study, it is recommended: Each exiting driveway from the site onto East River Road have a outbound left and right turn lane with the exiting driveways bei stop sign controlled. No improvements be built for the first phase of development. I development plan from Scenario A is built, the East River Road intersections at Driveway 4 and the I-694 Southern Ramps should be studied for potential improvements after the development is 6 occupied. If the development plan from Scenario B is built, the East River Road intersections at Driveway 4, the I-694 Southern Ramps, and the I-694 Northern Ramps should be studied for potential improvements after the development is 40% occupied. Public right-of-way should be secured through the platting process at the East River Road/Driveway 4 intersection to ensure a traff signal could be built there in the future. 2.Proposed Development a. Site Location st The site is located south of 51 Way NE and east of East River Road in Fridley, MN (see Figure 2.1). b. Land Use and Intensity The proposed site is currently occupied by a 1.8 million square foot building, which will be demolished as part of the project. The in park is proposed to contain approximately 12 buildings containin between 1.59 and 1.84 million square feet of industrial, office development. Two different development plans are currently being analyzed and site plans for each are shown in Figures 2.2 & 2.3. The exact mix of building types and square footages are not known at time, but estimates were provided by the development team. Thes estimates were broken down into land uses for how the developmen generate traffic. Table 2.1 shows a comparison of land uses bet two proposed development options. Table 2.1 Land Use Comparison for Development Scenarios Scenario A Scenario B Land Use(square feet)(square feet) Industrial Park 667,000 302,000 Manufacturing 0 200,000 Warehousing 837,500 383,000 General Office 18,750 884,000 Retail 68,750 70,000 Total1,592,0001,839,000 c. Development Phasing and Timing The development will be built in phases as market demand warrant purposes of this study, it is assumed the full development will occupied by 2032. Figure 2.1 Location Maps North No Scale Study Area Proposed Site Figure 2.2 Site Plan -Scenario A North No Scale Site Plan prepared by Opus, L.L.C. Figure 2.3 Site Plan -Scenario B North No Scale Site Plan prepared by Opus, L.L.C. 3.Analysis of Existing Conditions a. Transportation Network Characteristics Interstate 694 is located approximately a mile north of the site provide regional/national access. It an eight lane, divided east-west road with a 60 mph speed limit site. Mn/DOT classifies Interstate 694 as a High Priority Inter Corridor (Subcategory 1F). East River Road is classified as Anoka County State Aid Highway 1 near th the site. South of 37 Avenue NE it is classified as Hennepin County State Aid Highway 23. East River Road is a four lane, divided north-south road with a 55 mph speed limit near the site. The speed limit i st 40 mph north of 51 Way NE. Anoka County completed a study of the corridor north of Interstate 694, but no improvements were recom at the interchange and it did not analyze East River Road south interchange. East River Road Service Road is classified as Fridley Municipal State Aid Street 354 and is a two lane, undivided road with a 30 mph speed near the site. st 51 Way NE is classified as Fridley Municipal State Aid Street 355. as a four lane, divided road with a 30 mph speed limit near the st of the East River Road Service Road, 51 Way NE tapers to a two lane, undivided road. th 44 Avenue NE is classified as Anoka County State Aid Highway 2 eas th East River Road near the site. This section of 44 Avenue NE is a two lane, partially divided road with a 30 mph speed limit near the of East River Road it merges with a parking lot that has access Street NE. th 37 Avenue NE is classified as Minneapolis State Aid Street 272 wes East River Road. It is a four lane, undivided road with a 30 mp th limit near the site. East of East River Road, 37 Avenue NE is a short service road. The East River Road intersections with the I-694 northern ramps, stthth southern ramps, 51 Way NE, 44 Avenue NE and 37 Avenue NE are all st signalized. The 51 Way NE & Driveway/East River Road Service Road intersection is controlled by an all-way stop. All other inters two-way stop controlled with stop signs on the minor approaches. There are no mass transit facilities near the site that will imp amount of traffic generated by the proposed site. The Mississippi River Regional Trail runs along the Mississippi which is just to the west of East River Road. This could potentw some commuters/employees to walk or bike to the site. Existing traffic control, speed limits, and travel lanes are sho 3.1 for each study intersection. The northbound approach of the th River Road & 37 Avenue NE intersection does not have a striped right turn lane. But based on the pavement width and observation of h used, the approach was modeled as having a right turn lane. It also be noted that the driveways into the development site along River Road were modeled as having a right turn lane and a left t out of the development. Currently not all of the driveways are way, but there is enough pavement width available to be used this way. It is recommended two exiting lanes be kept for each driveway onto River Road to accommodate large vehicles as well as to minimize vehicles. Figure 3.1 Existing Lanes & Traffic Control North No Scale Interstate694 60 mph 51st