MnDOT Northfield Truck Station New Campus SDSB Project 19-04 Request for Proposals for Designer Selection MnDOT Building 91366

ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO PAGE - 1

ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO DATED October 25, 2019

Request for Proposals for Designer Selection MnDOT Northfield Truck Station New Campus

State Designer Selection Board Project 19-04 MnDOT Building Number 91366

1.1 NOTICE TO RESPONDERS

A. The date and time for receipt of Proposals is unchanged by this Addendum.

1.2 ATTACHMENTS

A. Wetland Review, MnDOT District 6 Northfield Truck Station in Rice County

1.3 REVISIONS TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

None

1.4 ANSWERS TO SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

A. Question: Will MnDOT’s Civil Engineering Consultant be responsible for completing the Site and Water sections of the Minnesota B3 Guidelines?

Answer: MnDOT and/or its Civil Engineering Consultant will complete the site portions of the Minnesota B3 Sustainable Guidelines that fall outside of the Truck Station Building, unless they apply to site amenities which fall under the responsibility of the Truck Station Building Design Consultant.

B. Question: The RFP requires mechanical engineering to include fire protection design. Is that full design of service mains, head, etc., or a performance specification by a mechanical engineer with a delegated design for the full fire protection system?

Answer: The Truck Station Building Design Consultant shall provide enough design information in the contract documents for the fire protection system that allows for an accurate and complete bid proposal from the installing contractor. It is recognized that design and regulatory approval of these type of systems is often delegated to the contractor responsible for installation.

C. Question: Clarify if the complete site will follow B3 guidelines of just the Truck Station Building. With B3 benchmarking many of the guidelines are directly related to site design.

Answer: The intent will be to apply Minnesota B3 Sustainable Guidelines to site development where applicable. See the response to Item 1.4.A above for additional information.

MnDOT Northfield Truck Station New Campus SDSB Project 19-04 Request for Proposals for Designer Selection MnDOT Building 91366

ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO PAGE - 2

D. Question: For coordination with the site design, is it acceptable to contact WSE Engineering for proposal efforts? If so is there a specific contact person for this project?

Answer: Per the original RFP the identified MnDOT Project Manager is the only person authorized to respond to questions regarding this project as part of the RFP process. No representatives of Respondents to this RFP shall have correspondence with any other member of the Requesting Agency, its local employees or other separately contracted consultants until after the completion of the Consultant Selection Process.

E. Question: Attachment F, Item 9.d of the original RFP document mentions a “Wetland Analysis”. Can this analysis be provided?

Answer: The “Wetland Review” as completed to-date by MnDOT’s Office of Environmental Stewardship is attached for reference.

END OF ADDENDUM TWO

District 6 Rochester

2900 48th St. NW Rochester, MN 55901

1

Memo To: David Schilling

Project Manager

From: Nathan Gregor Environmental Coordinator

Date: January 23, 2019

RE: Wetland Review, MnDOT District 6 Northfield Truck Station in Rice County

A review of the proposed location for the new MnDOT District 6 Truck Station and its possible impacts to wetlands has been completed. This project is to relocate and replace the existing Northfield Truck Station Campus on a new 8 acre site located at 2250 Honey Locust Road, in Rice County. The new campus will include a new truck station (4 door), unheated storage building, brine building, salt shelter with covered loading, covered storage bins, paved parking and circulation between the buildings and an unpaved storage yard.

Using the Corps of Engineers guidance in performing a Routine Level 1 Wetland Delineation, reviewing National Wetland Inventory maps, aerial photography and Natural Resources Conservation Service soil maps, it was determined that Wetland Conservation Act and Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands are located on the proposed construction site.

The Cannon River, a MnDNR Public Waters, is located adjacent to the back of the property. There is potentially a need for a MnDNR Public Water Work Permit if work extends to the the back of the site. The MnDNR will provide their comments directly regarding their permits and Waters of the State jurisdicational authority when they respond to this projects early notification memo.

Permit/Agency Jurisdiction Permit Needed Action Required

Local Watershed District N/A N/A Wetland Conservation Act, Local Government Unit (MnDOT is LGU) Potentially May qualify for de minimis rule if new fill impacts

below 2,000 sq ft

Public Waters Permit, MnDNR Potentially MnDNR responds directly to ENM/permit requirements

US ACOE Wetlands/Waters of US Potentially Environmental group to obtain, work requires use of TRGP

NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit, MPCA Yes Environmental group to obtain, soil disturbance over

1 acre (outside agency review not required)

This project will require a more detailed level 1 delineation, field review, be performed during the growing season of 2019. If changes are made to the proposed construction plans or if you have questions please feel free to contact me.

