Exhibit A – Scope of Work and DeliverablesExhibit A – Scope of Work and Deliverables . Page 4 of 66 . 17.2 Value Engineering Preferred Alternative Layout Revision 58 17.3 Value

MnDOT Contract No. 1029542

Exhibit A – Scope of Work and Deliverables

Page 1 of 66

1 General Statement of Scope of Work 5

2 Background 6

3 Contract Completion Timeline 6

4 Project Management, Coordination, and Meetings 6 4.1 Schedule 6 4.2 Monthly Progress Meetings 7 4.3 Project Instructions and Quality Assurance 7 4.4 Subcontractor Management and Oversight 7 4.5 Project Coordination with Stakeholders 7 4.6 Mobilize and Utilize Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) 7 4.7 Initial Project Coordination Meetings 7

5 Items provided by State 8

6 Conflict Scoping Process 8 6.1 Municipal Consent Package 10 6.2 FHWA Consent Letter or Equivalent 10 6.3 CSP Deliverables 10

6.3.1 Project Analysis 10 6.3.2 Stakeholder Identification 11 6.3.3 Conflict Identification 11 6.3.4 Mapping 11 6.3.5 Assessment 11 6.3.6 Strategy 12 6.3.7 Implementation and Management 12

6.3.7.1 Outreach Meetings 13 6.3.7.2 Noise Mitigation Meetings 13 6.3.7.3 Staff Advisory Committee Meetings 13 6.3.7.4 12th, Portland and Nicollet Avenue Access Consolidation Design Workshops 13 6.3.7.5 Elected Officials Meeting 13 6.3.7.6 EA Public Open House 13 6.3.7.7 Electronic Communications 13 6.3.7.8 Business Meetings (assumes State will conduct these meetings) 13 6.3.7.9 The Project Scope Video 13 6.3.7.10 Project Management 14

6.3.8 Resolution, Review, and Regeneration 14 6.3.9 Post-Project Analysis 14

7 Environmental Documentation 14 7.1 Early Notification Memo 15 7.2 Purpose and Need Statement 16

7.2.1 Draft Purpose and Need Statement 17 7.2.2 Final Purpose and Need Statement 18

7.3 Alternatives Evaluation 19 7.3.1 Draft Project Alternatives Report 20 7.3.2 Logical Termini Analysis and Report 20 7.3.3 Alternatives Evaluation 21

7.4 Impacts Not Covered in EAW 22 7.4.1 Contamination Investigation, and Hazardous Materials and Regulated Waste 22 7.4.2 Wetland Delineation and Impacts Report 22 7.4.3 Benefit-Cost Analysis 23 7.4.4 Flood Plain Assessment 23 7.4.5 Section 4(f) 23 7.4.6 Traffic 24



Page 2 of 66

7.4.7 Air 24 7.4.8 Noise 25 7.4.9 Social Impacts 26 7.4.10 Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists 26 7.4.11 Environmental Justice 27 7.4.12 Economics 27 7.4.13 Relocation Impacts 28 7.4.14 Public and Agency Involvement 28 7.4.15 Section 106 Review (Cultural Resources) 28 7.4.16 EAW Questions 1-20 29

7.4.16.1 EAW Items 1-6. Project Information 29 7.4.16.2 EAW Item 7. Cover Type 29 7.4.16.3 EAW Item 8. Permits and Approvals 29 7.4.16.4 EAW Item 9. Land Use 29 7.4.16.5 EAW Item 10. Geology, Soils and Topography/Land Forms 29 7.4.16.6 EAW Item 11. Water Resources 29 Surface Water 29 Groundwater 29 Wastewater 30 Stormwater 30 Water appropriation 30 Wetlands 30 Other Surface Waters 30 7.4.16.7 EAW Item 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes 30 7.4.16.8 EAW Item 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources 31 7.4.16.9 EAW Item 14. Historic Properties 31 7.4.16.10 EAW Item 15. Visual 31 7.4.16.11 EAW Item 16. Air 31 7.4.16.12 EAW Item 17. Noise. 31 7.4.16.13 EAW Item 18. Transportation 32 7.4.16.14 EAW Item 19. Cumulative Potential Effects: 32 7.4.16.15 EAW Item 20. Other Potential Environmental Effects: 32

7.4.17 Section 6(f) 32 7.5 Additional Tasks beyond Issue Areas in the EA/EAW: 32

7.5.1 Draft EA/EAW Document 32 7.5.2 EA/EAW Public Hearing 33 7.5.3 Draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion 33 7.5.4 Responses to Comments and Final FOFC 33

7.6 Water Quality Permits 34 7.6.1 Army Corps of Engineers 34

8 Existing Traffic Conditions Report 35

9 Traffic Operations Analyses 35 9.1 Alternative Evaluation Modeling 36

9.1.1 Travel Demand Forecasts for Alternative Evaluation 37 9.1.2 Travel Demand Forecasts Report for Alternative Evaluation 37 9.1.3 Travel Demand Forecasts Meetings 37 9.1.4 CORSIM Analysis for Alternative Evaluation 37 9.1.5 CORSIM Analysis Report for Alternative Evaluation 37 9.1.6 CORSIM Analysis Meetings 37

9.2 Travel Demand Forecasts 37 9.2.1 Travel Demand Modeling and Forecast Report 37



Page 3 of 66

9.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis on Travel Demand Modeling 38 9.3 Microsimulation Modeling and Analysis 39

9.3.1 Building of Base Model 39 9.3.1.1 Base Model Calibration Report 39

9.3.2 Year 2020 No-Build Alternative Traffic Analysis 40 9.3.3 Year 2040 No-Build Alternative Traffic Analysis 40 9.3.4 Year 2020 Preferred Alternative Traffic Analysis 40 9.3.5 Year 2040 Preferred Alternative Traffic Analysis 40 9.3.6 Sensitivity Analysis on CORSIM Modeling 41

9.4 Traffic Management Plan 41 9.4.1 Layout Alternatives TMP 41 9.4.2 Staging Alternatives Analysis Report 41 9.4.3 Final TMP 42 9.4.4 Local Road TMP Analysis Error! Bookmark not defined.

9.4.4.1 Detour Analysis 43 9.4.4.2 Travel Demand Modeling 43

9.5 Enhanced NEPA Screening Analysis 44 9.5.1 Coordination 45 9.5.2 Transit Ridership Forecasts 45 9.5.3 Travel Time Reliability Evaluation 45 9.5.4 Benefit-Cost Analysis for NEPA Alternative Screening 46

9.6 Model Calibration, Validation, and Analysis 46

10 Interstate Access Request 47

11 Geometric Layouts 47 11.1 Draft Preliminary Geometric Layouts 47 11.2 Drainage Spread Requirements and Analysis for Median Shoulders 48 11.3 Final Preliminary Geometric Layouts 48 11.4 Level 1 - Staff Approved Layout 49

12 Drainage Overview Maps 49 12.1 Drainage Overview Maps for Alternatives 49 12.2 Drainage Overview Map for Staff Approved Layout 51

13 Cost Estimates 51 13.1 Cost Estimates for Draft Alternatives 51 13.2 Cost Estimates for Final Alternatives 52 13.3 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate 52

13.3.1 Additional 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate Work 53

14 Bridge Evaluation 53 14.1 Bridge Evaluation of Alternatives 53 14.2 Bridge Evaluation of Staff Approved Layout 54

15 Cross Sections and Construction Limits of Alternatives 55 15.1 Cross Sections and Construction Limits for Staff Approved Layout 55

16 State Scoping Report and Pavement Recommendations 56 16.1 Initial State Scoping Report 56

16.1.1 Initial State Pavement Recommendations 56 16.2 Final State Scoping Report 57

16.2.1 Final State Pavement Recommendations 57

17 Value Engineering 57 17.1 Value Engineering Participation 58



Page 4 of 66

17.2 Value Engineering Preferred Alternative Layout Revision 58 17.3 Value Engineering Preferred Alternative LWD Cost Estimate Revision 58

18 Preliminary Design Package 58 18.1 Design Memorandum 59 18.2 Right of Way Report 59 18.3 Preliminary ITS, MNPASS, and Type A and OH Layout 59 18.4 Visual Quality Manual 60 18.5 Risk Management of Construction Risks 61

19 Wetland Delineation 61 19.1 General Statement of Scope of Work 61 19.2 State will provide: 61 19.3 Assumptions 61 19.4 Deliverables 62

19.4.1 WTL2000 Perform Level 1 Field Prep (Wetlands) 62 19.4.2 WTL2010 Perform Level 1 Field Work (Wetlands) 62 19.4.3 WTL2020 Perform Level 1 Post Field (Wetlands) 62 19.4.4 WTL 2040 Early Coordination Meeting with Regulators (Wetlands) 63 19.4.5 WTL2050 Perform Level 2 Field Work (Wetlands) 63 19.4.6 WTL2060 Perform Level 2 Post Field (Wetlands) 64 19.4.7 WTL2065 Final Coordination Meeting with Regulators (Wetlands) 64 19.4.8 WTL2070 Write Report Documentation (Wetlands) 64

20 Clean and video tape pipe sewer 65

21 I-494 MnPASS Implementation Report 65

22 Surveying Datums 66

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



Page 5 of 66

1 General Statement of Scope of Work Contractor will conduct all tasks as described herein on Interstate (I)-494 from the Minnesota River by the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport to Highway 169 in the City of Bloomington, in both directions. These limits and this Project will be referred to as the I-494 Bloomington Strip Project. The project length is approximately ten miles. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) considers this to be a Project of Division Interest (PODI), which means that the FHWA will be doing full federal oversight of this project. The State has been working with the I-494 Corridor Coalition and the I-35W Solutions Alliance in the development of a multi-modal and increased capacity corridor. These coalitions are made up of the following Cities, County and agencies: Bloomington, Richfield, Edina, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Minneapolis, the Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, and the Metropolitan Airport Commission. The State has previously commissioned numerous congestion relief studies along this stretch of highway. Recommendations that came out of these studies include the addition of MnPASS lanes and/or Auxiliary lanes in this corridor and the reconfiguration of the I-35W and I-494 Interchange. Furthermore, in the State Capital Highway Improvement Program (CHIP), infrastructure in this corridor has been identified as requiring preservation works be completed by the year 2030. The infrastructure needs are: Major Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation from the Mississippi River to 24th St by year 2023; Bituminous Mill and Overlay from 24th Street to France Avenue by year 2025 and Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation from France Avenue to I-394 in year 2027. In addition the following bridges over I-494: 12th Avenue, Portland Avenue have been identified in the Bridge Replacement and Improvement Management (BRIM) system to be replaced in 2028-2037, Nicollet Avenue is identified in BRIM for replacement in 2022-2027 timeframe. Therefore, in the development of the environmental document for the proposed project following the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines and the Interstate Access Request (IAR), the Contractor is tasked to consider the interaction of the corridor vision i.e. MnPASS, Auxiliary Lanes, the implementation of the I-494/I-35W Interchange Vision layout, Highway access consolidation as part of the potential 12th, Portland and Nicollet bridge replacements, the concurrent construction of Metro Transit’s Knox Avenue bridges by I-494 (Metro Orange Line). The primary purpose of this contract is to propose a project that provides a long-term, sustainable option for all highway users (transit and non-transit) that:

• Addresses deficient bridge and pavement conditions • Increases mobility, • Improves travel time reliability, • Maintains or improves transit advantages on I-494 between roughly Trunk Highway (TH) 5 and TH

169 in the cities of Bloomington, Richfield, Eden Prairie and the Minneapolis- St. Paul Airport State and regional transportation plan policies and strategies, including goals and objectives to better use existing and future infrastructure investments, will help guide project development. The Contractor will assist the State in the development of a preliminary design (30% plans) that incorporates the CHIP goals and corridor improvement targets mentioned previously. The proposed deliverables for this contract include Environmental Assessment (EA) with a preferred alternative, Staff Approved Layout, cost estimates, traffic modeling, traffic operational analysis, IAR, Traffic Management Plan (TMP), Preliminary Drainage Overview Map, Construction Limits, and right of way (R/W) acquisition report. The construction of this project has not been programmed, which means it does not have a letting date and does not have funding for construction. The FHWA policy on the NEPA and Fiscal Constraint prohibits the issuance of a determination until funding for a post-NEPA project is programmed. This means that documents such as the EA and IAR may not actually be approved with the conclusion of this contract. However, the intent of this contract is to



Page 6 of 66

have the FHWA review those documents and provide comments, so that State and the Contractor can address those comments and complete these draft documents such that it is reasonable to assume that they would be approved if a construction project were programmed. As a result, both State and the Contractor must be careful to manage the expectations of the public and other stakeholders. For example, even though our traffic operational analysis will use the year of construction as 2020 and the design year as 2040, we must be careful to explain that a construction project for the year 2020 has not been programmed or funded. Managed lane projects are difficult to fund based upon the current funding received by the department. The operational issues and the safety issues that have developed as a result of increased traffic on I-494 Bloomington strip are problematic and continue to degrade as traffic volumes increase, additional weaving occurs, and the congestion grows.

2 Background In 2014, the State commissioned a vision study for the I-494/I-35W interchange located in Bloomington, MN to enhance safety and improve upon the significant congestion that affects traffic operations at the interchange and segments of the I-494 and I-35W corridors. In the 2001 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the I-494 Reconstruction: I-394 to the Minnesota River major improvement strategies for the I-494 corridor were identified and some since implemented including projects involving interchange reconstruction, bridge replacements and roadway improvements. State and the Metropolitan Council in a joint effort published the Minnesota Highway System Investment Study (MHSIS) in September 2010. The purpose of this study was to develop a future transportation investment strategy that optimizes the investments already made in the region through the use of multimodal‐oriented managed lanes and comprehensive system management strategies. As noted in the MHSIS, “The purpose of these strategies is not to fix congestion, but rather to provide residents, employees, and visitors with a consistently congestion‐free alternative throughout the regional highway system.” The consideration of managed lane elements provides an opportunity for travelers to opt their way out of congestion, even if system congestion may persist.

The study examined projects that could be implemented in the 2010‐2030 timeframe. Four categories of performance measures were used to examine the MHSIS alternatives:

• Increase the person‐moving capability of the metropolitan highway system • Manage and optimize, to the greatest extent possible, the existing system • Reduce future demand on the highway system • Implement strategic and affordable investments

The study findings rated 18 potential managed lane corridors, and I-494 Corridor described herein is one of those corridors. A composite performance rating of high, medium and low, was used to compare the managed lane corridors among each other. The rating indicated which improvements best corresponded with the objectives of the MHSIS for assumed potential implementation by 2030.

3 Contract Completion Timeline

State expects all deliverables in this scope of work to be completed within 18 months of Notice to Proceed. 4 Project Management, Coordination, and Meetings

This task focuses on effective communication and coordination of the contract work to expedite the decision-making process and maintain the scheduled completion dates.

• The project manager’s team will also be responsible to transferring/saving electronic files/deliverables to State’s ProjectWise system prior to requesting State’s review of said task/deliverable.

4.1 Schedule Create and actively maintain a detailed schedule, using the Primavera Project Manager (P6) program. The updated schedule will accompany the monthly invoicing and progress meetings and at other times deemed necessary to allow the



Page 7 of 66

use of the schedule as an effective management tool. At a minimum the schedule will include durations and due dates for all deliverables listed in this scope of work. State will provide a sample schedule of this project, for reference only, at the following site: ftp://intradev.dot.state.mn.us/outbound/MetroWatersEdge/S.P.2785-424-BloomingtonStrip/ The Contractor will determine the final schedule by analyzing each Work Package’s duration and networking to create a schedule that will accomplish the contract completion deadline.

• Deliverable: One electronic schedule to be updated monthly. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Use P6 as the scheduling software. Monthly reports must be in

Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension). • Due: Within 14 business days of Notice To Proceed with monthly updates on progress. • Standard: Critical Path Method (CPM) • State Review: Five business days. • Contractor Update: Five business days.

4.2 Monthly Progress Meetings

Contractor’s Project Manager will meet with State’s Project Manager once per month to review the monthly progress and invoices. Contractor’s Project Manager will solicit feedback from State’s Project Manager to assess whether all services meet or exceed the requirements of the project. If needed, Contractor will direct changes to personnel and/or procedures to correct identified deficiencies and implement opportunities for improvements.

• Deliverable: An informal meeting to review invoices and progress. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Meeting may be in person, teleconference, or web conference.

Send email to State’s Project Manager at completion of meeting documenting that meeting occurred per work order requirements.

• Due: Monthly at the same time as the invoices. • Standard: Meeting minutes are not required. • State Review: During the meeting. • Contractor Update: Update invoices within 5 business days.

4.3 Project Instructions and Quality Assurance Develop tools (Project Instructions, Work Plans, and a Quality Assurance Plan) to establish budgets, roles, and responsibilities for the project team members throughout the project.

Provide project oversight, leadership to the project team, and facilitate team meetings.

Contractor will perform Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) functions throughout the project duration to ensure delivery of a quality product.

Develop resource utilization tool to indicate "burn rate" to aid in budget management.

4.4 Subcontractor Management and Oversight

Manage, coordinate, direct, and monitor subcontractor services. This includes review of progress reports, deliverables, schedule and invoices.

