dated october 25, 2019 request for proposals ... - dot.mn.gov · proposal from the installing...
TRANSCRIPT
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) <[email protected]>; Allen-Murley, Summer (DOT)<[email protected]>; Smith, Christopher E (DOT) <[email protected]>;'Kalar, Tara (DOT)' <[email protected]>; Markeson, Christina (DOT)<[email protected]>; Gregor, Nathan (DOT) <[email protected]>; Langlie,Kristoffer (DOT) <[email protected]>; Reider, Neile (DOT) <[email protected]>;Myers, Jeffrey (DOT) <[email protected]>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