Way NE 30 mph Driveway 4 37th Ave NE 30 mph b. Traffic Volumes Intersection video was collected at each of the study intersection normal weekdays at the beginning of December 2012 when there was clear weather. Using these videos, turning movement counts were collected from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the East River Road/I-694 Northern Ramps, East River Road/I-694 Southern Ramps, East River stth Road/51 Way NE, and East River Road/37 Avenue NE intersections. The a.m. and p.m. peak hours were determined to be from 7:00 to a.m. and 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. for these intersections (except for t th peak hour for East River Road/37 Avenue NE which was 7:15 to 8:15 a.m.). Based on these turning movement counts, counts were conducted at the remaining study driveway intersections from 7:00 to 8:00 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. The turning movement count data from the above described counts contained in fifteen minute intervals in the Appendix. c. Level of Service An intersection capacity analysis was conducted for LOS A the existing intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 e peak hour of traffic based on the number of lanes at the intersection, traffic volumes, and traffic control. Level of Service A (LOS A) represents light traffic flow (free flow conditions) LOS C while Level of Service F (LOS F) represents heavy traffic flow (over capacity conditions). LOS D at intersections is typically considered acceptable in the Twin Cities region. Individual movements are also assigned LOS grades. One or more individual LOS D = Acceptable movements typically operate at LOS F when the overall intersection is operating acceptably at LOS D. The pictures on the left represent some of the LOS grades (from a signal controlled intersection in San Jose, CA). These LOS grades represent the overall LOS F = Unacceptable intersection operation, not individual movements. The LOS results for the existing study hours are shown in Table 3.1. These are based on the existing traffic control and lane configurations as shown in Source: City of San Jose, CA Figure 3.1. The existing turning movement volumes from the Appendix were used in the LOS calculations. The LOS calculations were done in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual TM using VISTRO software. Signal cycle lengths were obtained through observation and the splits were optimized for each Scenario with TM VISTRO software. The complete LOS calculations, which include grades for individual movements, are included in the Appendix. calculations in the Appendix (for the existing scenarios and all scenarios) show existing storage lengths and vehicle queuing lev The study intersections operate acceptably at LOS C or better with a movements operating at LOS D or better. 1 Table 3.1 Existing Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS) IntersectionA.M. Peak P.M. Peak E River Rd/I-694 Northern Ramps B (d) B (d) E River Rd/I-694 Southern Ramps C (d) B (d) st E River Rd/51 Way NE A (d) A (d) st 51 Way NE/Drive 1/E River Rd Service Rd A (a) A (a) E River Rd/Driveway 4 A (b) A (c) E River Rd/Driveway 3 A (b) A (c) E River Rd/Driveway 2 A (b) A (c) E River Rd/Driveway 1 A (b) A (c) th E River Rd/44 Ave NE B (c) B (d) th E River Rd/37 Ave NE B (d) C (d) 1 The first letter is the Level of Service for the intersection. (in parentheses) is the Level of Service for the worst operating 4.Projected Traffic a. Site Traffic Forecasting A trip generation analysis was performed for Scenarios A and B b th the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9 Edition. The resultant trip generation is shown in Tables 4.1 & 4.2. The trip distribution patterns shown in Figure 4.1 are based on collected turning movement counts as well as taking into account access and access to the regional transportation system. The traffic generated by the site development was assigned to the area roadw per these distribution patterns. The traffic volumes added to t roadways through this process are shown in the Appendix. It is n the East River Road & Driveway 2 intersection is proposed to be part of the development. b.Non-site Traffic Forecasting Traffic forecasts were developed for the year 2032 No-Build Scenario by applying a 1.7% compounded annual growth rate to the existing tr volume data. This growth rate is based on the 20 year growth ra or projections. This growth rate is likely high, but represents a conservative analysis. Th peak hour forecasts are shown in the Appendix. c. Total Traffic Traffic forecasts were developed for the year 2032 Build Scenarios by adding the traffic generated by the proposed development to the 2032 No- Build volumes and subtracting out traffic currently entering and site. The resultant 2032 Build peak hour forecasts are shown in the Appendix. Figure 4.1 Trip Distribution North No Scale 10% 35% 35% Industrial Park Site 5% 5% 10% 5.Traffic and Improvement Analysis a. Level of Service Analysis The LOS results for the 2032 Scenario study hours are shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. These are based on the existing traffic control an configurations as shown in Figure 3.1 for the existing intersect the 2032 Build Scenarios, two additional driveways to the site a st proposed on 51 Way NE east of the existing driveway. These two new intersections were modeled as single lane intersections with sto st the driveways and free movements on 51 Way NE. Additionally, the current East River Road/Driveway 2 