4.5 Project Coordination with Stakeholders

Communicate and coordinate project goals, objectives, and general information with project stakeholders (those listed in Section 6).

4.6 Mobilize and Utilize Strategic Advisory Group (SAG)

Meet with SAG to develop project strategy, review goals and objective, and receive executive input. 4.7 Initial Project Coordination Meetings

Attend and facilitate meeting between Contractor and State to finalize traffic analysis criteria and goals. The results of this meeting will be presented to FHWA.

ftp://intradev.dot.state.mn.us/outbound/MetroWatersEdge/S.P.2785-424-BloomingtonStrip/



Page 8 of 66

Attend and facilitate meeting between Contractor, State, and FHWA to present results of initial traffic analysis coordination meeting and gain FHWA concurrence on traffic analysis approach.

Attend and facilitate meeting with Contractor, State and other State representatives for the 494/62 Congestion relief study, TH 77 Managed Lane Study with the purpose of gathering information and integrating study proposals into the 494 Bloomington strip project.

Deliverable: Meeting minutes for Initial Project Coordination Meetings

5 Items provided by State

• Metropolitan Freeway System 2012 Congestion Report (or latest available Report), • The I-494/I-35W Interchange Vision Layout report • The I-494 Hydraulic reports. • The 1991 & 2001 FEIS documents. • Traffic Forecast from I-494/TH 62 Congestion Relief Study, • Three-year crash summary for the I-494 Corridor from the Mississippi River to I-394. • Report for the I-494/TH 62 Congestion Relief Study (report many not be finalized by the time of notice to

proceed). • Report for the TH 77 Managed Lane Study. • Documentation regarding current and proposed transit service on I-494 and I-35W in Bloomington, • Draft site plan showing previously developed project, • MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Questionnaire response, and Natural Heritage database list for

the project area, • PONTIS Bird Nest report, • R/W mapping, • State Metro District’s LWD cost estimate template and guidance for usage, • Planimetric mapping, TIN model, right of way and utility information from previous work, and any other

CADD base map information available, using the following datums: o Vertical datum is based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). o Horizontal datum is based on Hennepin County coordinate system, which is related to the Minnesota

State Plane Coordinate System NAD 1983 (HARN 1996) adjustment south zone. • CADD and Geopak files for previous alternatives, including layouts, profiles and cross sections, • Comprehensive Intelligent Transporation System (ITS) as-builts showing existing ITS infrastructure,

including, but not limited to, detection, cameras, dynamic message signs, cabinets, fiber optic cable, ramp metering, cabinets, source of power, etc.

• Comprehensive signing as-builts showing existing signing infrastructure, including but not limited to, Type A and Overhead (OH) guide signs.

• Cultural Resources Review for EA including Section 106 review and Determination of Effect • Value Engineering • Geotechnical Investigation including borings • Materials Design Recommendation including borings • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Recommendations • Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act-Determination of Effect • Public Information Communications Plan: Contractor to insert this information into both CSP Strategy and

TMP. • United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) coordination meeting checklist

6 Conflict Scoping Process

Assumptions: • Project duration is 18 months.



Page 9 of 66

• Municipal Consent activities will follow State's Highway Project Development Process (HPDP) manual, Municipal Consent section.

• Municipal Consent documentation will be in the form of City Council resolutions. • Assumes Municipal Consent is needed from all adjacent cities. • Assumes City Council hearings will be required. • Up to 18 Project Management Team (PMT) meetings over the duration of the project (one PMT meeting

per month). PMT members to include State, FHWA and Metropolitan Council. Metropolitan Transit (or other agencies) to be invited to PMT meetings on an as needed basis. Up to 4 people from Contractor at each PMT meeting, 4 hours per meeting including travel.

• Up to 9 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings over the duration of the project (one TAC meeting every two months). TAC members to include project stakeholders identified below. Up to 4 people from Contractor at each TAC meeting, 4 hours per meeting including travel. Additional Contractor staff to attend TAC meetings on an as needed basis.

• Conflict Scoping Process Work Sessions will be held during PMT meetings on an as needed basis. • Up to 10 conflict resolution meetings to discuss issues with project stakeholders, businesses, and property

owners as needed. Up to 2 people from Contractor at each conflict resolution meeting, 3 hours per meeting including travel. Additional Contractor staff to attend conflict resolution meetings on an as needed basis.

• Three public information meetings as part of Conflict Scoping Process (open house format). Up to 5 people from Contractor at each public open house meeting, 6 hours per meeting including travel.

Implement State’s Conflict Scoping Process (CSP) and create the necessary documentation showing the progress and results of the process by following all guidance in State’s CSP, which can be downloaded from the website: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/pm/processes.html and selecting the link labeled “Conflict Scoping Process”.

CSP consists of nine steps:

1) Project Analysis 2) Stakeholder Identification 3) Conflict Identification 4) Mapping 5) Assessment, 6) Strategy 7) Implementation and Management 8) Resolution, Review, and Regeneration 9) Post-Project Analysis

Establish ongoing project coordination with all stakeholders including, but not limited to: • State • State’s Project Manager • State Functional Groups • FHWA • Metropolitan Transit • Metro Transit • The Metropolitan Airport Commission • I-494 Corridor Coalition • I-35W Solutions Alliance • Dakota and Hennepin Counties • Cities of Bloomington, Richfield, Edina, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie and Minneapolis • The Mall of America • Other Governmental Agencies • Private and Public Utilities • Other agencies as required

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/pm/processes.html



Page 10 of 66

6.1 Municipal Consent Package

This task consists of preparing the Municipal Consent Submittal Packages, submitting those packages, updating those packages as needed, and finally documenting that Municipal Consent has been acquired. The work required to resolve conflict for the goal of achieving Municipal Consent will be billed and shown under the CSP task itself and all of its CSP deliverables.

• Deliverable: Municipal Consent Packages, three hard copies • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx

extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminated with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: To follow the CSP process. • Standard: State CSP Guidance, October 2013 • State Review: To be determined by CSP process. • Contractor Update: to be determined by CSP process.

6.2 FHWA Consent Letter or Equivalent

Obtain approval from the FHWA to signify that this contract can conclude. This project is not programmed, which means it does not have funding for construction or a construction letting date. The FHWA will not actually approve an IAR, EA, or Finding of no Significant Impact (FONSI) until the project is programmed. Contractor will complete the IAR and EA, but Contractor may not be able to get a FONSI. The purpose of this task is to obtain documentation from FHWA that signifies that the IAR and NEPA process has been done correctly and that there should be no problem getting those documents approved once the project is programmed. The work required to resolve conflict for the goal of achieving FHWA consent will be billed and shown under the CSP task itself and all of its CSP deliverables.

• Deliverable: FHWA consent documentation. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx

extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to covert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.


6.3 CSP Deliverables

6.3.1 Project Analysis Thorough project research will be conducted and scaled to the size of the project or policy. The Project Goals Statement will be formalized.

• Deliverable: Document explaining all the project goals from major goals to minor goals. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx

extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.




Page 11 of 66

6.3.2 Stakeholder Identification Internal and external stakeholders will be identified, including agencies, elected and appointed officials, advocacy groups, businesses and adjacent property owners/tenants.

• Deliverable: Document identifying all stakeholders. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx

extension). May use Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.


6.3.3 Conflict Identification

Existing and potential issues will be identified related to the stakeholders identified in step #2. • Deliverable: Document identifying all conflicts. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



6.3.4 Mapping

An influence/interest grid of stakeholders will be produced. Relationships between stakeholders will be mapped, including alliances, relationships with friction, broken relationships, relationships that don’t exist and relationships that need to exist. Power imbalances and triggering events which may create issues will be indicated.

• Deliverable: Influence/interest grid document. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



6.3.5 Assessment

Conflicts will be reviewed for likelihood of occurring, risk to the project for time, scope and budget, and risk to the agency’s reputation.

• Deliverable: Assessment document that explains risk of each conflict. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx

extension). May use Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a



Page 12 of 66

pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.


6.3.6 Strategy

Possible options for resolution will be generated by the team with a focus on identifying impacts, outcomes, strategies and planned responses.

• Deliverable: Strategy document. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



6.3.7 Implementation and Management

CSP transitions to the implementation stage, where the team takes action toward resolutions, including communication with stakeholders and tracking progress. Conduct up to 18 Project Management Team (PMT) meetings during the project. The project PMT meetings will be attended by State's Project Manager, State functional groups (as necessary), FHWA, and Metro Transit (as necessary). This task includes agenda preparation, meeting facilitation, follow-up, and a summary of outcomes from each meeting. Conduct up to 9 TAC meetings during the project. The project TAC meetings will be attended by stakeholders, including but not limited to: State’s Project Manager, State functional groups, FHWA, Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, I-494 Coalition, I-35W Solutions Alliance, Counties (Dakota, Hennepin), Cities (Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Richfield and Minneapolis), Metropolitan Airport Commission, Mall of America, other governmental agencies, private and public utilities, other agencies (as necessary). This task includes agenda preparation, meeting facilitation, follow-up, and a summary of outcomes from each meeting. Conduct up to 10 conflict resolution meetings during the project. This task includes agenda preparation, meeting attendance, follow-up, and a summary of outcomes from each meeting.

Conduct three open house public information meetings. This work includes meeting attendance, preparation of meeting materials including sign-in sheets, handouts and displays, prepare open house summary, documenting materials presented, attendance and comments received. Coordinate with State’s Public Affairs regarding public information meeting notifications.

• Deliverable: Document that explains how the strategies will be implemented and managed. PMT and TAC meeting agendas and summaries. Conflict resolution meeting summaries. Public information meeting summaries.

• Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). May use Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a



Page 13 of 66

pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.


6.3.7.1 Outreach Meetings Coordinate meeting times and locations and best way to invite residents, apartment owners and businesses along the I-494 Bloomington strip. Develop material for meetings (assumes English and Spanish versions). Develop a plan for meetings to include: purpose, goals, and messages. Implement and attend outreach meetings.

6.3.7.2 Noise Mitigation Meetings Develop schedule including locations for two Noise Wall EA meetings. Develop invite list. Noise Wall presentation to be used at meetings. Develop Noise Wall invite EA look and language. Print and mail invites. Develop material/handouts for meeting. Implement and attend Noise Wall EA meetings (one Contractor staff member to attend meetings).

6.3.7.3 Staff Advisory Committee Meetings Coordinate at least nine meeting times and locations and agendas. Implement and attend staff advisory meetings. AC meetings should be completed within six months from notice to proceed.

6.3.7.4 12th, Portland and Nicollet Avenue Access Consolidation Design Workshops Coordinate meeting logistics, times, and locations. Determine invite list. Develop all materials to be used at the workshops (presentations, handouts, worksheets). Print and mail contact invitees. Implement and attend design workshops (assumes three workshops in total, first being the local agencies i.e. Cities and Counties only, the second being the initial public workshop, and the third being the follow up public workshop). Assumes an engineer and facilitator at each table (assumes at least five tables and that the Contractor will provide staff to accompany the tables). Prepare a Record of Meeting for each meeting.

6.3.7.5 Elected Officials Meeting Determine best way to inform elected officials (assumes State will perform all elected officials meetings and coordination). Assist in developing material/handouts for elected officials meetings. Attend event (assumes 2 meetings, one Contractor staff).

6.3.7.6 EA Public Open House Determine alternative methods of outreach. Coordinate at least two meeting times and locations and agendas. Develop material for meetings. Implement and attend EA public meetings.

6.3.7.7 Electronic Communications Develop list and schedule of project documents that need to be posted to the project web site or distributed by other electronic means. Develop information for the web site - in plain language and ADA compliant. Develop an ongoing list of potential info that should be on the web site.

6.3.7.8 Business Meetings (assumes State will conduct these meetings) Develop list of business associations. Contact Chambers of Commerce for outreach alternatives (by State). Develop material for meetings.

6.3.7.9 The Project Scope Video Creative brief/scope. Determine timing of finished product. Video production.



Page 14 of 66

6.3.7.10 Project Management Team Meetings (1 per month). Prepare for and attend public involvement scoping meetings. General Management and Coordination of development and implementation of public involvement activities. Quality control and Document Control. Assist with Preparation of Talking Points and Frequently Asked Questions.

6.3.8 Resolution, Review, and Regeneration Each identified conflict will be tracked until final resolution. Issues where potential conflict never materializes will be monitored until project completion. Conflicts will be reviewed; those that are resolved but could regenerate as other stakeholders and issues emerge then return to steps 2-7.

• Deliverable: Document that tracks status of each conflict until final resolution. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



6.3.9 Post-Project Analysis

Best practices and lessons learned to benefit Project Managers (PMs) in similar situations and improve CSP will be established.

• Deliverable: Document explaining best practices and lessons learned from the CSP process on this project.

• Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). May use Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.


7 Environmental Documentation

Prepare a Federal EA/Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), and Findings of Fact and Conclusions (FOFC) that meets the project letting schedule. The deliverable for this item includes: • Must use the latest version of the EAW located on the Environmental Quality Board’s website at:

http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm • Additional EA Federal issues not covered by the EAW form must be addressed in the document. The

FHWA’s guidebook or HPDP must be used as guidance to ensure that the NEPA laws have been fulfilled in the EA/EAW. Refer to the following web sites: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/index.asp , http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/hpdp/

Address and answer the EAW questions 1-20, additional EA federal issues, and State policy items with supporting data to sufficiently determine whether the project will cause an environmental effect. Additional Federal issues/State policy items that must be included, but may not be limited to, include the following: • Purpose and Need • Alternatives Analysis/Logical Termini

http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/index.asp

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/hpdp/



Page 15 of 66

• Cost Benefit Analysis: This requirement is State policy • Impacts not covered in EAW, or may have a different federal standard:

o Floodplain Assessment o Section 4(f) o Traffic o Noise o Air o Environmental Justice o Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues o Social Impacts o Economic Impacts o Relocation Impacts

• Public and Agency Involvement o Deliverable: EA, EAW, and FOFC. See task below for specific deliverables. o Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


o Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. o Standard: All requirements listed on the State’s HPDP website:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/hpdp/. Must use the latest version of the EAW located on the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The FHWA’s guidebook or State’s HPDP must be used as guidance to ensure that the NEPA laws have been fulfilled in the EA/EAW. Refer to the following web sites: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/index.asp, and http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/hpdp/, Guidance for Preparing And Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, FHWA 6640.8A.

Key tasks that are required as part of the EA, EAW, and FOFC are described below. All subtasks must be represented in the separate detailed cost breakdown.

7.1 Early Notification Memo

Assumptions: State’s Metro District will circulate the completed Early Notification Memo to State functional groups, MnDNR, and FHWA.

Prepare and process the Early Notification Memo following all requirements listed on the State’s HPDP website.

• Deliverable: Early Notification Memo with hardcopies and electronic copies distributed according to the HPDP process.

• Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: Within two weeks of Notice to Proceed. • Standard: Must use the latest version of the MN EAW located on the Environmental Quality Board’s

website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The FHWA’s guidebook or State’s HPDP must be used as guidance to ensure that the NEPA laws have been fulfilled in the EA/EAW. Refer to the following web sites: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/index.asp, and http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/hpdp/ , Guidance for Preparing And Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, FHWA 6640.8A.

• State and FHWA Review: Arrange a meeting within two weeks of submitting to State with both State and FHWA staff in attendance.

• Contractor Update: The outcome of the meeting will determine the amount of work needed to complete the Final Purpose and Need Statement.





http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/impTA6640.asp








Page 16 of 66

7.2 Purpose and Need Statement

The purpose and need statement is a critical part of the EA and this contract. State and the FHWA will carefully scrutinize this language. Many of the tasks listed in this scope will be used to inform and develop the purpose and need statement.

The discussion on purpose and need must have a starting point. State offers the following two examples as this starting point in the purpose and need discussion:

1) Need: The I-494 stretch in Bloomington is identified as one of the highly congested highways with a high crash rate in the state. The state has commissioned various reports to propose safety and congestion relief strategies on this corridor. In addition, the pavement on this corridor is identified in the state’s preservation program is needed rehabilitation by 2027. Furth more, some of the bridges in the corridor have also been identified as needing to be reconstructed because they will reach their useful life by year 2037 i.e. The 12th & Portland Avenue bridges need to be reconstructed between 2027-2037. The Nicollet Avenue bridge needs to be reconstructed between 2022-2027 timeframe.

Purpose: The primary purpose of this project is to provide a long-term, sustainable option for all highway users (transit and non-transit) that: • Addresses deficient bridge and pavement conditions • Increases mobility, • Improves travel time reliability, • Maintains or improves transit advantages on I-494 between roughly TH 5 and TH 169 in the City of

Bloomington, Richfield, Eden Prairie and the Minneapolis- St. Paul Airport. • Use State and regional transportation plan policies and strategies, including goals and objectives to

better use existing and future infrastructure investments, will help guide project development.

2) Need: The primary reason for initiating the proposed project is to implement a low cost/high benefit, or high return on investment, strategy for providing commuters with a more reliable congestion-free option during recurring weekday congestion, and increases transit use, car, vanpooling and people throughput on the highway during peak AM and PM periods.