Hyd

ric R

atin

g by

Map

Uni

t—R

ice

Cou

nty,

Min

neso

ta(N

orth

field

truc

k st

atio

n S

oils

)

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

esC

onse

rvat

ion

Serv

ice

Web

Soi

l Sur

vey

Nat

iona

l Coo

pera

tive

Soi

l Sur

vey

10/8

/201

8P

age

1 of

5

492021049202804920350492042049204904920560

492021049202804920350492042049204904920560

4844

9048

4560

4846

3048

4700

4847

7048

4840

4849

1048

4980

4850

5048

5120

4844

9048

4560

4846

3048

4700

4847

7048

4840

4849

1048

4980

4850

5048

5120

44° 2

6' 1

8'' N

93° 11' 42'' W44

° 2

6' 1

8'' N

93° 11' 12'' W

44° 2

6' 4

'' N

93° 11' 42'' W

44° 2

6' 4

'' N

93° 11' 12'' W

N

Map

pro

ject

ion:

Web

Mer

cato

r C

orne

r coo

rdin

ates

: WGS

84

Edge

tics

: UTM

Zon

e 15

N W

GS84

010

020

040

060

0Feet

040

8016

024

0Met

ers

Map

Sca

le: 1

:2,9

80 if p

rinte

d on

A la

ndsc

ape

(11"

x 8

.5")

shee

t.

Soi

l Map

may

not

be

valid

at

this

sca

le.

MA

P LE

GEN

DM

AP

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

Are

a of

Inte

rest

(AO

I)A

rea

of In

tere

st (A

OI)

Soils So

il R

atin

g Po

lygo

nsH

ydric

(100

%)

Hyd

ric (6

6 to

99%

)

Hyd

ric (3

3 to

65%

)

Hyd

ric (1

to 3

2%)

Not

Hyd

ric (0

%)

Not

rate

d or

not

ava

ilabl

e

Soil

Rat

ing

Line

sH

ydric

(100

%)

Hyd

ric (6

6 to

99%

)

Hyd

ric (3

3 to

65%

)

Hyd

ric (1

to 3

2%)

Not

Hyd

ric (0

%)

Not

rate

d or

not

ava

ilabl

e

Soil

Rat

ing

Poin

tsH

ydric

(100

%)

Hyd

ric (6

6 to

99%

)

Hyd

ric (3

3 to

65%

)

Hyd

ric (1

to 3

2%)

Not

Hyd

ric (0

%)

Not

rate

d or

not

ava

ilabl

e

Wat

er F

eatu

res

Stre

ams

and

Can

als

Tran

spor

tatio

nR

ails

Inte

rsta

te H

ighw

ays

US

Rou

tes

Maj

or R

oads

Loca

l Roa

ds

Bac

kgro

und A

eria

l Pho

togr

aphy

The

soil

surv

eys

that

com

pris

e yo

ur A

OI w

ere

map

ped

at

1:12

,000

.

War

ning

: Soi

l Map

may

not

be

valid

at t

his

scal

e.

Enl

arge

men

t of m

aps

beyo

nd th

e sc

ale

of m

appi

ng c

an c

ause

m

isun

ders

tand

ing

of th

e de

tail

of m

appi

ng a

nd a

ccur

acy

of s

oil

line

plac

emen

t. Th

e m

aps

do n

ot s

how

the

smal

l are

as o

f co

ntra

stin

g so

ils th

at c

ould

hav

e be

en s

how

n at

a m

ore

deta

iled

scal

e.

Ple

ase

rely

on

the

bar s

cale

on

each

map

she

et fo

r map

m

easu

rem

ents

.

Sou

rce

of M

ap:

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es C

onse

rvat

ion

Ser

vice

Web

Soi

l Sur

vey

UR

L:

Coo

rdin

ate

Sys

tem

: W

eb M

erca

tor (

EP

SG

:385

7)

Map

s fro

m th

e W

eb S

oil S

urve

y ar

e ba

sed

on th

e W

eb M

erca

tor

proj

ectio

n, w

hich

pre

serv

es d

irect

ion

and

shap

e bu

t dis

torts

di

stan

ce a

nd a

rea.

A p

roje

ctio

n th

at p

rese

rves

are

a, s

uch

as th

e A

lber

s eq

ual-a

rea

coni

c pr

ojec

tion,

sho

uld

be u

sed

if m

ore

accu

rate

cal

cula

tions

of d

ista

nce

or a

rea

are

requ

ired.

This

pro

duct

is g

ener

ated

from

the

US

DA

-NR

CS

cer

tifie

d da

ta a

s of

the

vers

ion

date

(s) l

iste

d be

low

.