intersection is proposed to b removed in the 2032 Build Scenarios. The forecast turning movement volumes from the Appendix were use TM the LOS calculations. The LOS calculations were done using VIST software. It is assumed the county will update the signal timin along East River Road before 2032, so optimized signal timing pl developed for each scenario. The optimization process was done TM different ways using VISTRO software. For each optimization process the splits and cycles were optimized with the cycles being betwe 180 seconds (chosen in five second increments). The first optim process involved finding the lowest overall intersection delay w second process minimized the critical movement delay. The optim process that yielded better results was chosen for each intersec each Scenario. The complete LOS calculations, which include gra individual movements, are included in the Appendix. 1 Table 5.1 AM Peak Hour 2032 Level of Service (LOS) Build Build IntersectionNo-BuildScenario Scenario AB E River Rd/I-694 Northern Ramps F (f) C (d) D (e) E River Rd/I-694 Southern Ramps EF (e) (f) C (d) st E River Rd/51 Way NE A (d) A (d) B (d) st 51 Way NE/Drive 1/E River Rd Service Rd A (a) A (a) B (b) E River Rd/Driveway 4 F (f) A (c) A (f) E River Rd/Driveway 3 A (c) A (d) A (d) E River Rd/Driveway 2 A (c) n/a n/a E River Rd/Driveway 1 A (c) A (c) A (d) th E River Rd/44 Ave NE C (c) C (c) C (c) th E River Rd/37 Ave NE B (d) B (d) B (d) st 51 Way NE/Driveway 2 n/a A (a) A (b) st 51 Way NE/Driveway 3 n/a A (a) A (a) 1 The first letter is the Level of Service for the intersection. (in parentheses) is the Level of Service for the worst operating 1 Table 5.2 PM Peak Hour 2032 Level of Service (LOS) Build Build IntersectionNo-BuildScenario Scenario AB E River Rd/I-694 Northern Ramps C (d) D (e) D (f) E River Rd/I-694 Southern Ramps E (f) C (d) D (e) st E River Rd/51 Way NE B (d) B (d) D (e) st 51 Way NE/Drive 1/E River Rd Service Rd A (a) A (a) B (b) E River Rd/Driveway 4 FF (f) (f) A (e) E River Rd/Driveway 3 A (d) A (f) A (f) E River Rd/Driveway 2 A (d) n/a n/a E River Rd/Driveway 1 A (e) A (e) A (f) th E River Rd/44 Ave NE B (d) B (d) B (d) th E River Rd/37 Ave NE C (c) C (c) C (c) st 51 Way NE/Driveway 2 n/a A (a) A (b) st 51 Way NE/Driveway 3 n/a A (a) A (a) 1 The first letter is the Level of Service for the intersection. (in parentheses) is the Level of Service for the worst operating As shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, the study intersections will all acceptably at LOS C or better through both No-Build Scenarios. However, a few intersections in the Build Scenarios will operate unaccept This means that the development will be the cause for some intersecti operating at unacceptable levels. In Scenario A, the East River Road & I-694 Southern Ramp interse forecast to operate unacceptably in the a.m. peak period and the River Road & Driveway 4 intersection is forecast to operate unac in the p.m. peak period. Scenario B is forecasted to generate s more traffic than Scenario A, which results in worse traffic ope addition to the two intersections operating unacceptably in Scen East River Road & I-694 Northern Ramp intersection will operate unacceptably. b. Improvement Analyses To alleviate the unacceptable operations described above, multip improvement scenarios were tested. The first, minimalist improv tested are: Add a second westbound left turn lane to the East River Road/I-694 Northern Ramps intersection. Add a second westbound left turn lane to the East River Road/I- Northern Ramps intersection. Add traffic signal control to the East River Road/Driveway 4 intersection. TM Level of Service analyses were performed using VISTRO software for the scenarios/intersections identified as having unacceptable op These results can be seen in Table 5.3 and the complete LOS calculations, which include grades for individual movements, are in the Appendix. Table 5.3 2032 Build Improvements AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour Intersection Scen.AScen.BScen.AScen.B E River Rd/I-694 Northern Ramps n/a D (e) n/a D (d) E River Rd/I-694 Southern Ramps C (c) E (e) n/a C (d) E River Rd/Driveway 4 n/a B (c) B (d) D (f) As shown in Table 5.3, the improvements largely mitigate the poo operations forecasted. However, adding the dual lefts to the of ramp at the East River Road & I-694 Southern Ramps intersection results in unacceptable operations in the 2032 a.m. peak hour fo Scenario B. Further testing was done with this intersection. Adding a secon southbound left turn lane did not change the overall LOS result intersection. However, adding an additional through lane on bote northbound and southbound approaches did lower the overall inter to LOS C. So mitigating the East River Road & I-694 Southern Ramps intersection in the Scenario B 2032 a.m. peak hour requires rebu East River Road & I-694 interchange. Because the mitigation efforts are significant and the timing of complete development (nor its exact mix of uses) are not known a time, it would be prudent to build the improvements when they ar needed versus building them now. Therefore, sensitivity analyse performed to determine when the improvements identified above wo actually be needed. The a.m. and p.m. Scenario A Build peak hours were analyzed by i the development traffic generation and performing Level of Servi TM analyses with VISTRO. It was found the East River Road/I-694 Southern Ramp intersection will operate acceptably at LOS D with 85% of Scenario A in full operation. The East