The State in conjunction with FHWA and local partners has commissioned planning studies on congestion relief in this corridor, the most recent being the I-494/TH 62 Congestion relief study. Recommendations from these studies have directed the implementation of MnPASS as the solution strategy. Therefore, as mentioned previously in the background section, this project will be getting the section of highway ready for MnPASS. The alternatives to be evaluated in the EA’s more detailed quantitative analysis include:

• No Build • Build Alternative – Scope of work with an estimated budget of $150M - $200M that includes the

necessary bridge preservation work of the 12th/Portland/Nicollet Avenue bridges, access consolidation and the construction of phases of the I-494/I-35W Interchange Vision Layout.

Pursuant to FHWA’s Priced Managed Lane Guide (2012), MnPASS is a type of Priced Managed Lane known as a High Occupancy Toll Lane. The specific definition of which is:

High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes use price, occupancy and access restrictions to manage the number of vehicles traveling on them, thereby maintaining free-flow traffic conditions, even during peak travel periods. Typically, qualifying High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) may use these limited access highway lanes for free or at a reduced cost. Motorists in vehicles that do not meet passenger occupancy requirements may choose between the general-purpose lanes or paying for premium conditions in the HOT lanes.



Page 17 of 66

For more information on definitions see Chapter 1 of FHWA’s Priced Managed Lane Guide entitled “Purpose & Need for Managed Lanes,” particularly pages 1.1 thru 1.4 http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop13007/index.htm. 7.2.1 Draft Purpose and Need Statement

The draft project Purpose and Need section will need to be reviewed by FHWA and State as part of the EA/EAW schedule. The outcome of this review will set the scope of work required to complete the Final Purpose and Need Statement. The completion of this task and the meeting between FHWA and State must occur early in the project to determine how much work will be needed to complete both the alternatives analysis and the final purpose and need statement.

The Project Need statement will identify transportation problems along the project corridor. The Project Purpose statement will summarize the project objectives and goals for addressing some or all of the project needs, and will summarize regional transportation plans regarding the project corridor.

At a minimum, but not limited to, the following items need to be incorporated into the Purpose and Need as necessary with particular attention to any additional issues noted by FHWA:

• Coordination with other separate projects occurring within this projects limits scheduled in relative close proximity to this project

• Analysis defining logical termini • Traffic operations outlining current traffic problems • Describe current geometric deficiencies • Safety Analysis/Crash Analysis • Pedestrian connectivity and surrounding land uses • Project Need Statement will summarize and explain transportation needs based on:

o Metropolitan Freeway System 2012 Congestion Report (or latest available Report) o The State MnSHIP and/or the Metro District 20 Year Plan. o The I-494/I-35W Interchange Vision Layout Report o The I-494/TH 62 Congestion Relief Study. o The TH 77 Managed Lane Study

• Project Purpose Statement will summarize regional transportation plans for this corridor, and explain the project objectives and goals. o Regional transportation plans are listed below: Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, Chapter 41 State Metro District’s 2008-2030 Transportation System Plan2

o The project objectives and goals are listed below: Addressing growing travel demand, to the extent possible, without taking private property Improving multi-modal options, including enhancing congestion free transit opportunities

that provide reliable travel times Improve mobility Better utilize existing infrastructure investments Preserve or enhance advantages for transit Preserve or enhance corridor safety Stay within existing right of way Improve air quality Meet the needs of the 20-year travel demand forecast

1 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, Chapter 4, Metropolitan Council is available at: http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TPP/2004/TPP04Chapter4_Final.pdf 2 2008-2030 Transportation System Plan, MnDOT Metro District is available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/tsp/pdfs/final_2008_2030_tsp.pdf

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop13007/index.htm

http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TPP/2004/TPP04Chapter4_Final.pdf

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/tsp/pdfs/final_2008_2030_tsp.pdf



Page 18 of 66

• Deliverable: One electronic Draft Purpose and Need Statement • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: Within 2 weeks of Notice to Proceed. • Standard: Must use l version of the MN EAW located on the Environmental Quality Board’s

website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The FHWA’s guidebook or State’s HPDP must be used as guidance to ensure that the NEPA laws have been fulfilled in the EA/EAW. Refer to the following web sites: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/index.asp, and http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/hpdp/ , Guidance for Preparing And Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, FHWA 6640.8A.

• State and FHWA Review: Arrange a meeting within 2 weeks of submitting to State with both State and FHWA staff in attendance.

• Contractor Update: The outcome of the meeting will determine the amount of work needed to complete the Final Purpose and Need Statement.

7.2.2 Final Purpose and Need Statement

The Final Purpose and Need Statement will be completed at the conclusion of the Logical Termini and Alternatives Evaluation processes. The results of that process and the preferred alternative selected from it will be used to write a more precise and detailed final purpose and need statement.

The Project Need statement will identify transportation problems along the project corridor. The Project Purpose statement will summarize the project objectives and goals for addressing some or all of the project needs. The Project Purpose will summarize regional transportation plans regarding the project corridor.

The draft project Purpose and Need section will need to be reviewed and accepted by FHWA and State as part of the EA/EAW schedule. At a minimum, but not limited to, the following items need to be incorporated into the Purpose and Need as necessary with particular attention to any additional issues noted by FHWA:

• Coordination with other separate projects occurring within this projects limits scheduled in relative close proximity to this project

• Analysis defining logical termini • Traffic operations outlining current traffic problems • Describe current geometric deficiencies • Safety Analysis/Crash Analysis • Pedestrian connectivity and surrounding land uses • Project Need Statement will summarize and explain transportation needs based on:

o Metropolitan Freeway System 2012 Congestion Report (or latest available Report) o The I-494/I-35W Interchange Vision Layout Report o The I-494/TH 62 Congestion Relief Study. o TH 77 Managed Lane Study. o The State MnSHIP and/or the Metro District 20 Year Plan.

• Project Purpose Statement will summarize regional transportation plans for this corridor, and explain the project objectives and goals. o Regional transportation plans are listed below: Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, Chapter 43

3 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, Chapter 4, Metropolitan Council is available at:








Page 19 of 66

State Metro District’s 2008-2030 Transportation System Plan4 o The project objectives and goals are listed below: Addressing growing travel demand, to the extent possible, without taking or minimizing the

taking of private property Improving multi-modal options, including enhancing congestion free transit opportunities

that provide reliable travel times Improve mobility Better utilize existing infrastructure investments Preserve or enhance advantages for transit Preserve or enhance corridor safety Stay within existing right of way Improve air quality Meet the needs of the 20-year travel demand forecast

• Deliverable: One electronic Final Purpose and Need Statement • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: At completion of alternatives analysis process. • Standard: Must use the latest version of the MN EAW located on the Environmental Quality

Board’s website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The FHWA’s guidebook or State’s HPDP must be used as guidance to ensure that the NEPA laws have been fulfilled in the EA/EAW. Refer to the following web sites: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/index.asp, and http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/hpdp/ , Guidance for Preparing And Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, FHWA 6640.8A.


• Contractor Update: 2 weeks 7.3 Alternatives Evaluation

Assumptions: • The proposed construction budget is $150-$200M. The Contractor needs to develop alternatives from the

project key targets mentioned in the background section. • Alternatives evaluation to follow a two-phase evaluation process. One of the Build Alternatives will be

dismissed from further consideration following the initial screening process. Two Build Alternatives will subsequently be evaluated in greater detail. Based on the results of the detailed evaluation, one Build Alternative will be dismissed from further consideration and a Preferred Alternative will be identified.

Describe in a method understandable to the general public all of the alternatives considered during the project development process and provide illustrative examples. This task will require information from several other tasks in this scope in order to be completed, such alternatives layouts, cost estimates, and traffic modeling. Explain why all rejected alternatives were rejected. The preferred alternative must be described in detail with an illustrative project layout. At a minimum produce the following alternatives with the details shown:

• Describe the No-Build alternative o Existing physical description of I-494 Bloomington strip corridor o Number of lanes on the I-494 Bloomington strip

http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TPP/2004/TPP04Chapter4_Final.pdf 4 2008-2030 Transportation System Plan, MnDOT Metro District is available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/tsp/pdfs/final_2008_2030_tsp.pdf










Page 20 of 66

o Transit service on the I-494 Bloomington strip o Existing and 20-year forecast for vehicle mobility, expressed as Level of Service assuming the no-build

condition, and o Existing and 20-year forecast for transit ridership o Highway and transit projects planned for the project area and listed in the following documents; o Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, Chapter 45, and o State’s Metro District’s 2008-2030 Transportation System Plan.6

• Describe Alternatives Considered • Describe the Preferred Alternative

o Number of lanes on the I-494 Bloomington strip o Transit service on the I-494 Bloomington strip o Year-after-opening and 20-year forecast for vehicle mobility, expressed as Level of Service assuming

the no-build condition, and o 20-year forecast average annual daily traffic volumes (AADT) assuming the Preferred Alternative

condition.

7.3.1 Draft Project Alternatives Report The draft project alternatives report will need to be reviewed by FHWA and State as part of the EA/EAW schedule. The outcome of this review will set the scope of work required to complete the Final Purpose and Need Statement. The completion of this task and the meeting between FHWA and State must occur early in the project to determine how much work will be needed to complete both the alternatives analysis and the final purpose and need statement.

• Deliverable: One electronic Draft Project Alternatives Report • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: 3 weeks from Notice to Proceed. • Standard: Must use the latest version of the MN EAW located on the Environmental Quality


• State and FHWA Review: Arrange a meeting within 1 week of submitting to State with both State and FHWA staff in attendance, and coordinate this meeting with the draft purpose and need meeting.

• Contractor Update: 2 weeks

7.3.2 Logical Termini Analysis and Report Create a logical termini write-up detailing the reasons for the end points of the project. The logical termini and the purpose and need statement influence each other, because the logical termini analysis can influence the outcome of the purpose and need just as the purpose and need can influence the outcome of the logical termini.

5 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, Chapter 4, Metropolitan Council is available at: http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TPP/2004/TPP04Chapter4_Final.pdf 6 2008-2030 Transportation System Plan, MnDOT Metro District is available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/tsp/pdfs/final_2008_2030_tsp.pdf










Page 21 of 66

The FHWA has a particular interest in this topic. Guidance from the FHWA Environmental Guidebook explains the following about logical termini. Logical termini for project development are defined as (1) rational end points for a transportation improvement, and (2) rational end points for a review of the environmental impacts. The environmental impact review frequently covers a broader geographic area than the strict limits of the transportation improvements. In the past, the most common termini have been points of major traffic generation, especially intersecting roadways. This is due to the fact that in most cases traffic generators determine the size and type of facility being proposed. However, there are also cases where the project improvement is not primarily related to congestion due to traffic generators, and the choice of termini based on these generators may not be appropriate. Choosing a corridor of sufficient length to look at all impacts need not preclude staged construction. Therefore, related improvements within a transportation facility should be evaluated as one project, rather than selecting termini based on what is programmed as short range improvements. Construction may then be "staged," or programmed for shorter sections or discrete construction elements as funding permits. Use the travel demand and CORSIM modeling scope described herein to help provide data needed during the analysis and write-up of this task.

• Deliverable: One electronic logical termini write-up • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx





• Contractor Update: 2 weeks

7.3.3 Alternatives Evaluation The Final Project Alternatives Evaluation will be completed when the following tasks are completed and conclusions can be drawn from those tasks:

• Draft purpose and need statement • Draft project alternatives report • Alternative layouts • Alternative cost estimates • Initial drainage overview map • Traffic modeling • Benefit-Cost Analysis

This evaluation will select and justify the preferred alternative. All tasks that come after this task will have to do with developing the preferred alternative into a more detailed preliminary design.

• Deliverable: One electronic Final Project Alternatives Evaluation








Page 22 of 66

• Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.




• Contractor Update: 2 weeks 7.4 Impacts Not Covered in EAW

7.4.1 Contamination Investigation, and Hazardous Materials and Regulated Waste A contamination investigation, and hazardous materials and regulated waste analysis will be required for the project. The analysis will consist of a Phase I and possibly a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, sampling, and testing. States Office of Environmental Stewardship (OES) will hire a separate contractor to complete the Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment, sampling, and testing. The Contractor will add any information from State’s Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments to the Environmental Documentation as needed.

• Deliverable: One electronic Hazardous Materials and Regulated Waste write-up in EA. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: At completion of Draft EA. • Standard: EA standards referenced herein. • State and FHWA Review: Along with the EA. • Contractor Update: Along with the EA.

7.4.2 Wetland Delineation and Impacts Report

The Contractor will perform the wetland delineation for the project. The Contractor will use that information to determine the wetland impacts as related to the preferred alternatives analysis and write the physical impacts on water resources section of the environmental documents.

• Deliverable: One electronic physical impacts on water resources write-up in EA. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx










Page 23 of 66

7.4.3 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions: Assumes the benefit-cost analysis will compare the no build alternative to up to three build alternatives. Contractor will prepare a benefit-cost analysis following the steps outlined on the Benefit-Cost Analysis for Transportation Projects website: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/program/benefitcost.html#section3. The analysis will compare the no-build to the identified alternatives. Please note, State is now requiring that the benefit-cost analysis be completed for more than just the preferred alternative. The analysis does not have to be done for every concept considered, but does need to be completed for those that are feasible and have been considered as part of the study. The Contractor will incorporate information from the benefit-cost analysis into the Alternatives Evaluation and the EA/EAW document.

• Deliverable: One electronic Benefit-Cost Analysis • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx

extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages. Computations done in Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx extension).

• Due: At completion of alternatives analysis process. • Standard: Benefit-Cost Analysis for Transportation Projects website:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/program/benefitcost.html#section3 • State and FHWA Review: Along with the Alternatives Evaluation. • Contractor Update: 2 weeks

7.4.4 Flood Plain Assessment

Complete the Flood Plain Assessment provided on at the following web page: http://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/edms/download?docId=608948 In summary, each floodplain assessment will determine the physical nature of the encroachment, whether transverse or longitudinal. If the project results in a longitudinal encroachment additional information is required. This information must explain whether the longitudinal encroachment can or cannot be practicably avoided. After the physical nature of the encroachment is determined, the following four points will be addressed and adequately documented.

1) No significant potential for interruption of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation route.

2) No significant impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values will result. 3) No significant increased risk of flooding will result. 4) Will project cause incompatible floodplain development?

• Deliverable: One electronic Flood Plain Assessment write-up in EA • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



7.4.5 Section 4(f)

Assumptions:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/program/benefitcost.html#section3

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/program/benefitcost.html#section3

http://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/edms/download?docId=608948



Page 24 of 66

The proposed project may have trails and park land adjacent to State R/W in the project area. The Contractor will be responsible for the following:

1) Working with FHWA to determine any Section 4(f) impacts; 2) Determine and complete appropriate Section 4(f) documentation based on consultation with FHWA

for any impact to a 4(f) resource. • Deliverable: One electronic Section 4(f) write-up in EA • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



7.4.6 Traffic

Contractor will answer the questions outlined in the state EAW for traffic. In addition, this section will show how the preferred alternative addresses the purpose and need by using data from traffic modeling. This may include tables and illustrative exhibits.

• Deliverable: One electronic Traffic write-up in EA • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



7.4.7 Air

Assumptions: • No carbon monoxide (CO) modeling. All intersections within the project area are below the hot

spot screening threshold of 82,300 entering vehicles per day (vpd). • Quantitative Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis to be performed for year of opening and

last year of Metropolitan Council’s transportation plan. • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to provide updated fleet registration data for

estimation of emissions factors. • Seven MSAT compounds to be analyzed (Benzene, Butadiene, Acrolein, Diesel PM,

Formaldehyde, Naphthalene, Polycyclic Organic Matter).

Contractor will answer the questions outlined in the state EAW for Air. If the threshold for a federal quantitative air quality analysis is crossed with the 20-year traffic forecast a summary of this analysis will be required for this section in EA/EAW. Meet with Metro District Air Quality Specialist and OES staff prior to conducting MSAT analysis to determine MSAT modeling analysis methodologies. It was determined by FHWA that a Quantitative analysis will be required. Perform an MSAT analysis per Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents December 6, 2012 FHWA Memo, incorporated by reference. Attend all Public Meetings with cities and affected groups



Page 25 of 66

as State’s representative for Air Quality issues. Prepare write-up for this section of the draft and final EA based on information from the tasks above.

• Deliverable: One electronic MSAT Modeling Analysis and Air write-up in EA • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: At completion of Draft EA. • Standard: EA standards referenced herein. • State and FHWA Review: Along with the EA. • Contractor Update: Along with the EA (Assumes one update per State and FHWA comments).

7.4.8 Noise

Assumptions: • All noise analysis modeling will be performed using the approved FHWA and State noise model –

currently TNM 2.5 and the 2017 State Noise Policy. • State Public Affairs will arrange for public open house locations in association with the noise

barrier solicitation process (if required). All noise barrier solicitation materials to be distributed by State Public Affairs under State Metro District letterhead.

• Assumes no noise exemption request/noise exemption report application. • Get an idea of how many parcels will be analyzed and assume number of iterations for wall heights

and length for cost effectiveness and feasibility.