Soi

l Sur

vey

Are

a:

Ric

e C

ount

y, M

inne

sota

Sur

vey

Are

a D

ata:

Ve

rsio

n 13

, Sep

12,

201

8

Soi

l map

uni

ts a

re la

bele

d (a

s sp

ace

allo

ws)

for m

ap s

cale

s 1:

50,0

00 o

r lar

ger.

Dat

e(s)

aer

ial i

mag

es w

ere

phot

ogra

phed

: Ju

l 1, 2

013—

Nov

15,

20

16

The

orth

opho

to o

r oth

er b

ase

map

on

whi

ch th

e so

il lin

es w

ere

com

pile

d an

d di

gitiz

ed p

roba

bly

diffe

rs fr

om th

e ba

ckgr

ound

im

ager

y di

spla

yed

on th

ese

map

s. A

s a

resu

lt, s

ome

min

or

shift

ing

of m

ap u

nit b

ound

arie

s m

ay b

e ev

iden

t.

Hyd

ric R

atin

g by

Map

Uni

t—R

ice

Cou

nty,

Min

neso

ta(N

orth

field

truc

k st

atio

n S

oils

)

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

esC

onse

rvat

ion

Serv

ice

Web

Soi

l Sur

vey

Nat

iona

l Coo

pera

tive

Soi

l Sur

vey

10/8

/201

8P

age

2 of

5

Hydric Rating by Map Unit

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

41A Estherville sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

0 4.2 9.2%

41B Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes

1 8.4 18.6%

81B Boone loamy fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes

0 1.3 2.9%

100A Copaston sandy clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

0 1.8 4.0%

377 Merton silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes

5 3.9 8.6%

392 Biscay clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

100 0.7 1.5%

408 Faxon clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

95 1.2 2.7%

411A Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

5 1.2 2.6%

875C Hawick-Estherville complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes

0 2.8 6.1%

1016 Udorthents, loamy (cut and fill land)

0 6.5 14.4%

1058 Muskego and Houghton soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes

100 2.5 5.5%

1360 Rushriver fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded

100 10.8 24.0%

Totals for Area of Interest 45.3 100.0%

Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Rice County, Minnesota Northfield truck station Soils

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

10/8/2018Page 3 of 5

Description

This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit.

The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components.

In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed.

Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation.

The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993).

If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006).

References:

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Rice County, Minnesota Northfield truck station Soils

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

10/8/2018Page 4 of 5

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18.

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436.

Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Rating Options

Aggregation Method: Percent Present

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Lower

Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Rice County, Minnesota Northfield truck station Soils

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

10/8/2018Page 5 of 5

From: Gregor, Nathan (DOT)To: Schilling, David (DOT)Cc: Kirsch, Steven (DOT); Langlie, Kristoffer (DOT); Kempinger, Michael (DOT)Subject: Wetlands Response TZ91366, RE: ENM - New Northfield Truck StationDate: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 11:56:15 AMAttachments: image001.png

Northfield Truck Station Wetland Aquatic Resource Response.pdf

Dave,Attached is a wetland response to your ENM for the Northfield truck station. A more detailed Level1 wetland delineation will be needed during the 2019 growing season. Is there a folder setup inProject Wise to store project documents? ThanksNathan Nathan Gregor M.S.MnDOT D6 Environmental Coordinator

2900 48th St. NWRochester, MN 55901(507) 286-7561

From: Schilling, David (DOT) Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 3:27 PMTo: Boock, Alyssa (DOT) <alyssa.boock@state.mn.us>; Allen-Murley, Summer (DOT)<summer.allen@state.mn.us>; Smith, Christopher E (DOT) <christopher.e.smith@state.mn.us>;'Kalar, Tara (DOT)' <Tara.Kalar@state.mn.us>; Markeson, Christina (DOT)<tina.markeson@state.mn.us>; Gregor, Nathan (DOT) <nathan.gregor@state.mn.us>; Langlie,Kristoffer (DOT) <kristoffer.langlie@state.mn.us>; Reider, Neile (DOT) <neile.reider@state.mn.us>;Myers, Jeffrey (DOT) <jeff.myers@state.mn.us>Subject: ENM - New Northfield Truck Station All Attached please find an ENM with attachments for the new Northfield Truck Station relocationproject. The existing Northfield Truck Station will be moving to a new facility to be constructed onthe recently purchased 8 acre site at 2250 Honey Locust Road in Northfield. The Land for the newsite was acquired in November 2018. A good deal of the preliminary site investigation wascompleted this summer by the State Archeologist’s consulatant and MnDOT’s OES Unit prior to thepurchase. However, we are under a time crunch to make sure design on the project can begin thisspring so the project can be let in spring of 2020. Please give this your immediate attention. Thanks for your help, Dave__________________________________

David Schilling AIA, Planning