River Road/Drivew intersection will operate acceptably at LOS D with up to 80% of A in full operation. At 80% of development (1.25 million square feet), Scenario A wil approximately 8,500 vehicles per day without needing transportat improvements. Scenario B is assumed to have more intense traffic generating uses within its 1.8 million square feet. Scenario B wi the 8,500 daily trips per day (the break point when mitigation s considered) when it is approximately 50% developed (920,000 squa feet). Taking this analysis into consideration, it is recommended no improvements be made to any of the study intersections at this t However, traffic counts and analysis should be done at the East Road/I-694 Northern Ramps, East River Road/I-694 Southern Ramps East River Road/Driveway 4 intersections after the development i partially occupied. If development Scenario A is chosen to be b analysis should be when the development is 65% complete and occu If development Scenario B is chosen, this analysis should be whe development is 40% complete and occupied. These thresholds prov margin of safety to analyze, design, and build the mitigation me before significant congestion would occur. c. Daily Traffic Volumes Existing average daily traffic volumes were taken from multiple segments near the site. These volumes were then forecast for th32 No-Build and Build (Scenarios A & B) Scenarios as shown in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 also shows estimated capacity volumes based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2010. As shown in Table 5.4, Interstate 694 is currently at capacity. The table shows the daily forecasts based on applying the background growt to the existing volumes. This methodology is appropriate when c available along a given corridor, but is not realistic along cor already at capacity. It is expected the daily volumes on I-694 at capacity with or without completion of the proposed developme The functionality of an interstate is beyond the scope of study for development and is a regional issue. The forecasts also show East River Road near the interchange wil near or above capacity in the 2032 build-out scenarios. As part of future improvement analyses recommended in the last section, the corridor should be examined in the future for possible capacity improvements. The corridors adjacent to the proposed site are forecast to operate acceptably and extra public right-of-way to add through lanes will not be needed. Table 5.4 - Daily Traffic Volumes Daily Volumes Site 2032Site 2032 Road 2032Volume Build-Volume Build - + NameSegment LocationCapacityExistingNo-Build-AA-BB 125,400 I-694 West of E River Rd 155,000* 232,100 3,750 235,850 5,950 238,050 145,000 125,400 I-694 East of E River Rd 152,000* 227,600 3,750 231,350 5,950 233,550 145,000 E River 25,900 North of I-694 17,800** 26,200 1,050 27,250 1,700 27,900 Rd 31,300 E River South of I-694, 25,900 16,700** 24,600 8,550 33,150 13,550 38,150 st Rd North of 51 Way NE 31,300 E River South of Driveway 1, 25,900 11,000** 16,200 2,150 18,350 3,400 19,600 th Rd North of 44 Ave NE 31,300 th E River South of 44 Ave NE, 25,900 13,200** 19,450 2,150 21,600 3,400 22,850 th Rd North of 37 Ave NE 31,300 E River 25,900 th South of 37 Ave NE 6,400*** 8,950 1,050 10,000 1,700 10,650 Rd 31,300 st 51 12,700 East of Driveway 1 2,550** 3,750 1,600 5,350 2,550 6,300 Way NE 16,400 th 44 Ave 12,700 East of E River Rd 5,300** 7,800 550 8,350 850 8,650 NE 16,400 th 37 Ave 25,900 West of E River Rd 5,500*** 7,700 550 8,250 850 8,550 NE 31,300 All Volumes Rounded to Nearest 50 + LOS D to E Range for Urban Streets Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010 * 2008 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes - Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation Municipality Volume Maps ** 2009 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes - Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation Municipality Volume Maps *** 2012 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes - Source: City of Minneapolis Traffic Count Database System 6.Conclusions and Recommendations Most of the public intersections and the proposed driveways stud acceptably through the 2032 Build scenarios. However, a few of intersections are forecasted to operate unacceptably. For the s to operate acceptably at Level of Service D or better in the 203 Scenario A, the following improvements will need to be made: Add a second westbound left turn lane to the East River Road/I-694 Northern Ramps intersection. Add traffic signal control to the East River Road/Driveway 4 in For the study intersections to operate acceptably at Level of Se in the 2032 build-out for Scenario B, the following improvements made: Add a second westbound left turn lane to the East River Road/I-694 Northern Ramps intersection. Add a second westbound left turn lane to the East River Road/I-694 Northern Ramps intersection. Upgrade East River Road to a six lane divided roadway through t interchange at I-694. Add traffic signal control to the East River Road/Driveway 4 in The development is expected to be built in phases, so iterative analyses were performed to determine when the above improvements needed. Transportation improvements will be needed after Scenar complete or Scenario B is 50% complete. Based on the analyses contained in this study, it is recommended: Each exiting driveway from the site onto East River Road have a outbound left and right turn lane with the exiting driveways bei controlled. No improvements be built for the first phase of development. I development plan from Scenario A is built, the East River Road intersections at Driveway 4 and the I-694 Southern Ramps should studied for potential improvements after the development is 65% occupied. If the development plan from Scenario B is built, the Road intersections at Driveway 4, the I-694 Southern Ramps, and 694 Northern Ramps should be studied for potential improvements the development is 40% occupied. Public right-of-way should be secured through the platting process at the East River Road/Driveway 4 intersection to ensure a traffic sign built there in the future. 