Contractor will answer the questions outlined in the state EAW for Noise, using the results of the noise analysis discussed herein. In addition, federal standards, processes and results for noise mitigation, which differ from the state need to summarized in both the EA/EAW and FOFC. Conduct noise monitoring. Create draft write-up of results for the Noise Report.

• Perform a 30-minute background noise measurement during the daytime (9:00 AM to 4:00 PM only) at a minimum of 4 receptor sites. Collect data for hourly L10, L50, L90, and Leq.

• It is recommended that measurements should be conducted at each selected location during a period representative of the worst hourly traffic noise condition.

• At a minimum, conduct classified, directional traffic counts (cars, medium trucks, heavy trucks) during measurement periods. Collection of 24-hour classified vehicle counts is preferable. In addition, vehicle speed measurements shall be collected during the noise measurement period.

• Noise measurements should not be conducted during periods of traffic congestion. • Provide a log of the date, time, weather conditions, and measurement devices at each monitoring

location consistent with the MnDOT Noise Requirements. Prepare the Preliminary Noise Analyses modeling for the following conditions:

• Determine worst case noise hour using classified traffic counts from monitoring data, 24-hour classified vehicle counts, and/or MnDOT traffic data

• Existing conditions (worst case noise hours) • No-build conditions (worst case noise hours) 20 years after project is open to traffic. • Preferred Alternative(s) conditions (worst case noise hours) 20 years after project is open to traffic

with and without noise barriers.

Attend all Public Meetings with cities and affected groups as State’s representative for Noise issues as requested by State. (Assume two open houses will be required). Prepare public solicitation process and voting mailing materials for beneficiate receptors. Document and provide results as part of the Environmental Documents.



Page 26 of 66

Prepare write-ups for this section of the EA based on the Preliminary Noise analyses tasks above. Work with State’s Central Office and Metro District Noise Analysis Units and attend all meetings with MPCA and FHWA as necessary for the development and approval of the Final Noise Analysis.

• Deliverable: One electronic Noise Analysis and write-up in EA • Deliverable: CD or thumb drive containing final TNM modeling input/output files. • Deliverable: Noise voting ballots and mailing materials. Materials for public meetings. Voting tally

and figures for FHWA. Write-up of noise voting results for inclusion in Noise Report/environmental document.

• Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages. All source files from model.

• Due: At completion of Draft EA. • Standard: All noise analysis modeling will be performed using approved FHWA and State noise

model – currently TNM 2.5 and new 2017 State Noise Policy State and FHWA Review: Along with the EA.

• Contractor Update: Along with the EA (assumes two updates per State and FHWA review).

7.4.9 Social Impacts Contractor will obtain demographic data for the project area and analyze the data to determine if the project will cause any substantial adverse impacts to any community or neighborhood. The Contractor will also need to note if any categories of people uniquely sensitive to transportation will be unduly impacted. The county and its partners do not anticipate there being any communities uniquely sensitive to transportation that would be impacted by the proposed project. In addition, the Contractor will identify and document community facilities that will be impacted by the proposed project.

• Deliverable: One electronic Social Impacts write-up in EA • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



7.4.10 Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Contractor will document how the project incorporates pedestrian and bicycle populations into account as part of the preferred alternative.

• Deliverable: One electronic Considerations Relating to Pedestrian and Bicyclists write-up in EA • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx





Page 27 of 66

7.4.11 Environmental Justice

Contractor will coordinate with FHWA in the interpretation of how minority and low income populations should be identified. Contractor will obtain the 2010 US Census demographic data, using the block group data, to determine if minority populations are disproportionally negatively affected by the project. A map illustrating buffer and block groups affected is required in the EA/EAW. A table showing the racial makeup of the affected block groups, cities and counties is required in the EA/EAW. Contractor will obtain the most recent Metropolitan Council 5-year American Survey data, using the block data, to determine if low income populations are disproportionally negatively affected by the project. A map illustrating the buffer and blocks affected is required in the EA/EAW. A table showing the income makeup of the affected blocks, cities and counties is required in the EA/EAW. As part of the text, the Contractor will provide background information on the Environmental Justice Executive Order; document project area demographics and how they compare to city/county demographics; and summarize adverse and beneficial impacts. The analysis and text will need to make a conclusion if the preferred alternative may result in adverse impacts being disproportionately borne by low-income or minority populations. In addition to the efforts noted above, the Contractor will document a short summary of the practices used to ensure the opportunity for involvement for all individuals and/or groups within the project area. References to the public involvement section can be made, but a short write-up should be included in this section of the document. Interview institutions, including schools and churches, serving low income or minority populations, to determine if there are readily identifiable low income or minority populations, or businesses serving these populations that may be impacted by the project.

• Deliverable: One electronic Environmental Justice write-up in EA • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx

extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages. Due: At completion of Draft EA.

• Standard: EA standards referenced herein. • State and FHWA Review: Along with the EA. • Contractor Update: Along with the EA.

7.4.12 Economics

Contractor will note any loss to economic activity along the corridor and identify acquisition of any commercial/industrial property in the project area. The Contractor will also document how the project will help/hinder redevelopment along the corridor in areas that may require commercial acquisition.

• Deliverable: One electronic Economics write-up in EA • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx





Page 28 of 66

7.4.13 Relocation Impacts

Contractor will identify the amount of acres of additional right of way that is needed for the project and the number of parcels along the corridor that will be impacted by the need for additional R/W. In addition, the Contractor will identify and document the number of parcels that will need to be acquired in order to construct the project. A map showing the location of the parcels to be acquired will be prepared by the Contractor. Contractor will also prepare the text for the environmental document. The text will need to include information identified above as well as the following: discussion of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and 49 CFR Part 24; discussion of relocation assistance; and discussion of replacement housing/business location availability.

• Deliverable: One electronic Relocation Impacts write-up in EA • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



7.4.14 Public and Agency Involvement

Contractor will prepare text for the environmental document that describes the public and agency involvement in the project. This section of the document will describe public open house meetings, technical advisory committee meetings, agency coordination meetings, city council meetings, the project Web site, project mailings, any newspaper articles, the public hearing, and any other efforts to involve the public. Contractor will prepare text documenting the official comment period and public hearing on the document. Text for this section will note the environmental document distribution and the processes that will continue beyond the public hearing.

• Deliverable: One electronic Public and Agency Involvement write-up in EA • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



7.4.15 Section 106 Review (Cultural Resources)

State’s Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) will perform all of the cultural resources reviews for the project, including any archaeology or architectural history surveys that CRU determines necessary for completion of the Section 106 process. The Contractor will use that information to write the cultural resources section of the environmental documents. CRU and State’s Historical Preservation Office correspondence will be included as an appendix to the environmental document.

• Deliverable: One electronic cultural resources impacts write-up in EA.



Page 29 of 66

• Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.


7.4.16 EAW Questions 1-20

7.4.16.1 EAW Items 1-6. Project Information

Identify project title, proposer, responsible governmental unit, reason for EAW preparation, project location, and project description. Hours for project purpose are included in Task 7.2.

7.4.16.2 EAW Item 7. Cover Type

Estimate the acreage of the defined project area for each cover type identified in EAW Item 7 before and after the project.

7.4.16.3 EAW Item 8. Permits and Approvals

Identify permits and approvals needed for the project.

7.4.16.4 EAW Item 9. Land Use Describe existing land use and nearby areas including parks, trail, and farmlands (assumes no farmland). Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan and other applicable plans for land use, water or resources management by a local, regional, state or federal agency. Discuss zoning including any special districts or overlays. Discuss compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning and plans listed above. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility.

7.4.16.5 EAW Item 10. Geology, Soils and Topography/Land Forms

Geology, soils and topography/land forms. Describe and map geology underlying the project area including susceptible geologic features, effects, and any mitigation measures. Describe soils along the project corridor (providing NRCS classifications). Identify soil limitations. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation/grading. Discuss project impacts related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures.

7.4.16.6 EAW Item 11. Water Resources

Surface Water Describe surface water features on or near the site - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include MnDNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. Groundwater Describe groundwater features on or near the site – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any



Page 30 of 66

onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. Wastewater Describe wastewater impacts and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects. Assumes no impacts. Stormwater Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential Best Management Practices (BMPs) site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. Water appropriation Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water use and if a MnDNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation.

Wetlands Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal; direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed; measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands; and whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those probable locations. Other Surface Waters Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water BMPs that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features.

7.4.16.7 EAW Item 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes

Summarize the results from the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and Asbestos report provided by State, as well as HPDP guidance, to answer the questions outlined in the state EAW for Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Waste, including description of conditions, impacts and mitigation related to (1) existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site; (2) project related generation/storage of solid wastes; (3) project related use/storage of hazardous materials; and (4) project related generation/storage of hazardous waste.



Page 31 of 66

7.4.16.8 EAW Item 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (rare features): Incorporate information for Early Notification Memorandum (ENM) relevant to EAW Item 13, including tasks below. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Assume information regarding state-listed species will be provided by the MnDNR as part of the ENM review process and attach ENM response from MnDNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results. Coordinate with OES and incorporate Section 7 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Determination of Effect provided by State. Assume a Section 7 finding of no effect. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation.

Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.

7.4.16.9 EAW Item 14. Historic Properties Incorporate Determination of Effect provided by State Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) to address EAW item for historic properties.

7.4.16.10 EAW Item 15. Visual Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects, informed by the available work conducted in Task 18.4.

7.4.16.11 EAW Item 16. Air Stationary source emissions Summarize the results from the Air Quality and Noise Analysis work package to answer the questions outlined in the state EAW for Air, including the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality and measures to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions, as appropriate. Dust and odors Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.

7.4.16.12 EAW Item 17. Noise.

Describe existing noise levels/sources in the project area. Describe nearby sensitive receptors. Describe state noise standards. Summarize traffic noise analysis results and measures to minimize or mitigate traffic noise.



Page 32 of 66

7.4.16.13 EAW Item 18. Transportation

Incorporate findings from Task 9.0 to answer questions outlined in the state EAW.

7.4.16.14 EAW Item 19. Cumulative Potential Effects: Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within these identified geographic scales and timeframes. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects.

7.4.16.15 EAW Item 20. Other Potential Environmental Effects: Assumes all other potential environmental effects are addressed under Task 7.4.

7.4.17 Section 6(f) The database of LAWCON funded facilities along I-494 found two properties in the vicinity of 35W: 1) Minnesota River Valley Park –south of I-494, at the easterly limits of this project and 2) Tierney's Woods/Anderson Lake Park – south of I-494, at the westerly limits of this project. Other city parks that are within 1 block proximity of the highway are Wanda Miller Pond, Northcrest Park and Fenlason Park. The assumption is that these properties will not be impacted by the project and therefore the Contractor will only budget enough hours to this task to explain that these properties will not be impacted.

• Deliverable: One electronic Section 6(f) impacts write-up in EA. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: At completion of Draft EA. • Standard: EA standards referenced herein. • MnDOT and FHWA Review: Along with the EA. • Contractor Update: Along with the EA.

7.5 Additional Tasks beyond Issue Areas in the EA/EAW:

7.5.1 Draft EA/EAW Document Contractor will provide a draft EA/EAW for the proposed project. Work for this task builds on the previous tasks identified in this Request for Proposal. Information prepared as part of the previous tasks will be incorporated into a document that meets the EA/EAW format and conforms to the processes outlined in the HPDP. A draft document will be prepared for review by the sponsoring agencies. Based on comments from these agencies, the draft document will be revised. A new draft will then be sent to cities and counties along this corridor including the City of Minneapolis, Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, State and Federal Highway for official review and comment prior to distribution to the public. Comments made will be incorporated and a document for public distribution will be prepared.

Contractor will prepare and distribute copies of the EA/EAW for public comment as required. The Contractor will also prepare and submit official notices (e.g., EQB Monitor) of the document’s availability as outlined on State’s HPDP web site.

• Deliverable: 25 hardcopies and 25 DVD/CD of Draft EA/EAW Document



Page 33 of 66

• Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminated with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: EA standards referenced herein. • State and FHWA Review: 30 calendar days • Contractor Update: To be determined, depending on scope of comments.

7.5.2 EA/EAW Public Hearing

Contractor will attend one public hearing meeting to be held in conjunction with the EA/EAW public comment period. The public hearing will be held in an open house format. Meeting materials (comment form, sign-in sheets, handout, and exhibits) will be provided to State for review prior to the EA/EAW public hearing. The Contractor will prepare a draft legal notice and press release. State Public Affairs will publish the legal notice in project area newspapers, obtain an affidavit of publication from project area newspapers, and distribute press release to local media outlets. The State Project Manager will be responsible for signing the public hearing certificate of compliance. A public hearing summary packet, including comments received, sign-in sheets, and display materials will be provided to State at the conclusion of the comment period.

• Deliverable: EA/EAW public hearing summary packet, including copies of comments received, sign-in sheets, and display materials.

• Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminated with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: At completion of EA/EAW public comment period. • Standard: EA standards referenced herein. • State and FHWA Review: None. Public hearing summary packet to be provided to State for project

files. • Contractor Update: Not applicable.

7.5.3 Draft FOFC

Prepare the FOFC document, which is prepared after the formal review of an EA/EAW. The FOFC satisfies the state environmental review requirements, and is also used in the federal review process as supporting material to request the FONSI from FHWA. The HPDP’s format and necessary information must be followed for this document.

• Deliverable: One electronic Draft FOFC Document • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: EA standards referenced herein. • State and FHWA Review: 30 calendar days • Contractor Update: To be determined depending on scope of comments.

7.5.4 Responses to Comments and Final FOFC

Contractor will prepare a written summary of comments and responses to those comments based on comments made at the public hearing. Contractor will review the comments and responses with the sponsoring agencies and other agencies as appropriate. Comments and responses will be incorporated into the FOFC.



Page 34 of 66

• Deliverable: One electronic Response to Comments Document and Final FOFC • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



7.6 Water Quality Permits

Determine which water quality permits are relevant to this project, prepare permits, and submit for preliminary approval. It is unlikely that any permits will actually be officially signed and approved at the conclusion of this project. Regardless, complete the permit process and documentation to the greatest extent possible and attempt to obtain some sort of letter of concurrence from the permitting agencies stating that they approve of the impacts and mitigation measures recommended.

Follow the guidance on State’s HPDP website for Water Quality. It is anticipated that a Lower Minnesota River Watershed Permit and the Joint Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects, which covers Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), MnDNR and United States COE requirements in one joint permit application, as a minimum. However, it is the Contractor’s responsibility to identify, create, and process all water quality permits whether mentioned in this scope of work or not.

• Deliverable: 5 hardcopies and 5 DVD/CD. • Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe

Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to covert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminated with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: Specific requirements of permitting agency. See State HPDP Water Quality section as a starting

point for requirements. • Agency Review: Varies. COE review may take six or more months. • Contractor Update: To be determined depending on scope of comments.

7.6.1 Army COE

The COE must be involved during the alternatives evaluation of the EA. Their goals are to understand which alternative has the least water quality impacts, understand if the preferred alternative has the least impacts, and if not understand why an alternative with greater impacts was selected. All of this must be documented in the COE permitting process.

For this task, document that the COE has been involved as stakeholder during the alternatives evaluation, and provide write-up in permits explaining the water quality impacts of each alternative and why one alternative was selected over the other specifically mentioning the differences in water quality impacts.

• Deliverable: Documentation, including meeting minutes, showing that the COE has been involved in the alternatives evaluation process of the EA.

• Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to covert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: Complete prior to submitting the permit that will be reviewed by the COE.



Page 35 of 66

• Standard: Specific requirements of permitting agency. See State HPDP Water Quality section as a starting point for requirements.

• State Review: 5 days. • Contractor Update: 5 days.

8 Existing Traffic Conditions Report

Develop an Existing Traffic Conditions Report discussing the field observations, and explains the existing geometric and operational deficiencies. Provide information about locations of existing bottleneck conditions, high weave areas, and mainline queue lengths. Reference work that was completed in the I-494/TH 62 Congestion relief study; the I-494/I-35W Interchange Vision Layout Report, TH 77 Managed Lane study and MnPass Phase 2 study, and any other studies done by the local agencies, for example, 12th, Portland and Nicollet Avenue interchanges access consolidation, 77th Avenue, and American Blvd studies (if available).

Review data for this project that relates to traffic counts, turning movements, signal timing, ramp metering, and geometrics as supplied by State and other agencies, by accessing State’s Metro website, and by accessing State’s data extraction workstation. If data obtained is more than two years old, the Contractor will obtain more recent data.

Conduct field review of the traffic operations during the AM and PM peak periods to aid in the calibration of the base model and to verify geometric and operations. Contractor has the option to review corridor operation from State’s Regional Transportation Management Center (RTMC) facility during both peak periods. To schedule and coordinate corridor operations, contact the RTMC Operations staff at (651) 234-7040.

• Deliverable: One electronic report. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: Prior to beginning the traffic modeling. • Standard: Report. • State and FHWA Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days

9 Traffic Operations Analyses

Model and analyze the I-494 Bloomington strip from the Minnesota River to I-394. In addition, incorporate the traffic modeling that was done for I-35W River Bridge analysis, the I-494/TH 62 Congestion Relief Study and the TH 77 Managed lane study. The modeling limits for the analysis are:

• I-494: Minnesota River (DS 1193 and 1196) to TH 62 (DS 487 and 471) • I-35W: 66th Street (DS 19 and 48) to 106th Street (DS 29 and 38) • TH 77: 66th Street (DS 536 and 529) to Old Shakopee Road (DS 543 and 522) • TH 100: 66th Street (DS 419 and 377) to W 84th Street. • 12th Avenue S: E 77th Street to E American Blvd. • Portland Avenue S: E 77th Street to E American Blvd. • Nicollet Avenue S: W 77th Street to W American Blvd. • Lyndale Avenue S: W 77th Street to W American Blvd. • Penn Avenue S: W 76th Street to W American Blvd. • France Avenue S: Minnesota Drive to W American Blvd.

Detector stations (DS) are from the “All Detector Report”, incorporated herein by reference.

Perform modeling and analysis for morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak conditions for:



Page 36 of 66

• 2016 existing conditions • 2020 opening year no build alternative • 2040 design year no build alternative • 2020 opening year preferred alternative • 2040 design year preferred alternative

The modeling will conform to the current “State Modeling Guidelines” and most recent guidelines either CORSIM , DTA, TDM, or State and FHWA acceptable program intended to be used that can be found at internet web site, www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/index.html , and are incorporated herein by reference.

9.1 Alternative Evaluation Modeling

Alternative evaluation modeling will be conducted that meet at a minimum the following objectives: • The vision of the corridor is to install MnPASS on this corridor – An alternatives analysis to determine

whether this is the right solution i.e. General Purpose Lane Vs HOV Lane Vs HOT Lane should be completed.

• The evaluation process in this task will also inform the completion of task 21. • Furthermore, the Contractor should evaluate the inclusion of the proposed project goals that were discussed

in the introduction section of the scope: a. Access consolidation from the 12th Avenue, Portland Avenue and Nicollet Avenue bridges b. Bridge Reconstructions of the 12th Avenue, Portland Avenue and Nicollet Avenue bridges c. Construction of at least phase-1 of the I-494/I-35W Interchange vision layout. d. Construction of the EB Auxiliary lane on I-494 between 35W and E Bush Lake Rd. e. Any other bridges/structures reconfiguration needed to make the corridor accommodate future

MnPASS and/or Auxiliary lanes.

This evaluation will consist of high-level travel demand forecasting and CORSIM or VISSIM analysis. More detailed analysis will be conducted for the preferred alternative which is described in upcoming sections of the scope.

Assumptions:

• Existing travel demand modeling (including model validation) will occur before this task begins. • No build forecasts will be developed before this task begins. • All meetings will be attended by two staff members. • Deliverables:

o Draft electronic reports for review and comment o Electronic final reports o All pertinent modeling files required to replicate all model runs and results.

• Format: All files submitted electronically. Report that is approximately 10 pages or less written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to covert the source file to a pdf whenever possible.

• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: In accordance with adopted State and Met Council forecasting and modeling guidelines,

including State’s Revised Guidelines for Twin City Travel Demand Forecasts Prepared for the Metropolitan District memorandum dated May 10, 2006.

• State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/index.html



Page 37 of 66

9.1.1 Travel Demand Forecasts for Alternative Evaluation Develop daily and peak hour forecasts for the three alternatives described in section 9.1. In addition, system-wide Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) will be calculated. Peak hour origin-destination percentages will be developed for use in the CORSIM modeling.

9.1.2 Travel Demand Forecasts Report for Alternative Evaluation Prepare a report approximately 10 pages in length which documents the methodologies used to develop the forecast for each travel demand forecast prepared for State. The methodology should be consistent with the guidelines and reasonableness checks described in State’s Revised Guidelines for Twin City Travel Demand Forecasts Prepared for the Metropolitan District memorandum dated May 10, 2006. Document multiple forecasts on the same segment highway (multiple forecast years). The report will address each bulleted item in the guidelines Twin City Travel Demand Forecasts Prepared for the State Metro District: “Model and Parameters for Adjustments to Model Inputs” and “Model Output Checks for Reasonableness and Post Processing Adjustments”. In addition, the report should include the rationale for selecting the forecast area for which forecasted VMT and VHT are calculated as inputs for the benefit/cost analyses.

9.1.3 Travel Demand Forecasts Meetings Prepare for and attend up to two meetings with State and FHWA staff to discuss the forecasting process and results.

9.1.4 CORSIM Analysis for Alternative Evaluation Using the existing calibrated CORSIM model, develop future one-hour models for the no build scenario and the three build alternatives identified in section 9.1. Results of the analysis will be summarized. Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) will include Level of Service (LOS), corridor travel time (by vehicle, person and by general purpose lanes and managed lanes), vehicle and person through-put and transit travel time.

9.1.5 CORSIM Analysis Report for Alternative Evaluation Prepare a report approximately 10 pages in length which documents the modeling process and results of the CORSIM analysis. The modeling will conform to the current “State Modeling Guidelines” and “CORSIM Calibration Parameters”. The modeling will conform to the modeling process outlined in the current “Advanced CORSIM Training Manual”, incorporated herein by reference.

9.1.6 CORSIM Analysis Meetings Prepare for and attend up to two meetings with State and FHWA staff to discuss the CORSIM modeling process and results.

9.2 Travel Demand Forecasts

The Travel demand modeling files conducted for previous corridor studies mentioned in the scope will be made available to extract the required data for conducting the CORSIM modeling tasks outlined below. A methodology for developing the 2020 and 2040 traffic forecasts will need to be developed and documented in the Travel Demand Forecasting Report, described below. Forecasts will be developed to address the requirements of the CORSIM analysis, air analysis, noise analysis, environmental analysis and benefit-cost analysis.

9.2.1 Travel Demand Modeling and Forecast Report

Identify and compile previous forecasts, plus comprehensive plan land use development assumptions and roadway network assumptions to be used. Assumes full travel demand model runs for validation for 2020 and 2040. Identify extent of modeling data to be reported. Meet with State and others as applicable to obtain concurrence on assumptions and methods. Conduct validation review of existing base year model run, adjust model calibration parameters within State guidelines as appropriate, and report validation changes based on adjustments. Meet with State to discuss any anomalies.



Page 38 of 66

Prepare travel demand forecasts (no build and build) for the years 2020 and 2040 in accordance with adopted State and Met Council forecasting and modeling guidelines. Contractor will prepare traffic lane assignments and turning volumes for all intersections and interchanges within the project limits for the 2020 and 2040 years. Heavy commercial counts and forecasts will be included. Data will be assembled in tables, charts, maps or other easily understood formats. Prepare a report approximately 10 pages in length which documents the methodologies used to develop the forecast for each travel demand forecast prepared for State. Describe the methodology used to generate the 15-minute volume data for the forecasted AM and PM peak hour volumes. The methodology should be consistent with the guidelines and reasonableness checks described in State’s Revised Guidelines for Twin City Travel Demand Forecasts Prepared for the Metropolitan District memorandum dated May 10, 2006. Document multiple forecasts on the same segment highway (multiple forecast years). Draft forecasts presented for review and comment will be accompanied by a draft documentation reports. Each documentation report will address each bulleted item in the guidelines Twin City Travel Demand Forecasts Prepared for the State Metro District: “Model and Parameters for Adjustments to Model Inputs” and “Model Output Checks for Reasonableness and Post Processing Adjustments”. In addition, the report should include the rationale for selecting the forecast area for which forecasted VMT and VHT are calculated as inputs for the benefit/cost analyses.

• Deliverable:

o Draft electronic travel demand forecasts and draft documentation reports with supporting for review and comment.

o Electronic final forecasts and the documentation report. o All pertinent modeling files required to replicate all model runs and results.

• Format: All files submitted electronically. Report that is approximately 10 pages or less written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to covert the source file to a pdf whenever possible.

• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: In accordance with adopted State and Met Council forecasting and modeling guidelines,

including State’s Revised Guidelines for Twin City Travel Demand Forecasts Prepared for the Metropolitan District memorandum dated May 10, 2006.


9.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis on Travel Demand Modeling

Conduct up to five sensitivity tests, select link analyses and other modeling analyses to provide origin-destination information, trip length and what-if analysis of potential improvements. Develop and format outputs for use in freeway and arterial operations analysis, air and noise, other environmental analyses, and costs-benefit analysis.

• Deliverable: One electronic sensitivity analysis technical memo with supporting data. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the Alternatives Evaluation deliverable. • Standard: In accordance with adopted State and met Council forecasting and modeling guidelines. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.



Page 39 of 66

9.3 Microsimulation Modeling and Analysis

Perform CORSIM or VISSIM modeling and analysis and create a report explaining the results of that work. • Deliverable: All files delivered electronically. Prepare an analysis report with results of all models

described herein, including sensitivity analysis. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the Alternatives Evaluation deliverable. • Standard: The modeling will conform to the current “State Modeling Guidelines” and “CORSIM

Calibration Parameters” that can be found at internet web site, www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/index.html, and are incorporated herein by reference. The modeling will conform to the modeling process outlined in the current “Advanced CORSIM Training Manual”, incorporated herein by reference.

• State and FHWA Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.

9.3.1 Building of Base Model

• Develop a link-node diagram of the existing network. • Develop a lane schematic that graphically represents the existing network and includes all key

design features. • Interpolate bad or missing volume data, convert data into 15-minute volumes, and balance the

volume data for the AM and PM time period. • Develop the AM and PM O-D matrixes for all freeway entrances and exits. • Update the AM and PM base models to reflect the existing freeway and arterials of the modeling

limits. This includes entering volume data and traffic signal and ramp meter control data. • Verify that the network data has been coded correctly and develop a freeway quality control

worksheet and an arterial quality control worksheet that lists link information. • Submit the base models and any supportive materials to State for review and approval.

9.3.1.1 Base Model Calibration Report

Calibrate the AM and the PM base models according to the current “CORSIM Calibration Parameters”, incorporated herein by reference. Write a report explaining the process needed to calibrate the model and the changes that were required. Submit the report, the AM & PM calibrated model, and supportive materials to State and FHWA for review and approval.

• Deliverable: One electronic report. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013

document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: Prior to starting the other CORSIM models. • Standard: The modeling will conform to the current “State Modeling Guidelines” and

“CORSIM Calibration Parameters” that can be found at internet web site, www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/index.html, and are incorporated herein by reference. The modeling will conform to the modeling process outlined in the current “Advanced CORSIM Training Manual”, incorporated herein by reference.






Page 40 of 66

9.3.2 Year 2020 No-Build Alternative Traffic Analysis • Develop a link node diagram and lane schematic of the network. • Convert the 2020 forecasted traffic data into AM and PM 15-minute volume data, balance the

volume data, and check the volume data for capacity constraints. • Develop AM and PM O-D matrixes for all freeway entrances and exits. • Build the AM and PM models. This includes entering volume data, traffic signal and ramp meter

control data, and the appropriate calibration values. • Verify that the network data has been coded correctly and develop a freeway quality control

worksheet and an arterial quality control worksheet that lists link information. • Perform five runs on each model using different random seeds for each run. The same random

number set will be used for each model. • Develop the arterial and freeway measure of effectiveness tables and graphics.

9.3.3 Year 2040 No-Build Alternative Traffic Analysis

• Develop a link node diagram and lane schematic of the network. • Convert the 2040 forecasted traffic data into AM and PM 15-minute volume data, balance the





9.3.4 Year 2020 Preferred Alternative Traffic Analysis






9.3.5 Year 2040 Preferred Alternative Traffic Analysis








Page 41 of 66

9.3.6 Sensitivity Analysis on Microsimulation Modeling

Perform a sensitivity analysis on a maximum of three scenarios (AM and PM). • Modify the traffic data as AM and PM 15-minute volume data, balance the volume data, and check

the volume data for capacity constraints. • Develop AM and PM O-D matrixes for all freeway entrances and exits. • Update the AM and PM models. This includes entering volume data, traffic signal and ramp meter




9.4 Traffic Management Plan

Develop the TMP. Follow the State Metro TMP process described on this website: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/trafficeng/control_striping.html

Complete the TMP Worksheet, Red Flag Checklist, and TMP Report using the TMP template, all of which are found on the website.

9.4.1 Layout Alternatives TMP

Complete the Layout Alternatives TMP to coincide with the conclusion of the Alternatives Evaluation process. Complete drafts of the TMP Worksheet, Red Flag Checklist, and TMP Report. The Layout Alternatives TMP report should be limited to discussing the layout alternatives and how traffic management and staging alternatives may or may not change between them. Detailed analysis and solutions for traffic management will occur with the next tasks.

• Deliverable: One electronic report with TMP Worksheet and Red Flag Checklist. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the Alternatives Evaluation deliverable. • Standard: State Metro TMP process. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.

9.4.2 Staging Alternatives Analysis Report

The purpose of this report is to analyze the preferred layout alternative and give enough information to the public stakeholders to make an informed decision that selects a preferred staging alternative that balances the road user costs of restrictions in traffic operations during construction with mitigation costs of alleviating those restrictions. The results will be summarized using metrics that are understandable to the general public. These metrics will demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of each of the staging alternatives. The main body of the report will include the performance metric for each alternative and the appendices will include a full set of the technical data. Use calibrated and validated travel demand modeling (for example Cube or Dynamic Traffic Analysis) to compute road user costs and vehicle delay in determining staging alternatives. The contractor should explain the adequacy of the model being used in determining staging impact. Software such as such as QuickZone and FREEVAL may be limited to corridor analysis, and can’t estimate work zone impact to diverted traffic.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/trafficeng/control_striping.html



Page 42 of 66

Consider the road user costs vs days of impacts in this analysis.

Consider impact from other construction projects or local projects in considering staging alternatives. Compute the additional construction costs required to implement different staging alternatives. Based on the validated Twin Cities Regional Travel Demand Model, determine traffic shifts for up to three traffic staging options that included reduced lane geometry along the I-494 corridor. Work with State’s Project Manager and Construction Traffic Control Coordinator to identify staging option geometrics and traffic control. Perform regional-level traffic assignment in forecast model for staging options to estimate traffic pattern changes. Document daily traffic pattern changes including reductions along segments of I-494 through the study area as well as location and magnitude of diversion to parallel routes. Develop balanced peak hour volume sets for I-494 mainline and ramps to each staging option to be used in operations analysis.

Develop an existing calibrated model (geometry and volumes); determine the impacts to traffic operations for up to three traffic staging options that include reduced lane geometry on the I-494 corridor. Reference Highway Capacity Manual 2010 to obtain proper inputs and assumptions for development of the model. Calibrate existing conditions model using free-flow speeds and capacity adjustment factors and comparing to loop detector data, documenting all assumptions and variables. Prepare models and perform runs for each staging option, including geometrics, traffic control, and adjusted traffic forecasts. Report qualitative and quantitative performance measures for each staging option, including queuing, traffic diversion, average vehicle delay, lost VMT, and total vehicle-hours. Conduct an analysis of road user costs based on VHT results and State benefit-cost guidance.

Prepare a technical memorandum documenting the methods, assumptions, data, and results of the construction staging traffic modeling. Provide a recommended staging option based on traffic forecast, operational performance, and roadway user cost analyses.

• Deliverable: One electronic set of modeling files and report. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report that is under 10 pages written in Microsoft Word

2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to covert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Modeling files for the software used. • Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: Intentionally left blank. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.

9.4.3 Final TMP

For the preferred layout alternative, update the TMP Worksheet and Red Flag Checklist, and create the final TMP report. The final TMP report should not discuss the previous layout alternatives.

Incorporate the conclusions of the Staging Alternatives Analysis Report into the final TMP report.

• Deliverable: One electronic report with TMP Worksheet and Red Flag Checklist. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: State Metro TMP process. • State Review: 14 calendar days



Page 43 of 66

• Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.

9.4.4 Local Road TMP Analysis

9.4.4.1 Detour Analysis 1) Coordinate with FHWA to review construction traffic impact analysis methods and prepare travel time

calculations (delay).

2) Develop detours for various ramp closure scenarios. Calculate the approximate detoured traffic volume and length of the detour for State’s use for agreements with local agencies.

9.4.4.2 Travel Demand Modeling

1) Stakeholder Involvement Prepare materials for and attend up to three meetings with the Study Advisory Committee (SAC) and two

meetings with FHWA discuss model outputs, analysis results, and mitigation recommendations for the TMP traffic analysis.

Participate in four full-day field walks of potential mitigation locations with State and local agency staff.

2) Travel Demand Modeling

Obtain and summarize loop detector data on selected freeway mainline and ramp locations. Download loop detector data for selected freeway mainline and ramp locations through RTMC for comparison to model output volumes.

Obtain and summarize ADT data for I. -494 local street parallel routes between W 70th Street and W 86th

Street for comparison to model output volumes. Collect turning movement counts at intersections within the traffic modeling limits mentioned in the

traffic operations analysis section above. Assume up to 40 intersections to be reviewed in greater detail.

Develop base map showing assumptions for each model run, such as which ramps are open and closed and physical limits of the model. Provide to FHWA for concurrence.

Identify other construction projects that may affect diversion and alternative routes and include in construction staging scenarios to account for associated impacts in combination with the I-494 Bloomington Strip project.