7.Appendix A. Traffic Volumes B. Traffic Counts C. Capacity Analysis Backup Intersection Key 1 North No Scale Interstate694 2 4 11 12 3 51st Way NE 5 Driveway 4 6 7 8 9 10 37th Ave NE 694 Northern Exit OutInTotal 6106 2831 8937 328 276 604 6434 3107 9541 1230 0 1598 3 51 2 221 2 1281 2 1819 5 RightThruLeftPeds LeftThruRightPeds 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 TotalInOut 694 Southern Exit OutInTotal 3228 4234 7462 313 367 680 3541 4601 8142 2467 0 1761 6 94 0 268 5 2561 0 2029 11 RightThruLeftPeds LeftThruRightPeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TotalInOut 51st Way OutInTotal 699 843 1542 127 136 263 826 979 1805 671 8 161 3 112 0 24 0 783 8 185 3 RightThruLeftPeds LeftThruRightPeds 83 12 135 1 0 0 2 1 83 12 133 0 342 231 111 4 3 1 338 228 110 TotalInOut 51st Way 37th Ave N OutInTotal 152 173 325 66 61 127 218 234 452 118 27 26 2 47 11 3 0 165 38 29 2 RightThruLeftPeds LeftThruRightPeds 1772 52 218 5 66 16 72 0 1706 36 146 5 4248 2047 2201 305 154 151 3943 1893 2050 TotalInOut 37th Ave N Driveway 1 OutInTotal 7 6 13 2 0 2 9 6 15 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 RightThruLeftPeds LeftThruRightPeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TotalInOut Driveway 2 OutInTotal 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 RightThruLeftPeds LeftThruRightPeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TotalInOut Driveway 3 OutInTotal 26 34 60 0 5 5 26 39 65 30 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 34 0 5 0 RightThruLeftPeds LeftThruRightPeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TotalInOut Driveway 4 OutInTotal 52 63 115 1 1 2 53 64 117 59 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 59 0 5 0 RightThruLeftPeds LeftThruRightPeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TotalInOut 51st Way OutInTotal 41 61 102 13 13 26 54 74 128 2 59 0 0 0 13 0 0 2 72 0 0 RightThruLeftPeds LeftThruRightPeds 6 47 108 0 1 8 2 0 5 39 106 0 381 161 220 32 11 21 349 150 199 TotalInOut 51st Way 44th Ave Bridge OutInTotal 473 658 1131 27 33 60 500 691 1191 121 19 518 0 16 0 17 0 137 19 535 0 RightThruLeftPeds LeftThruRightPeds 4 4 11 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 10 0 77 19 58 1 1 0 76 18 58 TotalInOut NEBT31.3 SBL33.1 34.3 31.8 330.8 49.5 7.7 SBL42.0D 9215.8 830.5 7 820.7 2346.2 E730.7 C APPENDIX public comment period for the AUAR scoping document. Benjamin Gozola From:Hickok, Scott <HickokS@ci.fridley.mn.us> Friday, January 11, 2013 3:41 PM Sent: To:Jenny Petersen Cc:Mark Anderson; Brad Wilkening; Paul Hyde Hyde Dev; raime@hyde-dev.com; Benjamin Gozola; Bolin, Paul; Jones, Julie; Stromberg, Stacy RE: FMC Site Redevelopment Public Comment Submission Subject: ThankyouforyourcommentsMs.Petersen,Iwillmakethempartoftherecordforconsideration.Thankyouagainfor attendingourmeetingaswell. Scott Scott J. Hickok, AICP CommunityDevelopmentDirector CityofFridley 6431UniversityAvenueNE Fridley,MN55432 PH:7635723590 FAX:7635711287 From: Jenny Petersen [mailto:jennylpetersen@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 1:57 PM To: Hickok, Scott Subject: FMC Site Redevelopment Public Comment Submission Dear Mr. Hickok: I am writing to submit my public comments with respect to the proposed FMC site redevelopment. I attended the public meeting on January 9, 2013, at City Hall. I have many concerns related to this project, and I will provide more information about those concerns as follows: Concrete Re-Use It was explained at the meeting on January 9, 2013, that the concrete from the existing building was going to be crushed on-site and re-used as a sublayer under any new structures on the property. The concern that I have about this is that concrete is very porous. There were many chemicals used in that building, including TCE, for many, many years, and those chemicals would most certainly have been spilled on the concrete floor inside of the building. Over the many years that this occurred, this would result in a substantial amount of chemicals which would have seeped into the concrete of the building. These hazardous chemicals were clearly absorbed into the concrete and now the plan is to crush up that concrete and re-use it again on site. Essentially what this is doing is putting these chemicals back onto the property, where many, many people will be exposed to them everyday. I believe this is a health hazard which needs to be avoided. 1 Existing Land This proposed project is a very large undertaking and will involve extensive construction. My fear is that there are many chemicals (and some pools of chemicals in untouched portions of the land) in the ground which have been undisturbed for a lot of years. With this construction and land excavation, I am fearful that these chemicals will be "churned up", for lack of a better word, and the hazards will again pose problems as people are exposed to them. Another problem is that TCE, for example, when broken down, becomes vinyl chloride. There is a very good chance that large amounts of TCE/vinyl chloride will be found in the ground, and as you know, vinyl chloride is a very toxic substance. I am fearful that any workers who are exposed to this while working could suffer very serious health effects. FMC Portion The southern "FMC" portion of the land that is not being developed is not being used because, to put it simply, it is just too polluted and it is unusable. I have significant concerns about putting buildings and people right next to this contaminated land, where there is still treatment going on for the pollution in the ground. I feel that the workers and individuals who repeatedly and consistently go to this property will suffer health effects down the road from that exposure. I am always happy when improvements can be made to land that is otherwise deemed useless. I think redevelopment can be a very good thing, but I also think that much more attention needs to be brought to this site and more things need to be taken into consideration before any redevelopment occurs. I would like nothing more than to see this land cleaned up and used, but it seems as though not enough thought has been put into these issues. If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss this any further with me, please feel free to contact me. My contact information is below. Thank you for your time and attention to this issue. Jenny Petersen 5480 Altura Road NE Fridley, MN 55421 (763) 502-9566 home (612) 483-3373 cell jennylpetersen@yahoo.com e-mail 2 Benjamin Gozola From:Hickok, Scott <HickokS@ci.fridley.mn.us> Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:05 AM Sent: To:Bolin, Paul; Paul Hyde; sara.peterson@parkwaylaw.com; Mark Anderson; Benjamin Gozola; cthompson@braunintertec.com; Brad Wilkening; Kosluchar, Jim Cc:Jones, Julie; Stromberg, Stacy; Qualley, Kay CITIZEN COMMENT: KEVIN PIERSON (FW: Draft Alternative Urban Area-wide Review Subject: (AUAR) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Scoping Document Comment) Follow up Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:Completed Categories:Green Category CL From: Kevin Pierson [mailto:kevin.pierson1@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 8:24 AM To: Hickok, Scott Subject: Draft Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Scoping Document Comment Hi Scott, Upon review of the Draft Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Scoping Document I did not see a comprehensive map of all soil areas that have been assess showing soil detections that exceed he MPCA SRVs and SLVs. Have the soils beneath the buildings been adequately assessed? Understanding the soil impacts will help to identify potential concerns that may be encountered during site redevelopment. Has a site-wide soil gas survey been considered to identify potential unknown hot spots? Sincerely, -- Kevin Pierson 118 3rd Ave NE Minneapolis, MN 55413 w. 612-354-2640 c. 612-281-6876 1 Protecting, maintaining and improving the health of all Minnesotans January 23, 2013 Scott J. Hickok, AICP Community Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr.Hickok, Thank you for providing the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) with the opportunity to comment on the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (SEAW) for the proposed Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the FMC Site Redevelopment project. Hazardous Materials The AUAR should: listall hazardous materials and contaminants on site from historic andproposed activities, include amap illustratingthe extent and magnitudeof groundwater contamination, both on and off site, characterize all current remedial effortsand estimateoperation timefor remedial systems, address how the proposed development couldinterferewith ongoing and future remedial efforts, discussthe closed landfill adjacent to the site(Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)permitrecently re-issued), and discussthe potential exposures to hazardous materials and contamination onsite for future site users(e.g., soil vapor migration). Asbestos abatement activities must be completed in compliance with the Minnesota Asbestos Abatement Act, described in Minnesota Statutes,Sections326.70 to 326.81and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4620.3000 to 4620.3724.For additional information, contact MDH staff at (651) 201-4620 or health.asbestos-lead@state.mn.us. Well Construction New wells that are constructed in Minnesota must be constructed according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103I, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725.Abandoned wells will need to be properlysealed. Additional information is available at Well Constructionand Well Sealing.MDH staff are also available to provide information and resources. General Information: 651-201-5000 •Toll-free: 888-345-0823 •TTY: 651-201-5797• www.health.state.mn.us An equal opportunity employer Impervious Surfaces Stormwater runoff picks up and carries with it many different pollutants that are found on paved surfaces such as sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria, oil, grease, trash, pesticides and metals. Reducing stormwater runoff helps prevent contaminated runoff from entering streams, lakes and other water bodies, which may be used for recreational purposes or drinking water. Waterborne illnesses from recreational swimming and drinking water are associated with runoff. An increase in impervious surfaces also hasbeen shown to lead to higher flood peaks.The AUAR should describe the stormwater management practices proposed for the project during both construction and operation phases. Flooding Future climate conditions are anticipated to result in increased frequency and intensity of floods. Construction within designated floodplains can reduce the effectiveness of these areas in containing flood water. Additionally, people living in floodplain areas will be at increased risk for flood-related human health impacts, such as injuries, drowning, and other health issues. Although the project site is not within a 100 year flood zone, the vicinity to the Mississippi River could make it susceptible to flood events. The project should also consider whether stormwater pipes designed for larger storm eventswould be appropriate. Physical Activity Encouraging physical activity by providing parks, recreational facilities, and trails can be an effective strategy to improve the public’s health by providing areas for increasing physical activity and improving mental health. The project site is adjacent to the Anoka County Riverfront Islands of Peace Regional Park with walking/biking trails that connect to the greater Fridley trail system. Future development should consider bicycle and pedestrian trail connections/accessibility so that future users of the site would have safe and convenient access to these facilities. Health starts where we live, learn, work, and play. Tocreate and maintain healthy Minnesota communities, we have to think in terms of health in all policies. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on this EAW.Feel free to contact me at (651) 201-4927 or michele.ross@state.mn.usif you have any questions. Sincerely, Michele Ross Environmental Review and Program Coordinator Environmental Health Division Minnesota Department of Health PO Box 64975 Saint Paul, MN 55164-0975 Benjamin Gozola From:Hickok, Scott <HickokS@ci.fridley.mn.us> Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:26 PM Sent: To:Bolin, Paul; Paul Hyde; sara.peterson@parkwaylaw.com; Mark Anderson; Benjamin Gozola; cthompson@braunintertec.com; Brad Wilkening; Kosluchar, Jim Cc:Jones, Julie; Stromberg, Stacy; Qualley, Kay FW: FMC Site Redevelopment Scoping AUAR - DNR Comments Subject: Attachments:Wildlife Friendly erosion control.pdf FYI From: Doperalski, Melissa (DNR) [mailto:melissa.doperalski@state.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:13 PM To: Hickok, Scott Cc: Drewry, Kate (DNR); Smith, Christopher E (DNR); Haworth, Brooke (DNR) Subject: Re: FMC Site Redevelopment Scoping AUAR - DNR Comments Mr.Hickok, TheDepartmentofNaturalResources(DNR)hasreviewedtheEAWScopingdocumentfortheproposedAUARforthe FMCSitelocatedintheCityofFridley,AnokaCounty.InadditiontotheproposeditemsforAUARdiscussion,please considerthefollowingcommentsand/orsuggestions. PleasenotetheDNRwasincorrectlyidentifiedasthestatedepartmentresponsiblefortheWellConstructionPermit. ThecorrectstatedepartmentresponsibleforwellpermittingistheMinnesotaDepartmentofHealth.Ifwellusemay exceed10,000gallonsofwaterperdayor1milliongallonsperyearaDNRwateruseappropriationpermitwillbe required.TheDNRencouragescoordinationpriortoconstructionofthewelltodiscusswellusageandtohelpdetermine theappropriateplacementofthewell.TheDNRAreaHydrologistforthisareaisKateDrewry.Shecanbereachedat phonenumber6512595753orbyemailatkate.drewry@state.mn.us. TheDNRencouragestheinclusionanduseofwildlifefriendlyerosioncontrolmeshasneededduringconstructionand vegetationreestablishment.Thematerialshouldnotbeconsideredtobe{¦w·|biodegradableasthesetypesofmesh arenotconsideredtobewildlifefriendly.ADNRflyerisattachedforyourreference. Theprojectislocatedon/neartheformer{C©z7;ä5Ò;|site.Asitethathadlocalhabitatsignificance.TheDNR encouragesprojectproposerstoconsidertheformerlandcoverforthissiteinplanning,bothforsitelayoutand vegetationplanning.TheDNRwouldencouragearedevelopmentplanthatwouldmaximizeopenspace.Theopenspace shouldbeplantedwithnativeprairievegetationthatcomesfromalocalseedsource. Asthesitehasremainedinactiveforsometime,itispossiblethatlocalwildlifemaybeutilizingthestructures.Thiscould includestatelistedspecies,batsormigratorybirdspeciesthatareprotectedundertheMigratoryBirdAct.Thepresence ofthesespeciesmayneedtobedeterminedpriortodemolitionactivities.Pleasenotethatitisillegaltoremoveor destroyamigratorybirdnestthatisconsideredactive. ThankyouforopportunitytoreviewtheAUARscopingdocument.Pleasefeelfreetocontactmewithanyquestions. Melissa 1 Melissa Doperalski Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Department of Natural Resources, Central Region 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106 651.259.5738 melissa.doperalski@state.mn.us 2 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 January 24, 2013 Scott Hichok Community Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 SUBJECT:FMC Site Redevelopment AUAR, MnDOT Review #AUAR13-001 East side of E. River Rd. (CSAH 1), south of I-694 Fridley,Anoka County Control Section 0285 Dear Mr. Hickok: Thank you for the opportunity to review the AUAR for the FMC SiteRedevelopment.Please note that MnDOT's review of this AUAR does not constitute approval of a regional traffic analysis and is not a specific approval for access or new roadway improvements.When the detailed plans are developed,the traffic analysis should reflect the proposed development. MnDOT would also like the opportunity to review any updated information, as well as meet with the City and developer to discusstraffic issues. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT’s goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. 1.One (1) electronic pdfversion of the plans.MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us provided that each separate e-mail is less than 20 megabytes. 2.Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: MnDOT –Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3.One (1) compact disk or other data storage device. 4.Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT’s External FTP Site.Send files to: ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdge/PlanningInternet Explorer does notwork using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer).Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.usindicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel freeto contact me at 651-234-7789. Sincerely, Molly McCartney Senior Transportation Planner Copy sent via E-Mail: Buck Craig, Permits Gayle Gedstad, Traffic Nancy Jacobson, Design Bruce Irish, Water Resources Steve Channer, Right-of-Way Paul Jung, Area Engineer Tod Sherman, Planning Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council Benjamin Gozola From:Hickok, Scott <HickokS@ci.fridley.mn.us> Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:21 AM Sent: To:Bolin, Paul; Paul Hyde; sara.peterson@parkwaylaw.com; Mark Anderson; Benjamin Gozola; cthompson@braunintertec.com; Brad Wilkening; Kosluchar, Jim Cc:Jones, Julie; Stromberg, Stacy; Qualley, Kay FW: Traffic Study Scope - BAE Redevelopment in Fridley Subject: FYI From: Kosluchar, Jim Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:15 AM To: Hickok, Scott Subject: FW: Traffic Study Scope - BAE Redevelopment in Fridley Scott: Here are Anoka County Comments on the AUAR scoping document. I will ask that Gayle Gedstad provide comments on the scoping by the end of today’s deadline. James Kosluchar Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. NE Fridley, MN 55432 (763) 572-3552 (763) 571-1287 fax koslucharj@ci.fridley.mn.us From: Jane Rose [mailto:Jane.Rose@co.anoka.mn.us] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 5:28 PM To: Mike Spack (mspack@spackconsulting.com) Cc: Kosluchar, Jim; Matthew Parent; Gedstad, Gayle (DOT) (Gayle.Gedstad@state.mn.us); Randy Bettinger; Josie Scott; Andrew Witter; Brett Voth; Jason Orcutt Subject: FW: Traffic Study Scope - BAE Redevelopment in Fridley HiMike IreviewedthiswithDougFischer,andsinceitisanAUAR,hewouldlikeourPlanningsectiontobethepointpeoplefor thisproject,soyoushouldaddressallitemstoMattParent(cc:dabove). MnDOToperatesthesignalsonERRandtheI694ramps,sotheywillneedtobeinvolvedalso.I'mnotsurewhothey willhaveastheirmaincontact,butIhavecc:dGayleGedstadonthissoheisapprisedandcanadvise.Theexisting signalsatERR/GeorgetownApartments,ERR/51stWay,ERR/4800MarshallSt,andERR/CSAH2/42ndAveareoperated byACHDandarenotinterconnectedtoeachotherortotheI694MnDOTsignals. AlongwithallofthestandardtrafficstudyitemsrequiredinanAUAR,wewouldbealsospecificallylookingfor informationrelatingtotheQueueLengthsvs.AvailableStorageforalllanesofapproachateachsignalizedorother majorand/orimpactedintersectionfortheopeningdayandfulldevelopmentscenarios. Welookforwardtoworkingwithyouonthisproject.Thanksandhaveagreatweekend, Jane 1 From: Mike Spack [mailto:mspack@spackconsulting.com] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 4:02 PM To: Jane Rose; koslucharj@ci.fridley.mn.us Cc: 'Mark Anderson' Subject: Traffic Study Scope - BAE Redevelopment in Fridley HiJaneandJim, LxÝ;beenbroughtonboardtopreparetrafficanalysesforaproposedredevelopmentinFridley.Lxsendingyouthis emailtoconfirmthescopeofthetrafficstudy.Lxhopingyoucangetbacktomebytheendoftheweek. RealEstateRecyclingisproposingtoredeveloptheBAESystemssitealongEastRiverRoadsouthofI694(seemap below).Thesiteisproposedtobedevelopedlargelyasoffice/warehouse/showroomuses.AnAUARwillbeprepared, sowearestudyingtwopotentialconceptplans(bothattached).Themoreintenseplanhasapproximately1.8million squarefeetwiththelessintenseonebeingat1.6million.Theproposedsitewilllargelyusetheexistingsiteaccess st points(onelessonCSAH1/EastRiverRoad)andafewmoredrivewayson51Way.Weanticipatethemostintense landuseplangeneratingabout16,800dailytripsand2,200peakhourtrips. Weplanonpreparingweekday,a.m.peakhour,andp.m.peakhouranalysesfortheexisting,2032nobuild,and2032 buildscenarios.WeplanonanalyzingallofthesitedrivewaysplusthefollowingintersectionsonEastRiverRoad:I694 st NBramp,I694SBramp,and51Way.;xfinalizethetripdistributionafterweconducttheexistingturning movementcounts,beÞ;x©;anticipatingabout90%willbedestinedto/fromthenorthonEastRiverRoadand10% to/fromthesouthonEastRiverRoad(wethinkalargeoffice/warehousecomplexherewillbelargelyorientedtoI 694).;xalsoaccountfortheexistinguseofthesitebydeductingouttheexistingtrafficbeinggenerated. Normally,Iwouldexpectalargertrafficstudyforthisscopeofdevelopment.ButinthisscenariowithEastRiverRoad beingafourlanedividedroad(existingADTof16,700,soincreasingupto35,000iswithinreason),asignalatthe{ z| intersection,andreplacingwhatusedtobealargeemployer,Ithinkwecangetbywithaslightlysmallerscope. Letmeknowifyouagreewiththisscope,wantthingschanged,orhaveanyquestions.Ourgoalistogetthefirstdraft ofthetrafficstudydoneearlyinJanuary,soaresponsethisweekisgreatlyappreciated. Mike 2 Clickhere to report this email as spam. NOTICE: Unless restricted by law, email correspondence to and from Anoka County government offices may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. 3