Perform a validation check on the accuracy of the existing conditions model to reflect existing observed

conditions. Report locations with substantial differences where adjustments to model outputs may be appropriate to improve the validity of results.

Perform highway assignment for up to six alternatives with different construction staging traffic control

configurations along I-494 Bloomington Strip project area.

Based on feedback received from TAC and internal State reviews of the first four model runs, perform two additional model runs. These final two runs are meant to explore certain situations, such as, other construction projects in the area or other traffic disrupting events.

Produce maps depicting the locations and magnitudes of traffic pattern shifts for the construction staging

scenarios.



Page 44 of 66

Review findings with State staff to confirm reasonableness of results and identify corridors that would be

expected to approach or exceed capacity under these conditions.

3) Mitigation Development Prepare a "mitigation toolbox" document listing potential modifications that can be made to roadways and

intersections in response to increased traffic flows during construction. Participate in agency discussions to refine this toolbox document for use in developing proposed mitigation measures for the I-494 Bloomington strip project.

Collect existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts at up to 40 intersections along impacted

corridors identified from the travel demand modeling. For selected corridors, using Synchro, HCM method or equivalent, develop peak hour traffic forecasts for

up to 100 intersection scenarios under construction staging conditions. Perform up to 100 intersection geometric and traffic control evaluations and develop recommendations

for operational improvements to accommodate temporary increases in traffic flow. Document the assumptions, methods, results, and findings in a technical memorandum.

Deliverables: Document summarizing methodology and assumptions used for TMP traffic analysis, including

validation performance summary, projects scenarios, traffic pattern shifts, impacted locations, and recommended mitigations. Map of local construction projects anticipated during the construction period of the I-494 Bloomington strip project, organized by agency and timeframe for each project.

Graphic representation (i.e. maps) of traffic pattern shifts depicting the location and magnitude of traffic

impacts. “Mitigation Toolbox” document listing potential modifications that can be made to roadways and intersections in response to increased traffic flows during construction.

Map and summary of operational recommendations for up to 40 intersections that would help serve

temporary increases in traffic flow under construction staging scenarios. One paper and one electronic copy of the draft report, three copies of the final report plus one electronic

copy in pdf and one in Microsoft Word copy. Electronic versions of the Model runs of existing and three construction staging scenarios during AM and PM peak periods. Update TMP with the summary results.

• Format: All files submitted electronically. Meeting may be in person, teleconference, or web conference. Send email to State’s Project Manager at completion of meeting documenting that meeting occurred per requirements.

• Due: See project schedule. • Standard: Not applicable. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days

9.5 Enhanced NEPA Screening Analysis



Page 45 of 66

Contractor is responsible for completing analysis of travel time reliability and transit ridership forecasts to inform the screening of the general NEPA alternatives. Assumptions:

• Reliability analysis will be conducted along I-494 between the Minnesota River (to the east) and I-394. • Year 2040 daily transit ridership forecasts will be reported for I-494. • Contractor will use available data such as Streetlight, NPMRDS and/or the loop detector data, and not buy

additional data for this analysis.

9.5.1 Coordination Hold four meetings with State, Met Council, and FHWA traffic staff to provide updates on traffic modeling progress and results for the NEPA alternatives screening process. Assume staff preparation time for meetings and three Contractor staff persons to attend each meeting. Provide minutes for each meeting. Minutes should be very brief and simply state meeting occurred and list attendees. Details of discussion is not needed as that will eventually be provided in the technical memorandums.

• Deliverable: Four coordination meetings with minutes. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Meeting may be in person, teleconference, or web conference.

Send email to State’s Project Manager at completion of meeting documenting that meeting occurred per requirements.

• Due: See project schedule. • Standard: Not applicable. • State Review: During the meeting. • Contractor Update: During the meeting.

9.5.2 Transit Ridership Forecasts The Contractor should coordinate with regional transit providers that have expressed interest in providing services on this corridor. Develop route-level year 2040 average daily ridership forecasts for the corridor routes for two alternatives: No Build and Build. The data, methods, and results of the transit ridership forecasts shall be documented in the traffic forecast technical memorandum and submitted to State's Metro District forecaster for review.

• Deliverable: One electronic technical memorandum. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: To be coordinated with Met Council and State staff. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.

9.5.3 Travel Time Reliability Evaluation Collect one year of travel time and traffic volume data along the I-494 Bloomington strip. Compile data using SHRP2 reliability database tools and incorporate MnCMAT crash data and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather data. Separate travel time records by condition and develop demand-speed curves for each condition for eight segments along the I-494 Bloomington strip. Data shall also be collected along existing MnPASS corridors (I-394, I-35W south, I-35E) to develop demand-speed curves for managed lane facilities.



Page 46 of 66

Prepare a custom travel time model using the results of the data collection and analysis task to predict future travel time reliability performance along the I-494 Bloomington corridor. This model will allow for future increases in traffic forecasts and geometric changes such as additional general purpose, HOT, or MnPASS lanes. Travel time reliability estimates will be developed for the I-494 Bloomington strip corridor under year 2040 conditions for two alternatives: No Build and Build. Results will be reported in terms of average travel time, planning time index (PTI), and VMT-VHT. The data, methods, and results of the travel time reliability evaluation shall be documented in a technical memorandum and submitted to State's project manager for review.




9.5.4 Benefit-Cost Analysis for NEPA Alternative Screening Obtain alternative cost estimates and results from the traffic forecasting, transit ridership forecasting, travel time reliability, and CORSIM operations modeling tasks and format data to be used in benefit-cost analysis for the NEPA alternatives plus the No Build. Conduct an incremental benefit-cost analysis for the No Build, and the Build alternatives. Results shall be reported in terms of net present value and benefit-cost ratio. The data, methods, and results of the benefit-cost analysis will be documented in a technical memorandum and submitted to State’s Project Manager for review.


extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to covert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminated with the exception of actual signature pages.


9.6 Model Calibration, Validation, and Analysis

The Contractor will reevaluate the assumptions and traffic volume made in previous corridor studies mentioned in the scope to verify/validate existing base models and the efficacy of the managed lane recommendations. Review existing traffic volumes on study area roadways to determine changes since previous studies were completed. Collect loop detector volumes if necessary at selected locations and investigate trend growth. Provide recommendation on years to reference for existing traffic volumes to be used for traffic analysis tasks. Validate existing travel demand model using recommended existing traffic volume data set. Develop validation statistics and graphical results. Review existing model performance for assignment of MnPASS volumes on existing facilities. Review recent versions of MnPASS reports prepared by State. Identify changes in MnPASS usage patterns compared to previous studies provided. Perform a series of sensitivity tests on existing travel demand model to determine optimal MnPASS assignment methodology. Provide recommendation on preferred MnPASS assignment method. Update land use to year 2040 conditions. Perform detailed review of DRAFT Met Council TAZ-level land use for study area communities. Compare land use growth patterns to 2030 forecasts from previous corridor studies.



Page 47 of 66

Confirm city-level population and employment forecasts for year 2040 and consistence with Met Council's Thrive 2040 MSP totals. Document land use data used to develop traffic forecasts in forecast memorandum. Prepare CORSIM documentation report for the proposed improvements model runs. Submit to State for review and approval.


extension). Provide all source files from modeling. Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: To be coordinated with Met Council and State staff. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days. •

10 Interstate Access Request Prepare and process the Interstate Access Request for approval by FHWA following all requirements described on the State HPDP website.

• Deliverable: One electronic Interstate Access Request. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx


• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the Alternatives Evaluation deliverable. • Standard: The modeling will conform to the current “State Modeling Guidelines” and “CORSIM

Calibration Parameters” that can be found at internet web site, www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/index.html. The modeling will conform to the modeling process outlined in the current “Advanced CORSIM Training Manual”.


11 Geometric Layouts

Assumptions: • One submittal of each Draft Preliminary Geometric Layout will be provided. Comments received from

each of the Draft Layouts will be incorporated into the Final Geometric Layouts. • Two submittals of each Final Geometric Layout will be provided. Comments received from each of the

initial submittal Final Geometrics layouts will be incorporated into the second submittal of the Final Layouts.

• One submittal of the Staff Approved Layout will be provided that incorporates the comments received for the preferred Final Geometric Layout Alternative. One resubmittal of the Layout will be provided incorporating the comments received from the Layout Approval Committee (LAC) and Geometric Design Support Unit (GDSU) within 14 calendar days.

• Assumes State’s Project Manager will provide a comprehensive comment list for each deliverable. Contractor will provide a comprehensive comment response letter for each deliverable addressing its response to each comment.

• See Section 17 for refinements resulting from the Value Engineering recommendations. 11.1 Draft Preliminary Geometric Layouts

Prepare and process for review from both State and FHWA draft preliminary geometric layouts for the proposed build alternatives.




Page 48 of 66

Develop the layouts to the same level of detail as a Staff Approved Layout with profiles except use 200 scale for the layouts. Show coordinate-correct aerial photography on all layouts.

• Deliverable: One electronic copy of each alternative with aerial photography. One electronic copy of each alternative without the aerial photography and the file size minimized to allow for easy downloading from the internet. Five hardcopies of each alternative with aerial photography.

• Format: Electronic copies are to be delivered in 200 scale in both Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and MicroStation/GEOPAK formats. Hardcopies to be delivered in 200 scale in one continuous roll plot with layout and profiles on separate roll plots.

• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the Alternatives Evaluation deliverable. • Standard: Requirements for Geometric Layouts described on State’s HPDP and Geometric Design &

Layout Development websites. State CADD Level II standards. Must use GEOPAK. (standards as of August 1, 2014)

• State and FHWA Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: See final preliminary geometric layouts task.

11.2 Drainage Spread Requirements and Analysis for Median Shoulders

The key is to analyze the drainage spread into the adjacent lane requirements and possible exceptions that may be needed. Carefully analyze existing versus proposed cross slopes of the roadway, compute drainage spread, and develop a report explaining alternatives for handling both containing spread within the shoulder versus allowing spread into the adjacent lane. Include this work in the Design Memo.

• Deliverable: One electronic copy of report. • Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe

Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to covert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the Alternatives Evaluation deliverable. • Standard: State standards including, CADD Level 2 standards, State Special Provisions, State Technical

Memoranda, State Standard Specifications for Construction, State Drainage Manual, State Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Manual, and State Road Design Manual.


11.3 Final Preliminary Geometric Layouts

Prepare and process for review from both State and FHWA final preliminary geometric layouts for the build alternatives that make the necessary changes from the review described in the draft preliminary geometric layouts task:

Develop the layouts to the same level of detail as a Staff Approved Layout with profiles except use 200 scale for the layouts. Show coordinate-correct aerial photography on all layouts.

• Deliverable: One electronic copy of each alternative with aerial photography. One electronic copy of each alternative without the aerial photography and the file size minimized to allow for easy downloading from the internet. Five hardcopies of each alternative with aerial photography.

• Format: Electronic copies are to be delivered in 200 scale in both Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and Microstation/GEOPAK formats. Hardcopies to be delivered in 200 scale in one continuous roll plot with layout and profiles on separate roll plots.

• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the Alternatives Evaluation deliverable. • Standard: Requirements for Geometric Layouts described on State’s HPDP and Geometric Design &

Layout Development websites. State CADD Level II standards. Must use GEOPAK. (standards as of August 1, 2014).

• State and FHWA Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: To be determined based on the scope of work required.



Page 49 of 66

11.4 Level 1 - Staff Approved Layout

One of the preliminary geometric layouts will be selected as the preferred alternative. Develop and process for signatures the preferred alternative into the Level 1 - Staff Approved Layout. This layout is to be developed using 100 scale. Show coordinate-correct aerial photography on all layouts.

• Deliverable: One electronic copy of Staff Approved Layout with aerial photography. Five hardcopies with aerial photography.

• Format: Electronic copies are to be delivered in 100 scale in both Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and Microstation/GEOPAK formats. Hardcopies to be delivered in 100 scale in one continuous roll plot with layout and profiles on separate roll plots.

• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: Requirements for Geometric Layouts described on State’s HPDP and Geometric Design &

Layout Development websites. State CADD Level II standards. Must use GEOPAK. (standards as of August 1, 2014).


12 Drainage Overview Maps

Assumptions: • The project will need to manage runoff from increased impervious surface, unless infeasible due to high

groundwater, shallow bedrock, Karst geology, or Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) vulnerability. This retention will meet all applicable water quality standards of the MPCA (NPDES) and watershed districts in the corridor, (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Adjoining Cities and Federal Agencies (USFWS) and others.

• Proposed discharge rates from the project will be equal to or less than existing discharge rates storm events required by Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD), Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and adjoining cities.

• HydroCAD, XPSWWM and other MnDOT and industry accepted models will be utilized for hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of stormwater BMPs for the preferred alternative only.

• Water quality computations will not be required. Stormwater BMPs will be designed utilizing accepted methodology resulting in typical removal efficiencies, but specific water quality loading computations or modeling will not be required.

• The project will build upon the 2007 Interstate 494 Improvements, Penn Avenue to the Minnesota River: Interstate 494 Stormwater Alternatives Study and previous hydraulic and hydrologic studies on this corridor for implementation strategies.

• A technical memorandum will be provided to document design criteria, critical correspondence and decisions, and compile calculations.

12.1 Drainage Overview Maps for Alternatives

Prepare drainage overview maps for the preliminary geometric layout alternatives described herein. The level of detail needed is just enough to describe and compute where the water is coming from, where the water is going to, how large the storm water treatment facilities need to be and where they are located, including if they need to be located in areas where right of way must be acquired, and enough detail to compute costs in the Length, Width, and depth (LWD) cost estimates. The storm water treatment facilities will be shown on the preliminary geometric layout alternatives. Collect and review all applicable data and permitting requirements relating to water resources. Prepare regulatory criteria matrix and submit to State and Federal Agencies with jurisdiction for review. Data to be collected includes: Stormwater management plans and associated design criteria for Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Nine Mile Creek Water Shed District, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and surrounding cities, As-built plans or other record drawings for I-494 and adjacent roadways (update base files as appropriate), Contour base mapping



Page 50 of 66

(provided by State), GIS/CAD files including right-of-way, municipal utilities (storm drain and sanitary sewer) (update base files as appropriate), and Hydinfra data. Meet with regulatory agencies to confirm permitting requirements and design approach. Assumes two meetings attended by two Contractor Water Resource Engineer (WRE) staff. Perform a field walk to review existing conditions and prepare survey request. Prepare existing conditions drainage area map, including available existing storm drain and culvert infrastructure, hydrologic boundaries, and surface flow direction. Prepare hydraulic model of existing conditions to use as a base line for the design of the proposed condition. For each of the build alternatives: Determine potential storm water BMP locations and sizes, (including preliminary grading sufficient to establish construction limits and right of way needs) as required to meet LMRWD and NPDES permit requirements. Discuss potential BMP locations with State staff. Review proposed ditch locations and update based on review of preliminary cross sections. Propose special ditch grades as needed to provide roadway drainage and convey runoff to proposed BMPs. Perform preliminary trunk line and culvert sizing sufficient to verify feasibility of BMP locations, drainage patterns, and roadway elevations. Does not include drafting of trunkline or culvert profiles. Review soils and geological features and evaluate potential BMP locations for limitations to BMP types (infiltration in particular). Assess likelihood of impacts to groundwater. Prepare preliminary cost estimates for each BMP. Identify right of way needs for identified BMPs. Prepare drainage overview maps for the preliminary geometric layout alternatives described herein including major hydrologic boundaries (at a minimum showing areas to each BMP), proposed BMPs, and surface flow direction. Show the storm water treatment facilities on the preliminary geometric layout alternatives. State will provide existing contour data at 2-foot contour intervals or better. State and the cities surrounding the corridor will provide GIS files, HydInfra, As-builts and any other available data for the existing drainage system, including pipe and invert information, drainage features (ponds, etc.); and existing drainage boundary shape files as available. The contractor will identify the areas needed.

• Deliverable: A comprehensive storm water management report for full implementation of MnPASS in the project limits.

• Four drainage overview maps. One electronic copy of each drainage overview map alternative with the storm water treatment facilities transferred onto the preliminary geometric layout alternatives. Technical memorandum to document design criteria, critical correspondence and decisions, and compile calculations.

• Format: Electronic copies are to be delivered in both Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and Microstation/GEOPAK formats.


Memoranda, State Standard Specifications for Construction, State Drainage Manual, and State Road Design Manual.



Page 51 of 66


12.2 Drainage Overview Map for Staff Approved Layout

Prepare drainage overview map for the staff approved layout. In addition to the detail described in the drainage overview maps for alternatives task provide enough detail to compute the quantities described in the 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate task. Perform approximate catch basin (CB) spacing analysis and place CBs to meet criteria (based on overall corridor assumptions, not individual drainage areas to CBs). Perform storm sewer trunk line sizing from low points to pond/receiving water. Perform culvert sizing for major centerline culverts. Prepare hydraulic models of proposed conditions sufficient to demonstrate compliance with regulatory criteria. Prepare proposed conditions drainage overview map, including proposed storm drain trunk lines and significant culvert infrastructure, hydrologic boundaries, proposed BMPs, and surface flow direction. Prepare stormwater-related cost estimate for inclusion into the 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate Task based on preliminary trunk line and major culvert sizing, approximate CB spacing and assumed structure sizes and minor culvert sizes. Prepare technical memorandum documenting the design supporting the staff approved layout storm water treatment facilities.

• Deliverable: Drainage overview map. One electronic copy with the storm water treatment facilities transferred onto the staff approved layout.

• Format: Electronic copies are to be delivered in both Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and Microstation/GEOPAK formats.

• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the preliminary design package task. • Standard: State standards including, CADD Level 2 standards, State Special Provisions, State Technical



13 Cost Estimates

Assumptions: • One iteration of each cost estimate for the Draft Alternatives and Final Alternative will be provided.

Comments received based on the Draft Alternatives review will be incorporated into the Final Alternatives Cost Estimate.

• One iteration of the 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate will be provided, and assumes two updates will be provided based on review comments provided in response to the initial submittal.

• The Draft Alternatives and Final Alternative Cost Estimates will be delivered based on 2016 Average Bid Prices for Awarded Projects (2017 Spec Year). The 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate will be delivered based on 2016 Average Bid Prices for Awarded Projects (2017 Spec Year) if available.

• See Section 17 for refinements resulting from the Value Engineering recommendations.

13.1 Cost Estimates for Draft Alternatives



Page 52 of 66

Prepare cost estimates for each of the draft preliminary geometric layouts. Use State Metro’s LWD cost estimate template and methodology. Cost estimates for bridges may use the dollars per square foot method. Contractor will coordinate with State bridge office in determining the appropriate unit pricing for the estimate.

• Deliverable: One electronic copy of the LWD estimates for each alternative for a total of 3 estimates. • Format: Electronic files in Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx extension) • Due: To be completed in conjunction with the Alternatives Evaluation deliverable. • Standard: State Metro’s LWD method guidelines • State and FHWA Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: See final preliminary geometric layouts task.

13.2 Cost Estimates for Final Alternatives

Prepare final preliminary cost estimates for each of the draft preliminary geometric layouts for a total of three estimates. Use State Metro’s LWD cost estimate template and methodology. Cost estimates for bridges may use the dollars per square foot method. Contractor will coordinate with State bridge office in determining the appropriate unit pricing for the estimate.

• Deliverable: One electronic copy of the LWD estimates for each alternative for a total of three estimates. • Format: Electronic files in Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx extension) • Due: To be completed in conjunction with the Alternatives Evaluation deliverable. • Standard: State Metro’s LWD method guidelines • State and FHWA Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: See final preliminary geometric layouts task.

13.3 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate

Prepare one 30% quantities based cost estimate based on the Staff Approved Layout using the State Metro modified LWD and Quantities estimating method. This method assumes the total cost from the LWD is correct. It then requires the Contractor to compute the quantities of a fraction of the TRNS*PORT bid items that are normally used to create a final plan Statement of Estimated Quantities. Contractor will compute the following items:

• Earthwork quantities based on the cross section deliverable including common excavation, subgrade excavation, common embankment, granular borrow, topsoil borrow, and including excavation needed for storm water treatment and ponding

• Aggregate base • Bituminous pavement items • Concrete pavement item • Cantilever and overhead sign structures • Quantities for new bridges based on General, Plan, and Elevation (G, P, & E) bridge sheets and including

anticipated foundation types and wing walls. State will apply the appropriate unit costs to the quantities provided by the Contractor to develop the cost estimate. Quantities for bridge rehabilitation based on geometric, structural, and condition-based improvements. State will provide the Bridge Scoping Cost Estimate spreadsheet to provide unit prices on typical bridge repair activities.

• Drainage items including various storm sewer sizes, storm sewer structures, and culverts • Noise walls using the dollars per square foot of surface area method • Type A and OH sign structures • MnPASS equipment, including electronic signs, detectors, fiber optic • ITS equipment, including fiber optic, vehicle detection, cameras, cabinets

State will then compute the remaining costs of the project using various methods including a percentage of the total LWD cost for each of the following bid items:

• Mobilization • Removals • Other concrete items • Turf and erosion control



Page 53 of 66

• Miscellaneous signing, fencing, and appurtenances • Lighting • Signal systems • Pedestrian ramps • Traffic management systems • Maintenance of traffic • Deliverable: One electronic copy of the 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate. • Format: Electronic files in Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx extension) • Due: To be completed in conjunction with the preliminary design package. • Standard: State Metro’s 30% quantities based cost estimate method guidelines • State: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 5 calendar days.

13.3.1 Additional 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate Work Assume I-494 Bloomington strip project is a design bid build project. Prepare an estimate for the price of the consultant to do the final design work. Assume I-494 Bloomington strip project is a design build project. Prepare an estimate for the price of final design where the consultant would be doing this work for a construction Contractor. Deliverables: Estimated Bid-Build Final Design Engineering Fee estimate. Estimated Design-Build Final Design Engineering Fee estimate.

14 Bridge Evaluation

The bridges of 12th Avenue and Portland Avenue are identified in BRIM to be replaced in 2028-2037 timeframe and Nicollet Avenue in 2022-2027 timeframe. Furthermore, the state with other local partners are considering consolidating highway access from these three bridges as part of this project. In addition, since, this stretch of highway is being considered for MnPASS and Auxiliary Lanes (between I-35W and TH100). The Contractor should evaluate all the bridges over I-494 in this project to verify clearance to accommodate the MnPASS and Auxiliary lanes. Assume the typical sections and lane addition locations identified in the I-494/TH 62 Congestion Relief study. As a result Contractor will be required to do the preliminary engineering and cost estimating for any modifications to bridges or new bridges that will be required as part of the alternatives analysis and preliminary design of the staff approved layout. Create a bridge evaluation report with G, P, & E sheets for up to three bridges that represent a most likely bridge type that would be constructed including recommendations on foundation type. Where soil borings are not available, use information from the plans of existing bridges in the area. A preliminary bridge plan is not required. Note that bridge cost estimating is covered under the cost estimating task. The contractor should use the new State bridge repair scoping report for the bridges proposed for rehab. That will help the consultant explain their justification for rehab vs replacement as well. Most of the bullet points identified to be provided for the bridges proposed to be rehabbed will be incorporated into the bridge repair scoping report. State will provide existing bridge structure reports, inspection reports, and maintenance reports. Complete pages 2 and 3 of the Bridge Repair Scoping Report for all bridges along the corridor. State will provide scope of work to maintain bridges within the project limits that are not otherwise impacted by geometric changes due to the project.

14.1 Bridge Evaluation of Alternatives



Page 54 of 66

Prepare bridge evaluation reports for the concept geometric layout alternatives described herein. Each report will detail geometric constraints, effects on required clearances, loading issues and reasoning behind selection of bridge rehabilitation vs. bridge replacement. When determining the extent of rehabilitation or replacement, use the criteria provided in the Bridge Preservation and Improvement Guidelines (BPIG). Ensure the design life of the bridge will match that of the approach roadway. Include any effects that traffic staging may have on rehabilitation or replacement alternatives. For bridges proposed for replacement, provide the following:

• G, P, & E sheet • Typical Cross Section sheet

For bridges proposed for rehabilitation, provide the following:

• proposed deck cross-section including lane configuration and cross-slopes • superstructure and substructure widening limits • Structural improvements needed for bridge rehabilitation, such as deck repairs and/or replacement,

expansion joint replacement, barrier replacement, etc. • structural impacts to existing superstructure, substructure and foundations due to any increase in deadload • pier protection including impacts of additional load on existing bridge foundations • end post replacements required to connect to new guardrail • any proposed design exceptions that would be required • If the preliminary cost estimates indicate rehabilitation is the preferred alternative, further analysis of the

existing structure will be required to determine if additional strengthening is necessary. This will include LRFD load ratings of the superstructure and piers and final cost estimates based on strengthening required by the analysis

For bridges that will not require modification, provide the following:

• proposed lane configuration on existing deck cross-section or horizontal and vertical clearances below • pier protection requirements including impacts of additional load on existing bridge foundations • end post replacements required to connect to new guardrail • any proposed design exceptions that would be required

Prepare bridge evaluation report for the preliminary geometric layout alternatives described herein. Each report will detail geometric constraints, effects on required clearances, and reasoning behind selection of structure type.

• Deliverable: Preliminary bridge evaluation reports. One electronic copy of each impacted bridge. • Bridge Repair Scoping Report for all bridges along the corridor • Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe

Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages. Supply source files in MicroStation/GEOPAK formats.


Memoranda, State Standard Specifications for Construction, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, MnDOT LRFD Bridge Design Manual, MnDOT Bridge Preservation and Improvement Guidelines Fiscal Year 2016 – 2020, AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation , and State Road Design Manual.


14.2 Bridge Evaluation of Staff Approved Layout



Page 55 of 66

Prepare bridge evaluation report for the staff approved layout. The bridge evaluation report will detail changes in geometry, substructure modifications required, bridge widenings and impacts to required clearances for all the bridges within the project limits for the staff approved geometric layout.

Prepare for and attend one meeting with State Bridge Office to discuss general approach to bridge evaluations.

• Deliverable: Final bridge evaluation. One electronic copy. • Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe

Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages. Supply source files in Microstation/GEOPAK formats.

• Due: To be completed with the preliminary design package. • Standard: State standards including, CADD Level 2 standards, State Special Provisions, State Technical

Memoranda, State Standard Specifications for Construction, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, MnDOT LRFD Bridge Design Manual, MnDOT Bridge Preservation and Improvement Guidelines Fiscal Year 2016 – 2020, AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation, and State Road Design Manual.


15 Cross Sections and Construction Limits of Alternatives Prepare cross sections for the preliminary geometric layout alternatives described herein. The level of detail needed is just enough to describe and compute where retaining walls may be required, and construction limits at any points where it is believed the work may require additional right of way, and enough detail to compute costs in the LWD cost estimates. The Contractor does not need to run cross sections for the entire length of the project or compute earthwork quantities on this task. The retaining walls will be shown on the preliminary geometric layout alternatives. Create a MicroStation construction limit file that only shows construction limits that go beyond the State right of way, and then show these construction limits on the preliminary geometric layout alternatives.

• Deliverable: Three sets of cross sections. One electronic copy of cross section plan set for each alternative with retaining walls and construction limits transferred onto the preliminary geometric layout alternatives.

• Format: Electronic copies in plan sheet form are to be delivered in both Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and MicroStation/GEOPAK formats.




15.1 Cross Sections and Construction Limits for Staff Approved Layout

Prepare cross sections for the staff approved layout. In addition to the detail described in the cross sections for alternatives task provide enough detail to compute the quantities described in the 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate task. Create cross sections for the entire project length and scope including earthwork for drainage facilities. Create a continuous construction limit line for the entire length and scope of the project and show on the Staff Approved Layout.

• Deliverable: Cross section plan set with construction limits shown on the staff approved layout. One electronic copy with retaining walls transferred onto the staff approved layout.

• Format: Electronic copies are to be delivered in both Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and MicroStation/GEOPAK formats.

• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the preliminary design package task.



Page 56 of 66

• Standard: State standards including, CADD Level 2 standards, State Special Provisions, State Technical Memoranda, State Standard Specifications for Construction, State Drainage Manual, and State Road Design Manual.


16 State Scoping Report and Paving Recommendations

The Contractor will deliver a scoping report for this project. The primary purpose is to document the detailed scope and costs that have been approved for this project. Contractor will be responsible for coordinating with the State functional groups to identify preservation needs beyond the current project scope, and complete worksheet questions in the Metro Scoping Database (MSD). The State’s Project Manager will add the needs and complete the funding in MSD. This means that the Contractor may need to incorporate scope documented in the State scope report into their deliverables, including but not limited to layouts, cost estimates, and the EA; and the opposite is also true in that the State Project Manager will need to add scope documented in the Contractor’s deliverables into the State scoping report. State will perform the pavement investigation, analysis, and recommendation for this project. The Contractor will incorporate State’s analysis and recommendations into the Contract deliverables, which includes updating the scope and cost estimates in the relevant deliverables including but not limited to preliminary LWD estimates, draft EA, final estimates and final EA.

16.1 Initial State Scoping Report

Contractor will incorporate State’s initial scoping report into the Alternatives Evaluation documentation, including but not limited to, updating the scope, layout, cost estimates, and EA. The Contractor 's role for this task will be limited to updating staff approved layout typical sections and color file indicating proposed construction, based on State's Scoping Report. Cost estimates will also be updated accordingly.

• Deliverable: Integrate approved scope from State scoping report into Alternatives Evaluation, cost estimates, layout, and draft EA.

• Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to covert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.




16.1.1 Initial State Pavement Recommendations

The Contractor will incorporate State’s initial pavement recommendations into the Alternatives Evaluation documentation, including but not limited to, updating the scope, layout, cost estimates, and EA. The Contractor 's role for this task will be limited to updating staff approved layout typical sections and color file indicating proposed construction, based on State's Scoping Report. Cost estimates will also be updated accordingly.

• Deliverable: Integrate initial pavement recommendations into Alternatives Evaluation, cost estimates, layout, and draft EA.

• Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Convert complete package in Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to



Page 57 of 66

covert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the Alternatives Evaluation deliverable. • Standard: State standards including, CADD Level 2 standards, State Special Provisions, State

Technical Memoranda, State Standard Specifications for Construction, State Drainage Manual, and State Road Design Manual.


16.2 Final State Scoping Report

The final State scoping report will be updated throughout the project between the completion of the initial State scoping report and the completion of this contract. The intent is that the Contractor’s deliverables and State scoping report coincide with each other throughout the process.

The Contractor will participate in an audit of the final State scoping report against the Contractor’s deliverables to verify that both coincide with each other and that all scope has been properly captured, and integrate that information into the Contractor’s final deliverables, including but not limited to, the completed EA, staff approved layout, preliminary design package deliverables, and 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate. While this task should be done as an ongoing process throughout the contract it also is essentially the very last task to be completed in order to close out the contract.

• Deliverable: Integrate approved scope into contract deliverables. • Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe

Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the completion of the contract. • Standard: State standards including, CADD Level 2 standards, State Special Provisions, State Technical



16.2.1 Final State Pavement Recommendations

The Contractor will incorporate State’s final pavement recommendations into the Contractor’s final deliverables, including but not limited to, the completed EA, staff approved layout, preliminary design package deliverables, and 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate.

• Deliverable: Integrate final pavement recommendations into Contract deliverables. • Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in

Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to convert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the completion of the Contract. • Standard: State standards including, CADD Level 2 standards, State Special Provisions, State

Technical Memoranda, State Standard Specifications for Construction, State Drainage Manual, and State Road Design Manual.


17 Value Engineering



Page 58 of 66

State will hire a separate Contractor to perform Value Engineering (VE) on this project. This task will be performed at the conclusion of the alternatives evaluation, and before the creation of the staff approved layout. The VE will be performed on the preferred alternative only. The VE occurs over five business days. Contractor will participate in the Value Engineering and provide the following items:

• Provide layout, graphics, cost estimates, schedules, preliminary construction staging, and other project data request by State for use during the VE study.

• Present an overview of the project to the VE Study team if requested by State (assumes two Contractor staff attending meeting).

• Answer questions from the VE Team as needed during the VE study (may require multiple Contractor staff and time to produce rough concept drawings and cost estimates of changes requested).

• Attend the final VE Study presentation if requested by State (assumes two Contractor staff attending). • Review the VE Study recommendations and provide explanations for accepting or rejecting the VE

recommendations if requested by State.

Contractor may be required to refine preferred alternative layout, profiles, and cost estimates based upon accepted VE Study recommendations.

17.1 Value Engineering Participation

• Deliverable: Attend VE Study workshops. Prepare rough concept drawings and cost estimates as needed. • Format: Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) for any products produced. • Due: To be completed in conjunction with the VE workshops. • Standard: Intentionally left blank. • State: Intentionally left blank. • Contractor: Intentionally left blank.

17.2 Value Engineering Preferred Alternative Layout Revision

• Deliverable: One electronic copy of the revised preferred alternative layout with aerial photography. One electronic copy of revised preferred alternative layout without the aerial photography and the file size minimized to allow for easy downloading from the internet. Five hardcopies of the preferred alternative layout with aerial photography.

• Format: Electronic copies are to be delivered in 200 scale in both Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and MicroStation/GEOPAK formats. Hardcopies to be delivered in 200 scale in one continuous roll plot with layout and profiles on separate roll plots.

• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: Requirements for Geometric Layouts described on State’s HPDP and Geometric Design &

Layout Development websites. State CADD Level II standards. Must use GEOPAK. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.

17.3 Value Engineering Preferred Alternative LWD Cost Estimate Revision

• Deliverable: One electronic copy of the LWD estimates for the revised preferred alternative. • Format: Electronic files in Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx extension) • Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: State Metro’s LWD method guidelines • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.

18 Preliminary Design Package

Prepare the preliminary design package based on the Level 1 Staff Approved Layout. This package includes these tasks previously mentioned in this Scope of Work:

• Bridge Evaluation of Staff Approved Layout,



Page 59 of 66

• 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate, • Drainage Overview Map for Staff Approved Layout, • Cross Sections and Construction Limits for Staff Approved Layout,

And the following tasks: 18.1 Design Memorandum

Prepare and process for approval the design memorandum. The design memorandum is to be done for the Staff Approved Layout only. Follow all requirements described on State’s Geometric Design & Layout Development website. Explain all design exceptions within the project limits including the existing design exceptions that will be left as-is. The project manager will provide an example design memo for a representative project/scope for reference purposes.

Contractor will provide one draft submittal of the design memorandum based on the preferred alternative. Upon receipt of State comments, Contractor will provide one final submittal of the design memorandum.

• Deliverable: One electronic copy and one official hardcopy for signature. • Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe


• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: Requirements from State’s Geometric Design and Layout Development website. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.

18.2 Right of Way Report

State is responsible for preparing the existing R/W map and CADD files. The Contractor is responsible for creating construction limits as discussed herein, preparing the proposed R/W acquisition map, and preparing the preliminary right of way acquisition cost estimate. The Contractor will compile the R/W information created into a report that lists all parcels being acquired, acreage acquired, and their costs. Show the proposed R/W acquisition on the concept layouts, breakdown on each parcel for each acquisition type (Fee, Permanent Drainage & Utility Easement, Permanent Footing and Wall Maintenance Easement, Temporary Easement, Access Control), and show the right of way costs in the cost estimates for each acquisition type for each parcel

• Deliverable: One electronic copy of right of way report with right of way acquisitions, Supply source files in MicroStation/GEOPAK of the construction limits and cost estimates.

• Deliverable: ALL recorded documents gathered by the Contractor will be furnished to State’s R/W Office. • Deliverable: ALL Title Work (if any) shall be furnished to State’s R/W Office. • Format: Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe


• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the preliminary design package task. • Standard: Requirements from State’s Geometric Design & Layout Development website. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.

18.3 Preliminary ITS, MNPASS, and Type A and OH Layout

Create a preliminary layout that shows the ITS infrastructure, MNPASS infrastructure, and Type A and OH signs, including cameras, vehicle detection, toll readers, MnPASS pricing signs, ramp metering, MnPASS enforcement, fiber optic infrastructure, and dynamic message signs. Show these items on the layout with stationing, or an alternative method of locating signs with an accurate scalable distance between signs. Create a list of these major



Page 60 of 66

items and their locations. Use this information to compute ITS, MNPASS, and Type A and OH sign costs for incorporation into the various cost estimates.

Conduct a field inventory of in-place Type A and OH guide signing within the project limits, as well as signing affected by the project, but located outside the project limits. Identify guide signs for removal, salvage and those to remain in-place. The layout will show the proposed roadway geometry, horizontal alignments, lane lines and assignments, edge lines, retaining walls, bridges and existing topography.

State will provide comprehensive ITS as-builts showing existing ITS infrastructure, including, but not limited to, detection, cameras, dynamic message signs, cabinets, fiber optic cable, ramp metering, cabinets, source of power, etc.

State will provide comprehensive signing as-builts showing existing signing infrastructure, including but not limited to, Type A and OH guide signs.

• Deliverable: One electronic copy of layout. Five hardcopies. • Format: Electronic copies are to be delivered in 200 scale in both Adobe Acrobat (pdf extension) and

Microstation/GEOPAK formats. Hardcopies to be delivered in 200 scale in one continuous roll plot. • Due: To be completed in conjunction with the preliminary design package. • Standard: State standards including Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and

ITS guidelines. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: To be determined based on the scope of work required.

18.4 Visual Quality Manual

Prepare a Visual Quality Manual (VQM) of sufficient detail to successfully communicate design intent to provide guidance for future final design and construction of the project. Document and illustrate visual quality, architectural, and aesthetic design recommendations for the preliminary visual design elements used in transportation planning and design, including but not limited to, bridges, retaining walls, grading, signing, lighting, planting, fencing, storm water ponds, bike and pedestrian facilities, and barriers.

Collect and present the information needed to develop the VQM. The details in the manual will be determined through collaboration with State staff only. State will handle all Visual Quality coordination with stakeholders. The Contractor will be required to attend meetings as needed to display their work on the VQM. State will direct the Contractor to make changes as needed.

The VQM will include design guidelines, directives, and recommendations documented by plan layouts, elevations, sections, and details drawn to scale, text annotations with design intent and construction directives, as appropriate for the element. The scale drawings will show proportional relationships, approximate color representation, and appropriate textures. Information on cost analysis and comparisons and maintenance discussion and requirements will be included. Preliminary structural information will be shown on 11x17 plan sheets with borders, title blocks and text descriptors. Include the treatment of the bridges, the retaining walls and noise walls. Write and edit the narrative portions of the manual, refine the visual and graphic exhibits from materials developed from State meetings, and compile these materials into a single document.

• Deliverable: One electronic copy and 10 hardcopies. • Format: Written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx extension). Complete package in Adobe Acrobat

(pdf extension) and pdf should be created by using Adobe Acrobat to covert the source file to a pdf whenever possible with the use of scanned pages minimized if not eliminate with the exception of actual signature pages.

• Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: Intentionally left blank. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.



Page 61 of 66

18.5 Risk Management of Construction Risks

Participate in a risk management process to analyze potential changes in cost between the 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate, and the bid at the construction letting and potential changes orders that may occur after letting. State will facilitate the risk management workshop, create a risk register, and run the Monte Carlo analysis.

Contractor will evaluate all items in their cost estimates and determine a level of risk or opportunities that could result in a change of their estimated costs. Use engineering judgment to predict and develop other risks that may occur after letting.

Add any costs developed from the risk management process in to the 30% Quantities Based Cost Estimate. Contractor will provide up to five individuals to participate in the Risk Management of Construction Costs Workshop, consisting of the Contractor’s Project Manager, and design team members as needed to represent Traffic, Roadway, Drainage, and Structural design. Assume the workshop will last one week. All five individuals will participate for one day of the workshop.

• Deliverable: Participation in risk management process and update cost estimates. • Format: Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx extension). • Due: To be determined upon completion of the schedule. • Standard: Intentionally left blank. • State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days.

19 Wetland Delineation

19.1 General Statement of Scope of Work Contractor is responsible for doing the level 1 and 2 wetland delineation for the project including work necessary to obtain permitting agency approval for the level 2 wetland delineation.

19.2 State will provide: • Property access and permissions for work outside of State R/W on an as-needed basis. • Existing Level 1 and Level 2 wetland delineations within the project area. • Review and approval of the Level 2 draft and final wetland delineation report prior to submittal to the

Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). • State will distribute the final Level 2 wetland delineation report to members of the TEP and the USACE.

19.3 Assumptions • Level 1 and 2 wetland delineations will be limited to existing State R/W. • Assumes Level 1 wetland delineation will not include report, on-site sampling, or photographs. Digital

boundaries file only. • Assumes that center median wetlands will be delineated from aerial photos and no sampling will take place

in the median for both Level 1 and 2 wetland delineations. If access is needed it will be coordinated through State.

• Assumes the TEP will consist of a representative from the Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR), WCA Local Government Unit (State), and the MnDNR. Additionally a representative from the USACE will be invited to the TEP.

• Assumes Level 1 (off-site) delineations and verification will be completed outside of the growing season. • Assumes Level 2 delineation and approvals will take place during the 2015 growing season. • Assumes growing season to start mid-May 2015. • Assumes pin flags will be placed, and left in place for delineated boundaries on the roadway edges. No pin

flags will be placed in the center median.



Page 62 of 66

• Assumes no wetland permitting in this task.

19.4 Deliverables

19.4.1 WTL2000 Perform Level 1 Field Prep (Wetlands) Meet with State Project Manager and wetland staff to discuss project approach, timelines, and scope for Level 1 and 2 wetland delineations. Identify all aquatic resources within and adjacent to the project limits, including lakes, streams, ponds, ditches and wetlands. Complete desktop mapping including a Level 1 wetland delineation. Desktop mapping is defined as mapping the wetlands by reviewing existing documentation only from your desk and not doing any field observations. Resources used to locate basins for Level 1 Delineations could include (but are not limited to): National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, DNR Public Water Inventory (PWI) mapping, DNR Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) mapping, County Soil Survey mapping, Floodplain Mapping, USGS Topographic Mapping, Current Aerial Photos and Historic Aerial Photos.

• Deliverable: Assemble all documents containing existing information about wetlands and produce an electronic map showing location and preliminary boundary of wetlands.

• Format: Electronic • Standard: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and its Regional Supplement. • Schedule: Refer to project schedule. This task must be completed before permits are submitted to permitting

agencies.

19.4.2 WTL2010 Perform Level 1 Field Work (Wetlands) Field review level 1 aquatic resource mapping. Confirm desktop delineation mapping with a field walk to review up to 15 areas. The field review will occur outside of the growing season, but apparent vegetation and topography will be analyzed to determine if boundary lines were drawn in the correct location or make changes as needed.

• Deliverable: Perform the field walk. Update hardcopy delineation maps. • Format: Hardcopy • Standard: Aerial photo mapping. • Schedule: Refer to project schedule. This task must be completed before permits are submitted to permitting

agencies.

19.4.3 WTL2020 Perform Level 1 Post Field (Wetlands) Update Level 1 mapping to reflect field review. Level 1 wetland delineations will be reviewed by State’s wetland staff before the permitting agency coordination meeting.

• Deliverable: Level 1 Wetland Delineation Mapping, including all source files with the Microsoft Excel wetland impact table, minus impact data, from the USACE/WCA Joint Application.

• Format: Mapping to be done using State’s Level 1 Basic CADD Data Delivery Specifications and ArcMap compatible shapefile of the aquatic resources.

• Standard: USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and its Regional Supplement, State Surveying and Mapping Manual.

• Schedule: Refer to project schedule. This task must be completed before permits are submitted to permitting agencies.

• State Review: State will take 5 business days to review deliverable before permitting agency coordination meeting.



Page 63 of 66

19.4.4 WTL 2040 Early Coordination Meeting with Regulators (Wetlands)

Arrange, coordinate, and facilitate an Early Coordination/TEP meeting. Invite the State’s Project Manager, Contractor’s Wetland Delineator, State’s Wetland Coordinator, State WCA LGU representative, BWSR TEP representative, SWCD TEP representative, DNR TEP representative, and COE liaison for State. There will be two early coordination meetings. The first meeting will be before any layout work or wetland delineation is complete and shall occur as close to project initiation as possible. The purpose will be to get the regulators familiarized with the project and solicit comments and possible concerns related to wetland delineation efforts. The second meeting will occur before the preferred alternative is selected, but after preliminary layouts and preliminary wetland impacts are complete. Contractor will give a presentation to explain where all the aquatic resources are located on the project, more detailed design description and how impacts were minimized. Contractor will use the USACE coordination meeting checklist to be provided by State. State will provide the meeting facilities. Facilitate discussion with regulators to determine if there are any initial concerns or information that can be shared considering the information collected to date by Contractor. Coordinate with regulators regarding future TEP meetings, if necessary. Provide minutes of the meeting to State.

• Deliverable: Two meetings with minutes. • Format: The complete minutes will be packaged using Electronic Adobe Acrobat document (pdf file

extension). The source files for the PDF will be Microsoft Word 2010 (docx file extension), and Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx file extension).

• Standard: Minutes will include attendee names, phone numbers and emails; a list of discussion items; decisions made; actions to be performed.

• Schedule: Refer to project schedule. First meeting soon after project initiation. Second meeting before preferred alternative is selected and after preliminary layouts and wetland delineation is completed.

• State will provide: Meeting facilities.

19.4.5 WTL2050 Perform Level 2 Field Work (Wetlands) Complete Routine On-site Determination Method (RODM) for each wetland with the potential for permanent impacts. Each delineation will be surveyed with a Global Positioning System (GPS) to sub-meter accuracy during the growing season (generally May to October 15th). The wetlands will be delineated using the determination methodology and procedures described in the U.S. Army COE Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1, 1987) and in accordance with the methods identified in the Regional Supplement to the COE Wetland Delineation Manual as required by both the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

• Deliverable: Delineate the wetland boundary. Mark the boundary by installing pin flags in the field, survey the boundary by using GPS surveying.


• Standard: U.S. Army COE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and its Regional Supplement, and Circular 39 and Eggers and Reed Plant Communities.




Page 64 of 66

19.4.6 WTL2060 Perform Level 2 Post Field (Wetlands)

Following the field delineation, wetland features in the project area will be classified using two different methods: (1) one of eight types of wetlands of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39 Document by Shaw and Fredine, 1956, (2) Eggers and Reed Wetland Plant Communities of Minnesota.

• Deliverable: To be included in 19.4.8 Wetland Delineation Report o Level 2 Wetland Delineation Mapping, including transect information o Wetland Determination Data Forms




• State Review: State will take 5 business days to review deliverable before permitting agency coordination meeting.

19.4.7 WTL2065 Final Coordination Meeting with Regulators (Wetlands) Purpose is to get final approval of final wetland delineations. Arrange, coordinate, and facilitate a Final Coordination/TEP meeting. Invite the State’s Project Manager, Contractor’s Wetland Delineator, State’s Wetland Coordinator, State WCA LGU representative, BWSR TEP representative, SWCD TEP representative, DNR TEP representative, and COE liaison for State. State will provide a brief presentation describing the Project. Contractor will give a presentation to explain where all the aquatic resources are located on the project, more detailed design description and how impacts were minimized (use the COE coordination meeting checklist). State will provide the meeting facilities. Facilitate discussion with regulators to determine if there are any concerns or information that can be shared considering the information collected to date by Contractor. Provide minutes of the meeting to State.

• Deliverable: One meeting with minutes. • Format: The complete minutes will be packaged using Electronic Adobe Acrobat document (pdf file

extension). The source files for the PDF will be Microsoft Word 2010 (docx file extension), and Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx file extension).

• Standard: Minutes will include attendee names, phone numbers and emails; a list of discussion items; decisions made; actions to be performed.

• Schedule: Refer to project schedule. Meeting to occur after submittal of wetland delineation report. • State will provide: Meeting facilities.

19.4.8 WTL2070 Write Report Documentation (Wetlands) Prepare Wetland Delineation Report. The report will include identification of all aquatic resources and level 2 wetland delineations.

• Deliverable: Final Wetland Delineation Report. • Format: The complete report will be packaged using Electronic Adobe Acrobat document (pdf file

extension). The source files for the PDF will be Microsoft Word 2010 (docx file extension), and Microsoft Excel 2010 (xlsx file extension). Five hardcopies.




Page 65 of 66


• State Review: State will take 5 business days to review deliverable before permits are submitted.

20 Clean and video tape pipe sewer The purpose is to determine the current condition of State storm water facilities within the project limits. The review of digital video, inspection information and corresponding field condition information will be used for scoping purposes to effectively and efficiently design storm water infrastructure. The Contractor will organize a meeting with the Project Manager and the districts water resource representative to create a MAP/identify the structures that will be inspected.

Assumptions

• Work will performed conforming to State specifications 2503: Clean and Video Tape Pipe Sewer. • The location of existing infrastructure and newly identified infrastructure within State’s R/W require GPS

to verify location of said infrastructure and accurately record / document the location of newly identified features.

• Contractor will obtain all necessary permits, provide necessary fees and coordinate work activities with all applicable land owners, land users, and regulatory agencies.

• Contractor will be responsible for gaining access to the storm sewer infrastructure system (remove cover and grates).

• Contractor will notify the state within 48-hours of the discovery of damaged / broken road surface structures (catch basin, manhole covers, culverts, pipes) and / or other storm sewer features that have the potential to affect the road surface.

• If the Contractor or any of the Contractor’s sub–contractor’s / affiliates cause damage to or degrade the existing infrastructure or roadway it will be the Contractor’s responsibility for all repairs and expense to restore the site to at least an pre-existing condition as defined by the State’s Project Manager.

• All identified features (existing and newly discovered) shall require an inspection and shall adhere to State’s rating guide.

• Contractor will provide traffic control to provide work zone safety and coordinate with appropriate departments/agencies per State standards.

Deliverables: • Deliverable: Contractor will provide The MAP with all the MAP EDITS, Verification that existing features

and new features have been uploaded and approved by the TAMS database and State’s Project Manager. Documentation of proper disposal of all materials / sediment generated during cleaning activities.

• Format: USB 3.0 External hard drive with MPEG video files and digital photos for pipes, special structures and structures or WinCan database file, with WinCan Viewer, and additional special structure and structure picture and video files.

• Due: To be completed in conjunction with the preliminary design package task. • Standard: State standards including, CADD Level 2 standards, State Special Provisions, State Technical


• State Review: 14 calendar days • Contractor Update: 14 calendar days

21 I-494 MnPASS Implementation Report The Contractor will provide a MnPASS implementation strategy/phasing report i.e. the selection process of the first scope that meets the $150-$200 Million construction budget target for the proposed 2020 project, then the prioritization of remaining implementation phases and supporting cost estimates for the full build vision. Assumption:



Page 66 of 66

• Budgeted hours for this task will be realized in previous tasks in the process of determining the 2020 project scope.

Deliverables: • Deliverable: One electronic MnPASS implementation strategy/phasing report. • Format: All files submitted electronically. Report written in Microsoft Word 2013 document (docx



22 Surveying Datums Contractor will contact State’s Survey Office to determine the veritical and horizontal datums to be used on this project.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK