U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Federal Highway Administration

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

AND SECTION 4(F) DETERMINATION

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project

Kandiyohi County

City of Willmar and Willmar Township, Minnesota

May 2, 2017
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED...........................................................................................................2

ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................................................................3

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED .........................................................................................................................3

SELECTED ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................................................5

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION ................................................................................7

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .............................................................................................................19

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ............................................................................................................20

FRA CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................26

FHWA CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................27

ATTACHMENTS

1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION – STATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION

APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS: EA/EAW COMMENT PERIOD

APPENDIX B: EA/EAW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

• COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES

• PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT

APPENDIX C: UPDATED EA/EAW FIGURES

APPENDIX D: RECENT PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX E: UPDATED STUDIES/MEMORANDA

2. SECTION 4(F) DE MINIMIS CONCURRENCE

3. WILLMAR RAIL CONNECTOR & INDUSTRIAL ACCESS PROJECT EA/EAW

The Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Environmental Assessment/Environmental 

Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW) was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on 

January 26, 2017. The entire document is available for review on the project website: 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d8/projects/willmarwye/
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 1

Federal Railroad Administration and 

Federal Highway Administration

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

AND SECTION 4(F) DETERMINATION

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project

Kandiyohi County

City of Willmar and Willmar Township, Minnesota

May 2, 2017

BACKGROUND

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Minnesota 

Department of Transportation (MnDOT) prepared a combined Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project 

(Project) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4231 et seq.) and 

Minnesota Environmental Policy Act processes (M.S. 116D). MnDOT received $10 million in US 

Department of Transportation funds through the Transportation Investment Generating Economic 

Recovery (TIGER) competitive grant program. FRA is administering the TIGER grant funds for the 

Project. 

BNSF Railway (BNSF) operates the Willmar Terminal in downtown Willmar. The Willmar Terminal is 

located at the intersection of the BNSF Morris, Marshall, and Wayzata Subdivisions. There is a direct 

connection between the Wayzata Subdivision to both the Morris and Marshall Subdivisions, but there is 

not a direct connection between the Morris and Marshall Subdivisions. Trains moving north-south on 

the Morris Subdivision between Fargo, ND (and origins north) and those moving to Kansas City, MO (and 

destinations south) on the Marshall Subdivision must enter the Willmar Terminal, reverse direction, and 

reposition locomotives and crews to transfer to the other Subdivision. 

In switching between the subdivisions, trains create excess emissions and noise, consume rail yard and 

mainline capacity, occupy several at-grade crossings, and impede vehicular traffic within Willmar, 

including that of emergency responders. Additionally, Willmar has recently invested in infrastructure for 

the Willmar Industrial Park located on the western edge of the city with the goal of providing rail service 

to the park; there is currently no rail access to the site. 

The Project includes a 2.8-mile railroad between the Marshall and Morris Subdivisions and a rail spur for 

the industrial park. Roadway modifications include a 2.5-mile realignment of Trunk Highway (TH) 12, 

construction of two bridges on TH 12 and TH 40 over the proposed rail line, and other local road 

connections. This Project is a public-private partnership with the City of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, 

Kandiyohi County/City of Willmar Economic Development Commission, and BNSF. MnDOT, led by 

MnDOT District 8, is the Project sponsor and responsible governmental unit (RGU) for the Willmar Rail 

Connector & Industrial Park Access Project. Partner agencies and organizations include the City of 

Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Kandiyohi County/City of Willmar Economic Development Commission, and 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 2

BNSF. As part of separate partnership agreements, MnDOT is the responsible agency for construction of 

all roadway related improvements, and BNSF is the responsible agency for construction of all railroadrelated improvements.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED

Purpose

The purpose of the Project is to enhance railroad operations in the Willmar area and facilitate the 

movement of north-south rail freight through the State of Minnesota and beyond. The existing 

operations have a negative impact on the movement of motorized and non-motorized traffic and 

diminish quality of life in downtown Willmar. Additionally, the Project is intended to help advance 

economic development in Willmar by creating a desirable location for manufacturers with direct rail 

access to the Willmar Industrial Park. The purpose of the Project is summarized as follows: 

▪ Improve rail operation efficiency in the Willmar Terminal

▪ Facilitate the movement of north-south rail freight through Willmar

▪ Reduce the number of train trips that cause lengthy traffic delays at at-grade rail crossings in 

Willmar 

▪ Provide rail access to the Willmar Industrial Park to promote economic development as outlined in 

the City of Willmar’s comprehensive plan

▪ Improve quality of life within the City of Willmar

Need

The identified needs for this Project are summarized below. Project needs include:

▪ Improve regional railroad operations due to lack of direct north-south railroad connection through 

Willmar

▪ Reduce impact of freight rail traffic fluctuations that can result in congestion/stacking on the 

railroad subdivisions approaching Willmar and within the Willmar Terminal 

▪ Enhance national network operations and opportunities to avoid bottlenecks and population 

centers in Minneapolis and Chicago

▪ Improve railroad operations in the Willmar Terminal 

▪ Reduce motorized and non-motorized user delays at existing at-grade railroad crossings 

▪ Enhance motorized and non-motorized user safety at at-grade railroad crossings due to switching 

operations from trains moving north-south between Morris and Marshall Subdivisions

▪ Promote economic development within the City of Willmar

▪ Enhance quality of life (noise, emissions, safety, traffic delays, aesthetics) within the City of 

Willmar’s downtown area

See Section II of the Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW) for 

the detailed discussion of Project need.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 3

ALTERNATIVES

Section III of the EA/EAW describes the alternatives considered in greater detail. In addition to the No 

Build Alternative, Build Alternatives, as shown in Table 1, were considered for the four Project elements:

▪ New railroad connection (three alternatives considered)

▪ Roadway modifications to TH 12 due to new railroad connection (two alternatives considered)

▪ Railroad crossing of TH 40 (three sub-options considered)

▪ Railroad crossing of CSAH 55/1st Ave W (three sub-options considered)

Table 1 – Alternatives Considered for Analysis

Railroad Alternatives Description Result of Evaluation

RR-1 Connection west of CSAH 55 on existing 

MnDOT right of way

Eliminated

RR-2 Loop track east of Willmar Terminal Eliminated

RR-3 Connection east of CSAH 55 Evaluated as part of Selected

Alternative

TH 12 Alternatives Description Result of Evaluation

TH12-1 Roadway reconstruction alternative – bridge on 

existing TH 12 alignment

Eliminated

TH12-2 Roadway relocation alternative – realign TH 12 Evaluated as part of Selected

Alternative

TH 40 Crossing SubOptionsDescription Result of Evaluation

TH40-1 TH 40 grade separated crossing Evaluated as part of Selected

Alternative

TH40-2 TH 40 at-grade crossing Eliminated

TH40-3 TH 40 – no crossing Eliminated

CSAH 55/1st Ave W 

Crossing Sub-Options Description Result of Evaluation

CSAH 55/1st Ave-1 CSAH 55/1st Ave W at-grade crossing with 

quadrant interchange at TH 12/CSAH 55

Eliminated

CSAH 55/1st Ave-2 CSAH 55/1st Ave W closed with at-grade 

intersection at TH 12/CSAH 55 and new access 

road 

Evaluated as part of Selected

Alternative

CSAH 55/1st Ave-3 CSAH 55/1st Ave W closed with at-grade 

intersection at TH 12/CSAH 55 (no new access 

road)

Eliminated

No Build Alternative Description Result of Evaluation

No Build No construction of the railroad connection or 

realignment of roadways

Eliminated

Due to railroad and roadway Project components, a multi-step process was followed for evaluating the 

alternatives. Screening criteria were applied for the various elements of the Project to better identify 

differences, benefits and impacts. If an alternative did not meet the defined purpose and need, it was 

eliminated from further study. 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 4

Each of the remaining alternatives was evaluated in the EA/EAW. The evaluation considered

engineering and environmental factors. Engineering factors included constructability, maintenance, and 

cost. Environmental factors considered included the impacts that would occur to biological resources, 

historic and cultural resources, as well as socioeconomic impacts, changes in noise and vibration levels, 

conversion of prime farmland, and impacts to wetland and streams. 

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED

Through the alternatives analysis process described in the EA/EAW, it was determined that some of the 

alternatives and sub-options did not fully address the purpose and need and were, therefore, 

eliminated.

Alternative RR-1 – Railroad Connection West of CSAH 55 on MnDOT Right of Way 

This alternative used MnDOT right of way west of CSAH 55. This alternative was eliminated since the 

alignment would be within the Willmar Municipal Airport’s runway protection zone (RPZ) and within the 

Willmar Municipal Area Joint Airport Zoning Board’s Zoning Area A. Railroad improvements and an 

alignment in the RPZ were not supported by FAA or MnDOT Aeronautics. This alternative also did not 

provide a connection to the industrial park.

Alternative RR-2 – Loop Track East of Willmar Terminal 

The second railroad alternative rejected created a loop track east of the Willmar Terminal. This 

alternative was eliminated because it continued to bring the north-south train traffic into and through 

the Willmar Terminal. Therefore, it would not reduce the number of train trips that cause traffic delays 

in downtown Willmar or improve safety at railroad crossings. Additionally, this alternative did not 

provide rail service to the industrial park.

Alternative TH12-1 – Roadway Reconstruction Alternative

This alternative reconstructed TH 12 on its existing alignment to accommodate a railroad grade 

separation. Approximately 4,000 feet of retaining walls would be needed (at a height up to 40 feet). 

This alternative was consistent with the purpose and need. However, elevating TH 12 on its current 

alignment over the new railroad connection would create a number of issues, including noise for 

Environmental Justice properties, driver safety on an elevated roadway, snow storage and maintenance 

on an elevated TH 12, visual impacts associated with raising TH 12, and additional costs associated with 

constructing and maintaining the grade separation of TH 12. For these reasons, Alternative TH 12-1 was 

eliminated.

Sub-Option TH40-2 – TH 40 At-Grade Crossing

This sub-option considered an at-grade railroad crossing at TH 40 as part of the roadway improvements. 

This sub-option was rejected as TH 40 serves as the primary connection to the airport for emergency 

responders. With an at-grade intersection, emergency response vehicles responding to emergency calls 

at the airport could be subject to additional delay by trains.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 5

Sub-Option TH40-3 – TH 40 Closure

This sub-option considered terminating TH 40 in a cul-de-sac east of the proposed BNSF crossing. 

Without TH 40 in place trains could be parked on the railroad without occupying any at-grade crossings 

– thereby enabling the railroad to hold trains, change crews, and serve the industrial park. Without TH 

40, alternate routes have the potential to add distance and travel time for emergency responders going 

to the airport. Due to the unacceptable travel time impacts for emergency responders, this sub-option 

was eliminated from consideration. 

Sub-Option CSAH 55/1st Ave W-1 – CSAH 55/1st Ave W At-Grade Crossing and Quadrant 

Interchange at TH 12/CSAH 55

This sub-option considered an at-grade railroad crossing with the new railroad connection and CSAH 

55/1st Avenue W and a grade-separated intersection with TH 12 and CSAH 55. Providing an at-grade 

crossing at CSAH 55/1st Avenue W was found to be inconsistent with FRA, FHWA and MnDOT practices 

with regard to limiting new at-grade railroad crossings. A technical analysis was prepared that 

considered safety, economic impacts, changes in distance and travel times, overall project crossings, 

roadway jurisdiction impacts, and other considerations. Upon completion of this analysis, the FRA and 

FHWA determined since the safety analysis for each option was similar and the other factors did not 

demonstrate a significant burden to users, that there was not enough benefit to support an at-grade 

crossing at 1st Avenue. For these reasons, this sub-option was not carried forward for further review.

Sub-Option CSAH 55/1st Ave W-3 – CSAH 55/1st Ave W Closed and At-Grade Intersection at 

TH 12/CSAH 55. No New Connection to Industrial Area 

This sub-option considered eliminating the at-grade crossing between CSAH 55/1st Avenue W and the 

proposed railroad. This sub-option would require all traffic going into the industrial properties on CSAH 

55/1st Avenue W to access the area via its current connection to existing TH 12. Without a connection at 

on realigned TH 12, traffic coming from the south and west destined for the industrial area would have 

to travel further and would have to backtrack to get to their destination. This additional circulation was 

not supported by the local agencies and business owners due to truck traffic delay and costs associated 

with additional miles of travel. As a result, this sub-option was removed from further consideration.

No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed railroad connection would not be constructed and there 

would be no modifications to the local, regional, and state transportation network. The No-Build 

Alternative was eliminated because it does not meet the Project purpose and need.

SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

The selected alternative evaluated in the EA/EAW includes the railroad and roadway alternatives and 

sub-options that are listed in Table 2 and further described below. These alternatives best met the 

purpose and need of the Project. The selected alternative was the only build alternative carried forward 

for further analysis in Section IV of the EA/EAW. 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 6

Table 2 – Selected Alternative Components

Selected Alternatives and Sub-Options Description

Railroad Alternative RR-3 Connection east of CSAH 55

TH 12 Alternative TH12-2 Roadway relocation alternative – realign TH 12

TH 40 Crossing Sub-Option TH40-1 TH 40 grade separated crossing 

CSAH 55/1st Ave W Crossing SubOption CSAH 55/1st Ave-2CSAH 55/1st Ave W closed with at-grade intersection at 

TH 12/CSAH 55 and new access road 

The No-Build Alternative was evaluated as further described in Subsection F of the EA/EAW as a basis 

against which to compare the Build Alternatives in evaluation of environmental impacts, but was not 

identified as the selected alternative because it did not meet the Project purpose and need. 

Alternative RR-3 – Railroad Connection East of CSAH 55

The selected rail alternative consists of an approximately 2.8-mile north-south railroad connection 

between the Morris and Marshall Subdivisions east of CSAH 55. This connection would eliminate the 

need to perform the switching operation in the Willmar Terminal for trains moving between the Morris 

and Marshall Subdivisions. This alignment would reduce the number of trains entering the Willmar 

Terminal, benefiting local, regional and national railroad service. It would also reduce occupation of atgrade crossings within and approaching the Willmar Terminal, reducing delay to motorized and nonmotorized users, including emergency responders. This alternative is the only railroad alternative that 

meets the purpose and need of the Project. Thus, it was further evaluated as a component of the 

selected alternative.

Alternative TH12-2 – Roadway Relocation Alternative

The selected TH 12 alternative relocates TH 12 on a new alignment for approximately 2.5 miles. 

Realigning TH 12 to the south of its current alignment provides the opportunity to move the railroad 

overpass bridge further south, eliminating the need for retaining walls and a skewed bridge. This, in 

turn, reduces overall project costs, lowers long-term maintenance costs, improves traffic conditions and 

maintenance operations during winter storm events, and removes the visual impact associated with the 

expansive retaining walls. Realigning TH 12 to the south also provides a direct access to the industrial 

park. For these reasons, the TH 12 roadway relocation alternative was carried forward for additional 

study as part of the selected alternative.

Sub-Option TH40-1 – TH 40 Grade-Separated Crossing

The selected TH 40 sub-option provides a grade separation over the proposed railroad. Grade 

separating TH 40 at the new railroad connection prevents train operations from impacting motorized 

vehicle/non-motorized users and blocking traffic. This sub-option provides the best response time for 

emergency responders utilizing TH 40 between the urbanized area of Willmar and the airport. As a 

result, this sub-option was further evaluated as part of the selected alternative.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 7

Sub-Option CSAH 55/1st Ave W-2 – CSAH 55/1st Ave W Closed, At-Grade Intersection at TH 

12/CSAH 55, and New Connection to Industrial Area

The selected CSAH 55/1st Avenue W sub-option eliminates the at-grade crossing between CSAH 55/1st 

Avenue W with the proposed railroad. As previously stated, providing an at-grade crossing at CSAH 

55/1st Avenue W was found to be inconsistent with FRA, FHWA and MnDOT practices with regard to 

limiting new at-grade railroad crossings. Since this sub-option provides a second access into and out of 

the industrial area and was supported by FHWA and FRA, it was incorporated into the selected

alternative for further evaluation.

Benefits of Selected Alternative

The selected alternative provides a number of benefits. First, the new railroad connection will reduce 

the number of trains entering the Willmar Terminal, benefiting local, regional, and national railroad

service and reducing delay to motorized and non-motorized users within the city. When compared to 

existing conditions and other evaluated alternatives, the selected alternative also reduces overall 

construction costs, lowers long-term maintenance costs, and improves traffic conditions and 

maintenance operations for TH 12 during winter storm events. The selected alternative provides direct 

rail access to the industrial park, and maintains the best response time for emergency responders 

between the urbanized area of Willmar and the airport. 

Based upon the EA/EAW, included by reference with its appendices in this FONSI in its entirety, FHWA,

FRA, and MnDOT have concluded that the selected alternative, including the mitigation measures for 

unavoidable impacts, will have no foreseeable significant impact on the quality of the natural and 

human environments. The selected alternative is best able to achieve the proposed action purpose and 

need without significant environmental impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION

The EA describes the existing conditions in the Project area and the potential impacts and mitigation 

that would result if the selected alternative is implemented. Information was gathered from various 

sources, including site observations, maps, aerial photography, and local state and federal agency data.

The following environmental factors were analyzed and recorded for the selected alternative:

▪ Land Use (including floodplain)

▪ Water Resources (including Section 401 and Section 404)

▪ Contamination/Regulated Waste

▪ Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities and Sensitive Ecological Resources

▪ Historic Resources

▪ Construction Noise and Dust

▪ Social Impacts

▪ Right of Way

▪ Noise and Vibration
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 8

▪ Section 4(f)

▪ Section 7 – Endangered Species

▪ Visual

The following environmental factors were analyzed, and no impacts were recorded for the selected

alternative:

▪ Air Quality

▪ Environmental Justice

▪ Section 6(f)

Land Use

Farmland: 

Approximately 93 acres of farmland will be converted to railroad or road right of way under the build 

alternative. No mitigation will be required.

Airport Zones: 

The build alternative encroaches into Airport Zones B and C, but avoids the runway protection zone and 

Zone A. To ensure compatibility with the Willmar Municipal Airport Zoning Ordinance, coordination 

with the FAA and Willmar Area Joint Airport Zoning Board will continue throughout design and during 

construction. 

For airport zones, required mitigation includes MnDOT review with the FAA and Willmar Area Joint 

Airport Zoning Board of all structures, including lighting improvements, within the airport influence 

zones to ensure they are compatible with necessary height restrictions. MnDOT will supply construction 

data as part of the FAA Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis – Notice of Proposed 

Construction or Alteration – Off Airport permit. Mitigation/minimization will comply with height 

restrictions identified in the zoning ordinances.

Floodplain:

The 100-year floodplain of Hawk Creek, unnamed tributaries to Hawk Creek, County Ditch 12 and 

County Ditch 46 are within the Project area. These floodplains are fairly well contained within the banks 

of the creek and ditches within the Project area. Approximately 2.9 acres of floodplain will be impacted 

at the following locations as identified in Figure 31 of the EA/EAW (see updated version in Attachment 1 

- Appendix C): 

▪ Proposed culvert under proposed Trunk Highway 12, west of 30th Avenue NW, over County 

Ditch 12 (Crossing “A”)

▪ Proposed railroad culvert on Hawk Creek east of CSAH 55 (Crossing “B”)

▪ Existing Bridge 34J28 on CSAH 55 over Hawk Creek (Crossing “C”)

▪ Existing bridge 91329 on Trunk Highway 40 over Hawk Creek (Crossing “D”)
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 9

▪ Proposed culvert under proposed Trunk Highway 12, between 1st Avenue and CSAH 55 

(Crossing “E”)

▪ Proposed railroad culvert on County Ditch 46 east of CSAH 55 (Crossing “F”)

▪ Existing Bridge 8468 on TH 12 (Crossing “I”).

A floodplain assessment has been updated and is included in Attachment 1 - Appendix E. The bridge 

and culvert crossings associated with the floodplain will be sized such that they do not create changes in 

the floodplain either upstream or downstream. Since there will be minimal impact to the floodplains 

that are within the regulatory threshold of up to 0.5 feet, no mitigation will be required. As part of final 

design, MnDOT’s request for proposal for the design-build contract will indicate that the final design 

cannot raise the floodplain to a level (greater than 0.5 feet) that would require a permit. BNSF is in the 

process of finalizing the railroad plans. Those plans are consistent with the preliminary plans that did not 

include an increase in the floodplain.

Agency Finding: 

Based on the mitigation measures discussed in this section, FHWA and FRA find that the proposed 

Project will not result in any significant impacts to land use including farmland, airport zones, and 

floodplains. No farmland or floodplain mitigation is required. 

Water Resources

Surface Waters: 

The build alternative will involve work in surface waters located within the Project corridor including 

Hawk Creek (County Ditch 10), unnamed tributaries to Hawk Creek, and County Ditch 46. Hawk Creek 

currently passes under existing TH 12, CSAH 55, and TH 40 via culvert bridges. The bridges at TH 12 and 

TH 40 will be replaced based on the MnDOT Bridge Preservation and Improvement Guidelines document 

due to existing structures being under-designed compared to current standards. The proposed railroad

will cross Hawk Creek and County Ditch 46. Fifteen-foot diameter corrugated metal pipes (CMPs) are 

proposed at both of these crossings. 

Impacts to tributaries within the Project corridor from roadway improvements and associated culvert 

installation are approximately 0.1 acres. Surface water impacts from the railroad and associated culvert 

installation are approximately 0.4 acres. 

The DNR will not require a Public Waters Work permit for the work occurring within Hawk Creek 

because of its status as an altered DNR Public Water. Compensatory mitigation through the USACE is 

not anticipated for any work occurring within surface waters due to no loss of aquatic resource value or 

function when compared to the existing characteristics of the waterbodies. 

MnDOT and BNSF will prepare and submit permit applications for County Ditch crossings to the 

Kandiyohi County Ditch Authority to petition for proposed changes to the County Ditch system, but no 

changes to the hydraulic capacity of the County Ditches are proposed. 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 10

Groundwater:

The Project is located within a wellhead protection area as identified by the Minnesota Department of 

Health (MDH). The east portion of the Project is in a high vulnerability Drinking Water Supply 

Management Area (DWSMA) and a small portion of the Project is located within a moderate 

vulnerability DWSMA. MDH guidance indicates that infiltration is not recommended in these areas. The 

Project’s stormwater management reflects the MDH guidelines.

Thirty active and sealed wells are located within the Project area. MnDOT will ensure any wells impacted 

by the Project will be sealed by a licensed well contractor according to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725, 

or be relocated and coordinated with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and MDH.

Stormwater Management: 

The Project must comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal 

System Construction Stormwater (NPDES) Permit requirements. For the roadway portions of the 

Project, rate control and infiltration volume will be provided for the net new impervious surface as 

required by the NPDES permit. The Project is also required to follow guidance set forth by the MDH on 

infiltration within wellhead protection areas. The Project will result in an increase in impervious of 29.5 

acres and the east portions of the Project are located within high vulnerability wellhead protection 

areas. The roadway Project proposes to construct seven best management practices (BMPs), a 

combination of dry ponds and filtration basins that will meet the requirements of the NPDES permit and 

the MDH rules.

Stormwater runoff BMPs are required to accommodate railroad surface runoff resulting from 

stormwater events. MnDOT will ensure that BNSF implements railroad BMPs that will consist of 

vegetated/turf side slopes, turf swales and/or ditches, rip rap, filtration basins and equalizer 

culverts. MnDOT will ensure that BNSF directs stormwater runoff from railroad infrastructure to turf 

established side slopes and/or adjacent flat bottom ditches. The typical railroad ditch bottom widths 

proposed are 6 feet wide and will maintain minimal longitudinal slope.

The railroad will cross two agricultural drainage ditches (County Ditches 10 and 46) and also a tributary 

to County Ditch 10. These three crossings will be treated with nine filtration basins (four at each of 

the two ditch crossings and one at the tributary to County Ditch 10) to filter runoff prior to discharge 

into the existing ditches. The filtration basin BMPs will meet MPCA criteria.

Culverts along the Project have been sized to ensure high water levels will not adversely affect upstream 

infrastructure. One hundred-year high water levels (HWLs) have been determined for the pre- and postdevelopment runoff scenarios. Post-development HWL rise relative to pre-development HWLs, as well 

as inundation times, have been determined following a 100-year event. Post development HWL and 

additional inundation times have been determined to be minimal relating to alteration of wetlands, 

infrastructure impacts, and agricultural impacts. 

Water appropriation: 

The installation or replacement of culverts within surface waters will require water appropriation. 

MnDOT will implement and will ensure that BNSF implements a dewatering plan, along with meeting all 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 11

requirements included in the Project SWPPP and NPDES Permit, during construction to ensure that the 

discharge does not adversely affect receiving waters and that the inlet and discharge points are 

adequately protected from erosion and scour. If dewatering rates exceed 10,000 gallons per day or a 

million gallons per year, MnDOT will require and ensure that BNSF requires their contractors to apply for 

a DNR Water Appropriation permit during the construction phase of the Project.

Wetlands and wet ditches: 

Wetland and wet ditch impacts attributed to the railroad portion of this Project are approximately 2.5 

acres of wetland (no wet ditch impacts), where 0.8 acres are under the jurisdiction of the USACE. 

Approximately 9.3 acres of wetland impacts and 0.1 acre of wet ditch impacts are attributed to the 

roadway portion of this Project, where 3.2 acres are under the jurisdiction of the USACE. 

Two joint applications have been drafted for the BNSF portion (railroad) and the MnDOT portion 

(roadway) of the Project. Compensatory mitigation is not anticipated for impacts occurring to 

tributaries. Included in the applications are replacements plans of the affected wetland areas. Proposed 

replacement is consistent with the Section 404 permit and the current Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) 

regulatory requirements. 

Wetland impacts will occur within Bank Service Area (BSA) 9 and Major Watershed 25 (Minnesota RiverYellow Medicine River). 

Mitigation is required for the wetland impacts that result from both the roadway and the rail portions of 

the Project. MnDOT will replace wetlands impacted by the roadway portion of this Project at a 2:1 ratio 

through the debit of MnDOT bank credits. MnDOT will ensure that BNSF replaces wetlands impacted by

the railroad portion of the Project at a 2:1 ratio through the purchase of credits from a bank within BSA 

9.

Section 401:

Any waters determined to be under the jurisdiction of the USACE will also require Section 401 Water 

Quality Certification. As described in the EA/EAW, this will involve approximately 4.0 acres of USACEregulated aquatic resources. 

Section 404:

Fifty-eight water resources were identified within or near the Project area. The USACE issued an 

approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for delineated aquatic resources within the Project area. 

Twenty-seven delineated aquatic resources were determined to be non-jurisdictional and five 

delineated aquatic resources were determined to be jurisdictional by the USACE. 

The jurisdiction of the remaining delineated aquatic resources has not yet been determined. On January 

6, 2017 correspondence was received from the USACE regarding their preliminary findings about which 

wetlands and tributaries impacted by the Project would most likely be considered Waters of the United 

States (WOUS). Wetlands 1, 6, 7, 45, 47, 48, and 58 as well as tributaries 51 and 54 were suggested to be 

WOUS in addition to those indicated on the previous ADJ issued on August 25, 2015
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 12

Agency Finding:

Due to the limited impact the proposed Project will have on water resources, FHWA and FRA find that 

the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts on water resources and will require mitigation 

within the regulatory thresholds for surface water including surface water, groundwater, stormwater, 

water appropriation, wetlands and wet ditches.

For waters under the jurisdiction of the USACE, the USACE and the MPCA have a joint application form. 

Permits from the USACE, including General Permits and Letters of Permission, include pre-certification 

from the MPCA demonstrating compliance with Section 401 that may require mitigation commitments 

for MnDOT. For Section 404 compliance, the proposed Project will require two permits issued by the 

USACE, and the proposed Project will be subject to mitigation. The railroad portion of the Project will 

impact approximately 0.8 acres of USACE-regulated wetlands. The roadway portion of the Project will 

impact approximately 3.2 acres of USACE-regulated wetlands. Wetlands will be replaced/mitigated at a 

ratio of two to one for both the railroad and roadway portions of the Project. BNSF will be required to 

obtain a permit for the railroad portion of the Project and MnDOT will be required to obtain a permit for 

the roadway portion of the Project. Both the railroad and roadway portions are expected to qualify for a 

Letter of Permission permit.

Contamination/Regulated Waste

There is a low likelihood of encountering contaminated materials as a result of construction activities. 

No known contaminated groundwater or soil were identified in the Project area. Any potentially 

contaminated materials encountered during construction will be handled and treated in accordance 

with applicable state and federal regulations. It is not anticipated that construction work would release 

contaminated dust particles to the surrounding populace; however, minimization measures will avoid, 

control, and manage these efforts.

It is anticipated that two houses and associated accessory structures located adjacent to the TH 

40/CSAH 55 intersection will be demolished and removed. MnDOT will contract with experts in 

regulated waste to inspect the properties for the presence of regulated or contaminated materials. 

MnDOT will implement standard measures to help avoid, control and manage potential effects from 

contaminated materials, such as preparing and implementing a project-specific scope of work, sitespecific health and safety plan, and hazardous material management plan. Any regulated or 

contaminated materials identified will be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state and 

local regulations in advance of Project construction.

MnDOT will properly dispose of all solid wastes generated by construction of the proposed Project in a 

permitted, licensed solid waste facility. MnDOT will utilize the Minnesota Duty Officer (Duty Officer), 

which is a single answering point system for all state agencies required to respond to hazardous 

materials incidents in Minnesota. If any contaminated spills or leaks occur during construction, MnDOT 

will require the contractor to notify the Duty Officer and work with the MPCA to contain and remediate 

contaminated soil/materials in accordance with state and federal standards.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 13

MnDOT will also direct concrete, asphalt, and other potentially recyclable construction materials that 

result from Project demolition to the appropriate storage, crushing or renovation facility for recycling.

Agency Finding:

FHWA and FRA find that the proposed Project will result in the low likelihood of encountering contaminated 

materials. Since the wastes generated by construction of the proposed Project will be disposed of properly 

following completion of the proposed Project and the construction impacts will be subject to mitigation, 

there will not be significant impacts associated with contamination and regular waste.

Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities and Sensitive Ecological Resources

The majority of the Project area has been previously disturbed, drained and used for agriculture. Any 

wildlife displaced would likely relocate to suitable nearby areas, including lands immediately adjacent to 

the Project area. Prairie remnants outside the Project area will be avoided in the Project design. 

Vegetation impacts include herbaceous and tree impacts. The areas likely to be impacted include wind 

breaks adjacent to farmsteads and along fence lines, areas adjacent to Hawk Creek and an unnamed 

tributary to Hawk Creek located west of CSAH 55.

MnDOT will undertake and will ensure that BNSF undertakes protection measures to include: design the 

Project to avoid impacts to any identified Areas of Environmental Sensitivity (AES); protect and preserve 

vegetation from damage in accordance with MnDOT Spec 2572.3; prohibit vehicle and construction 

activities, including the location of field offices, storage of equipment and other supplies at least 25 feet 

outside the AES to be preserved, also in accordance with MnDOT spec 2572.3; use redundant 

sediment/erosion control BMPs for protection of areas of environmental sensitivity; and use native seed 

mixes for revegetation of disturbed soils not proposed for mowed turf grass.

Agency Finding:

Due to the limited impact the proposed Project will have on ecological resources, FHWA and FRA finds 

that the Project will not result in significant impacts on ecological systems and MnDOT will undertake 

and ensure that BNSF undertakes recommended protection measures listed above. 

Historic Resources

One site (the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Mainline: St. Anthony to Breckenridge RR Corridor Historic 

District), previously determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register, was evaluated by 

MnDOT’s Cultural Resource Unit (CRU) for potential impacts due to the proposed Project. 

Agency Finding:

FHWA and FRA find that the proposed rail portion of the Project will extend off the existing main line 

and will constitute the only direct effect to the historic district. No mitigation is proposed. FHWA 

through consultation with the Minnesota Historic Preservation Office (MnHPO) determined that the 

Project will not result in an adverse effect to the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Mainline: St. Anthony to 

Breckenridge RR Corridor Historic District because it will constitute a minor change in visual and historic 

character for a corridor that is hundreds of miles long. 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 14

Construction Noise and Dust

Construction related activities will result in temporary noise level increases associated with construction 

equipment and pile driving. Elevated noise levels are, to a degree, unavoidable for this type of project. 

MnDOT will require and ensure that BNSF requires that construction equipment be properly muffled 

and in proper working order. MnDOT will require its contractors to comply with applicable local noise 

restrictions and ordinances to the extent that is reasonable. MnDOT will ensure that BNSF and its 

contractors will comply with applicable local noise restrictions and ordinances. MnDOT will provide 

advance notice to the City of Willmar for any construction activities that produce abnormally loud 

noises, such as use of high-impact equipment, pile driving, pavement sawing or air hammering. 

MnDOT will ensure that dust generated during construction will be minimized by MnDOT and BNSF

through standard dust control measures such as applying water to exposed soils and limiting the extent 

and duration of exposed soil conditions. MnDOT will ensure that construction contractors are required 

to control dust and other airborne particulates in accordance with MnDOT and BNSF specifications in 

place at the time of Project construction. During construction, particulate emissions will temporarily 

increase due to the generation of fugitive dust associated with activities such as grading and other soil 

disturbance. MnDOT will ensure that MnDOT and BNSF adhere to BMPs for dust control, which may 

include the following measures as appropriate for the Project area:

▪ Minimize the duration and extent of areas being exposed or regraded at any one time. 

▪ Spray construction areas and haul roads with water, especially during periods of high wind or 

high levels of construction activity. 

▪ Minimize the use of vehicles on unpaved surfaces when feasible. 

▪ Tarp trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require trucks to maintain at least 

two feet of freeboard. 

▪ Pave, apply water as needed, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on unpaved access roads, 

parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 

▪ Use water sweepers to sweep paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at 

construction sites. 

▪ Use water sweepers to sweep streets if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public 

streets. 

▪ Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded 

areas inactive for ten days or more). 

▪ Enclose, cover, water or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). 

▪ Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 

▪ Utilize appropriate erosion control measures to reduce silt runoff to public roadways. 

▪ Replant vegetation as quickly as possible to minimize erosion in disturbed areas. 

▪ Use alternative fuels for construction equipment when feasible. 

▪ Minimize equipment idling time. 

▪ Maintain properly tuned equipment. 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 15

Agency Finding:

FHWA and FRA find that because the construction impacts will cease following completion of the 

proposed Project and the construction impacts will be mitigated through the measures listed above, the 

proposed Project will not result in significant impacts associated with construction.

Social Impacts

Consideration of effects to the social and economic environment include: an assessment of the 

community characteristics and cohesion, protected groups of people, environmental justice, public 

facilities and services, changes in travel patterns, relocations of residences or businesses, economic 

impacts, land use, growth and economic development and changes to pedestrian or bicycle facilities.

No impacts were identified with regard to community characteristics and cohesion, protected groups of 

people, environmental justice, and public facilities and services. Expected changes in growth and 

economic development are anticipated to be positive due to additional modes and highways serving the 

Willmar Industrial Park located just west of CSAH 5.

Permanent changes in pedestrian and bicycle facilities are not anticipated as a result of the Project. 

Temporary occupancy/use during construction is expected and is discussed in the Section 4(f) 

Determination section within this document.

No businesses will be relocated. Two residential property acquisitions will require the property owners 

to relocate. Their impacts are discussed in the Right of Way section of this document.

Vehicular travel patterns have the potential to shift slightly as a result of the Project due to the 

realignment of TH 12 and closure of CSAH 55/1st Avenue W at the new railroad connection. For some 

businesses located along existing TH 12, the new alignment will divert traffic from the front of their 

business and will require users to access their sites from a local roadway connection rather than TH 12.

The Project design includes new access road connections for those whose access will be closed or who 

are located off a public street that is modified.

Another shift in travel will occur along 45th Street which will require users of the township roadway to 

travel an additional 2,400 feet to the west in order to access TH 12. Traffic impacts are expected to be 

minimal due to low traffic volumes. No mitigation is anticipated.

Agency Finding:

FHWA and FRA find that the proposed Project will provide a positive long-term social impact for 

residents, businesses, and the greater Willmar community. By relocating this train movement and 

eliminating the switching operation, delays for rail traffic will be reduced in the Willmar Terminal and 

corresponding delays for automobile traffic and non-motorized users will be reduced at the at-grade rail 

crossings that presently are occupied by switching trains. Associated quality of life improvements 

include: decreased noise, vibration, and delay in travel time overall within the community; improved air 

quality due to reductions in train and motor vehicle idling; and improved emergency response travel 

time reliability. 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 16

Right of Way

The Project is expected to require acquisition of approximately 302 acres of permanent right of way and 

approximately 20 acres of temporary easement across portions of 43 parcels. Much of the property is 

owned and has been committed for Project use by the partner agencies (City of Willmar, BNSF Railway, 

and MnDOT). 

Agency Finding:

FHWA and FRA find that the proposed Project will result in seven total parcel acquisitions including 

parcels with three residential properties. Two of the property acquisitions will require the property 

owner to relocate. One of the acquisitions allowed for the home to be relocated within the property due 

to its size. MnDOT will ensure that the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as 

amended by the Surface Transportation Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 and 49 CFR, Part 24, 

and effective April 1989 will be followed for the Project by MnDOT and BNSF, to compensate 

landowners for property acquired for this Project.

Noise and Vibration

Traffic noise levels were modeled at 32 representative receptor locations throughout the Project

corridor. In general, the analysis determined that construction of the Project will result in increases in 

highway traffic noise levels compared to existing conditions. Changes in daytime traffic noise levels are 

projected to vary from a 14.1 dBA reduction to a 9.1 dBA increase from existing to future (2040) build 

conditions. A noise barrier analysis was completed on a total of four potential locations along the 

corridor. None of the four potential barriers were found to meet all three reasonableness factors that 

must be met for a noise abatement measure to be considered reasonable: the MnDOT noise reduction 

design goal of at least 7 dBA at a minimum of one benefited receptor; a cost effectiveness threshold of 

$43,500 per individual benefited receptor; and receive support from 50 percent or greater of all possible 

voting points from benefited receptors. Therefore, no noise barriers are proposed for roadway traffic 

noise. 

For train noise analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) general noise assessment identified 

moderate impacts at four receptors related to the at-grade crossing of the existing mainline near 45th 

Street: R13–R16. No severe impacts were identified. The dominant noise source at receptors R13–R16

was the locomotive warning horn for the mainline at-grade crossing. 

Mitigation measures for the moderate impact at the four receptors were evaluated. However, noise 

barriers are infeasible for mitigating noise at receptors near at-grade crossings (where locomotive 

warning horns are used) because the roadway creates a large gap in the barriers. This gap greatly 

diminishes the noise reduction of the barriers. In addition to feasibility concerns, noise mitigation 

measures for a small number of receptors are not cost effective. Therefore, noise mitigation measures 

are not proposed for train noise.

Train vibration screening distances were determined using information in the FTA Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual. The project includes diesel locomotive trains in an area 

with residential receptors; therefore, a screening distance of 200 feet was identified and applied to the 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 17

proposed rail alignment. No vibration-sensitive receptors were identified within the vibration screening 

buffer, so no further vibration assessments were performed. No mitigation is proposed.

Agency Finding:

FHWA and FRA find that the proposed Project will not result in significant noise or vibration effects. 

Section 4(f) Determination

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303) states that 

both FRA and FHWA cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, 

wildlife, and waterfowl refuges or public and private historic sites unless the following conditions apply: 

(1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the property; and (2) the action includes all 

possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from use. Temporary occupancy of a

Section 4(f) resource may not be considered a use if certain conditions are met: duration is temporary; 

no change in ownership of property; minor scope of work; no anticipated permanent adverse physical 

impacts; no interference with the activities or purpose of the resource; property will be fully restored to 

pre-project condition or better; and there is documented agreement from the official with jurisdiction 

over the resource (23 C.F.R. 774.13(d)). Section 4(f) also authorizes the agency to make a de minimis 

impact determination, after taking into account any measures to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) 

resource, if there is a no adverse effect finding under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (Section 106) for a historic property, or if there is a determination that the Project would not 

adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of a park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl 

refuge protected under Section 4(f).

Evaluation of the Project has determined that although there are two Section 4(f) resources that would 

be impacted by all Project build alternatives, the Project does not require the use of a Section 4(f) 

resource. 

As discussed in the Historic section, the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Mainline: St. Anthony to

Breckenridge Railroad Corridor Historic District is an active rail corridor that has previously been 

determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, it is a Section 4(f) 

resource. Although the proposed Project would impact the historic property, the impact has been 

determined to have no adverse effect under Section 106 because the construction of the Project rail line 

extending from the historic rail corridor main line will not alter the existing location/alignment, 

materials, workmanship, design, feeling and association of the main line. Because there is no adverse 

effect to the resource, the EA/EAW proposed a de minimis impact finding. The Minnesota Historic 

Preservation Office (MnHPO), the official with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) resource, has been 

informed of FHWA’s de minimis impact finding as part of the EA/EAW public and agency comment 

period. There were no comments received related to this Section 4(f) resource during the public 

comment period. MnHPO has provided a letter of concurrence for the FHWA determination, dated April 

3, 2017 (see Attachment 2). The de minimis process is now complete. No mitigation will be provided. 

The second Section 4(f) resource that will be impacted by the Project is a recreational trail located along 

the east side of CSAH 5 that is owned and operated by Kandiyohi County. The 10-foot wide trail, which is 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 18

approximately 0.9 miles long, will be subject to a temporary occupancy due to the construction of the 

CSAH 5 and realigned TH 12 intersection. To provide a new roadway crossing for the trail, the Project

will include installing pedestrian ramps, painting crosswalks, and incorporating pedestrian countdown

timers at the new roadway intersection. As detailed in the EA/EAW, the temporary occupancy is not 

considered a use under Section 4(f) because during construction of the intersection, the trail will remain 

open, a temporary connection (bypass/detour) will be provided on the trail to ensure users can continue 

to travel through the area, and all other criteria for a temporary occupancy exception are satisfied. 

Written concurrence from Kandiyohi County was appended to the EA/EAW as the owner of the 

resource. There were no public comments received related to this Section 4(f) park resource during the 

30-day public comment period.

Agency Finding:

For the reasons stated above, FHWA and FRA find that the proposed Project will result in a de minimis 

impact to the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Mainline: St. Anthony to Breckenridge Railroad Corridor 

Historic District and a temporary occupancy of a recreational trail located along the east side of CSAH 5 

in Kandiyohi County, but it will not result in a Section 4(f) use of those resources. 

Section 7 – Endangered Species

As stated in the EA/EAW, MnDOT’s Office of Environmental Stewardship (OES), is FHWA’s designated 

representative to review Section 7 resources within Minnesota for federally-listed threatened species. 

There is one species, the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) identified within Kandiyohi 

County. Although no critical habitat has been designated for this species, removal of trees can result in 

a loss of habitat. Approximately 0.5 acres of tree removal will occur as part of the Project. 

Agency Finding:

FHWA and FRA find that the proposed Project “may affect, but will not cause prohibited incidental take” 

of the northern long-eared bat. MnDOT in coordination with OES staff noted that the Project will occur 

within the northern long-eared bat’s range, but there are no documented maternity roosts and/or 

hibernacula within the Project area. No tree removals will occur within 0.25-mile of a known 

hibernaculum or within 150 feet from a maternity roost tree. USFWS did not object or rebut the 

conclusion reached by OES staff. 

The Project will utilize the following minimization measures to prevent effects to the bat. MnDOT will 

ensure that winter tree removal (November 1 to March 31) will occur in order to avoid possible impacts 

to the species during the pup rearing season (June 1 through July 31). Disturbed areas will be 

revegetated using native seed mixes per DNR, MnDOT, and USFWS guidance. In addition, the Project will 

utilize bio-netting or natural netting for erosion control, which would reduce the risk of bat or other 

wildlife entrapment. MnDOT and BNSF have agreed to these requests for construction and MnDOT will 

ensure that these measures will be noted in construction documents and requests for proposals for 

construction.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 19

Visual

The Project area landscape consists of level terrain, resulting in views of farmsteads and open 

agricultural fields extending into the horizon in many areas. The Marshall and Morris BNSF Subdivisions

and TH 12 currently provide linear visual references. The selected railroad will introduce a new visual 

resource to the Project area; however, the view will be fairly limited to adjacent properties (limited 

number of residences in the Project area) and will likely be visible from nearby transportation routes. 

The grade separations will result in bridges measuring approximately 30 feet in height above current 

terrain levels similar to other nearby overpasses. 

Road users will experience a change while traveling on realigned TH 12. However, the new views will be 

similar to current views of the agricultural areas outside of the City of Willmar. The nearest home is 

approximately 600 feet from the new TH 12 and CSAH 55 intersection. 

The Project will introduce new light sources due to intersection lighting at the overpasses and rail 

connection. With the agricultural setting and few residences in the area, the new lighting sources are 

not anticipated to create a major impact. Several industrial businesses along CSAH 55/1st Avenue W are 

currently lit. MnDOT will ensure its roadway lighting standards are followed which require the use of full 

cutoff luminaires to restrict backlight. 

Agency Finding:

Due to the distant location of the remaining residences and already lighted industrial area on CSAH 

55/1st Avenue W, FHWA and FRA find that the proposed Project will result in minimal light and visual 

impacts. MnDOT will ensure that lighting will be directed downward towards the road or railroad and 

full cutoff luminaire lighting heads will be used to minimize light pollution.

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

During preparation of the EA/EAW, early coordination and consultation was initiated with agencies, 

stakeholder groups, and the public to incorporate their comments and concerns into the development 

and analysis of the Project purpose and need, alternatives, and potential environmental impacts. Public 

coordination included stakeholder meetings, briefings, and presentations are detailed in the EA/EAW.

An open house and public hearing were held on the EA/EAW on February 23, 2017 from 5:00 pm to 7:00 

pm at MnDOT District 8 in Willmar, MN. Approximately 83 people signed the attendance sheet. A 

number of individuals provided oral and written comments on the document the evening of the public 

open house/hearing. A copy of the public hearing transcript (which includes the comments on the 

environmental document) is found in Attachment 1 – Appendix B.

In addition to comments received at the meeting, additional comments were received from the public 

and agencies regarding the EA/EAW during the official public comment period. The official comment 

period was from February 6, 2017 through March 8, 2017. 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 20

In total, 28 agencies and individuals provided comments. The following is a summary of general 

comments received during the public comment period. The corresponding number in parenthesis 

quantifies the number of similar comments received. 

▪ Attendees expressed general support for the Project and the selected alternative. (5)

▪ Some attendees preferred other TH 12 alternatives and CSAH 55/1st Avenue West sub-options 

that were not selected. (5)

▪ There was support from several residents, businesses, agencies, and elected officials for SubOption CSAH 55/1st Ave-1 to maintain an at-grade crossing of 1st Avenue West across the new 

railroad connection. (9)

▪ Concern from agriculture/farm related businesses that trucks will be impeded from entering and 

exiting the businesses along CSAH 55/1st Avenue West due to the closure at the new railroad

connection. (2)

▪ There was concern over extended mileage and decreased safety for heavy commercial trucks 

associated with the selected alternative. (2)

▪ Some people expressed concern with a one-track railroad concept and would have preferred the 

railroad include a second track to prevent backups and idling/parking of trains that would result 

in trains going into the Willmar Yard and turning around as they do today – thereby maintaining 

current problems with crossing occupancy. (7)

▪ For a property owner whose driveway will be relocated from the state highway TH 12 to 45th

Street (a township road), there was concern that township will not plow the new 45th Street 

road segment as often or thoroughly as the state highway is currently maintained. (1)

▪ The City of Willmar and Kandiyohi County stated concerns associated with roadway 

jurisdictional and turnback issues. (2)

▪ General concern for business impacts associated with loss of visibility and access to existing 

businesses along the existing TH 12 roadway. (3)

▪ Increase in train noise for a residential property due to the relocation of the 45th Street public 

railroad crossing to the west. (2)

▪ A decrease in quality of life for residents in the general vicinity of the new railroad connection. (2)

▪ General concern for farmland and property impacts associated with the Project. (2)

All comments received were considered, addressed and responded to by MnDOT. Comments and the

response to comments are included in Attachment 1 – Appendix B, and have been posted on the 

Project website.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

Applicable Regulations and Permits

The selected alternative was chosen after the potential impacts were evaluated, and the ability to 

mitigate impacts was considered. The following Federal regulations, statutes, and orders apply to the 

Project:
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 21

▪ Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 USC § 1251-1376)

▪ Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17)

▪ Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (42 Federal Register 26951)

▪ Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetland (42 Federal Register 26961)

▪ Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 Federal Register 7629)

▪ Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal 

Register 28545)

▪ National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC § 4231 et seq.)

▪ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (40 CFR 1500-1508)

▪ Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC § 303)

▪ Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 USC § 460)

▪ Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 USC § 470) (54 U.S.C. § 

306108)

▪ Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC § 1344)

▪ Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 USC § 61)

▪ Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Final Rule (40 CFR 222 and 229)

▪ Federal Highway Administration’s Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and 

Construction Noise (23 CFR 772)

In addition to the federal regulations, statutes, and orders, the Project is subject to agency approvals 

and permits. 

Mitigation

Mitigation describes any action taken to reduce the adverse effects of potential impacts. The order of 

precedence for dealing with impacts is listed below:

▪ Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action

▪ Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 

rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment

▪ Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action

▪ Compensating for adverse impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments

The following sections describe the list of commitments to mitigation that are being committed to as 

part of this Project.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 22

Land Use

Airport Zones: 

The build alternative encroaches into Airport Zones B and C, but avoids the runway protection zone and 

Zone A. To ensure compatibility with the Willmar Municipal Airport Zoning Ordinance, MnDOT will 

continue to coordinate with the FAA and Willmar Area Joint Airport Zoning Board throughout design and 

during construction. MnDOT will supply construction data as part of the FAA Obstruction 

Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis – Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration – Off Airport 

permit. Mitigation/minimization will comply with height restrictions identified in the zoning ordinances 

and obtain permits in advance of construction. 

Floodplain:

Impacts to the floodplains will stay within the regulatory threshold of up to 0.5 feet as final design is 

completed to ensure no mitigation is needed. As part of final design, MnDOT’s request for proposal for 

the design-build contract will indicate that the final design cannot raise the floodplain to a level (greater 

than 0.5 feet) that would require a permit. BNSF is in the process of finalizing the railroad plans. Those 

plans are consistent with the preliminary plans that did not include an increase in the floodplain.

Water Resources

Groundwater:

Nearby wells have been inventoried and mapped as described in Figure 34 of the EA/EAW. MnDOT will 

ensure that any wells impacted by the Project will be sealed by a licensed well contractor according to 

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725, or be relocated and coordinated with the MPCA and MDH.

Stormwater Management: 

Figure 35 in the EA/EAW identifies the proposed stormwater treatment BMPs for the proposed Project. 

For the roadway portions of the Project, rate control and infiltration volume will be provided by MnDOT 

for the net new impervious surface as required by the NPDES permit. As part of the roadway Project,

MnDOT will construct seven best management practices (BMPs) via a combination of dry ponds and 

filtration basins that will meet the requirements of the NPDES permit and the MDH rules. MnDOT will 

ensure that railroad BMPs will be implemented by BNSF consisting of vegetated/turf side slopes, turf 

swales and/or ditches, rip rap, filtration basins and equalizer culverts.

Water appropriation: 

MnDOT will implement and will ensure that BNSF implements a dewatering plan, along with meeting all 

requirements included in the Project SWPPP and NPDES Permit, during construction to ensure that the 

discharge does not adversely affect receiving waters and that the inlet and discharge points are 

adequately protected from erosion and scour. If dewatering rates exceed 10,000 gallons per day or a 

million gallons per year, MnDOT will require and ensure that BNSF requires their contractors to apply for 

a DNR Water Appropriation permit during the construction phase of the Project. 

Section 401:

In Minnesota, The USACE and the MPCA have a joint application form. Permits from the USACE, 

including General Permits and Letters of Permission, include pre-certification from the MPCA 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 23

demonstrating compliance with Section 401. If any mitigation measures are identified in the permitting 

process, MnDOT will ensure they are implemented.

Section 404:

The proposed method of wetland compensatory mitigation follows the approach outlined in the St. Paul 

District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota and the Minnesota WCA Rules. 

Wetland impacts will occur within Bank Service Area (BSA) 9 and Major Watershed 25 (Minnesota RiverYellow Medicine River). Mitigation for impacts associated with the roadway portion of this Project will 

be replaced at a 2:1 ratio through the debit of MnDOT bank credits and impacts associated with the 

railroad portion of the Project will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio through the purchase of credits from a bank 

within BSA 9. MnDOT will be responsible for wetland mitigation associated with the roadway portion of 

the Project and will ensure that BNSF is responsible for wetland mitigation impacts associated with the 

railroad portion of the Project.

Contamination/Regulated Waste

MnDOT will require and ensure that BNSF requires that any potentially contaminated materials 

encountered during construction will be handled and treated in accordance with applicable state and 

federal regulations. It is not anticipated that construction work would release contaminated dust 

particles to the surrounding populace; however, minimization measures will avoid, control, and manage 

these efforts.

For building demolition, MnDOT will contract with experts in regulated waste to inspect the properties 

for the presence of regulated or contaminated materials. MnDOT will implement standard measures to 

help avoid, control and manage potential effects from contaminated materials, such as preparing and 

implementing a project-specific scope of work, site-specific health and safety plan, and hazardous 

material management plan. Any regulated or contaminated materials identified will be disposed of in 

accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations in advance of Project construction.

MnDOT will dispose and ensure that BNSF disposes of all solid wastes generated by construction of the 

proposed Project properly in a permitted, licensed facility. MnDOT will direct concrete, asphalt, and 

other potentially recyclable construction materials that result from Project demolition to the 

appropriate storage, crushing or renovation facility for recycling. 

If any contaminated spills or leaks occur during construction, MnDOT will require the contractor to 

notify the Duty Officer and work with the MPCA to contain and remediate contaminated soil/materials 

in accordance with state and federal standards. MnDOT will ensure that BNSF requires its contractor to 

work the MPCA to contain and remediate contaminated soil/materials in accordance with state and 

federal standards.

Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities and Sensitive Ecological Resources

While impacts to sensitive species are not anticipated, MnDOT will ensure that MnDOT and BNSF 

implement the following protection measures: 

▪ Design the Project to avoid impacts to any identified Areas of Environmental Sensitivity (AES).
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 24

▪ Protect and preserve vegetation from damage in accordance with MnDOT Spec 2572.3.

▪ Prohibit vehicle and construction activities, including the location of field offices, storage of 

equipment and other supplies at least 25 feet outside the AES to be preserved, also in 

accordance with MnDOT spec 2572.3.

▪ Use redundant sediment/erosion control BMPs for protection of areas of environmental 

sensitivity.

▪ Use of native seed mixes for revegetation of disturbed soils not proposed for mowed turf grass.

Construction Noise and Dust

To minimize construction noise disturbances, MnDOT has made the following commitments: 

▪ MnDOT will require and ensure that BNSF will require that construction equipment be properly 

muffled and in proper working order. 

▪ MnDOT will require its contractors to comply with applicable local noise restrictions and 

ordinances to the extent that is reasonable. 

▪ MnDOT will ensure that BNSF and its contractors will comply with applicable noise restrictions 

and ordinances. 

▪ MnDOT will provide and ensure that BNSF will provide advanced notice to the City of Willmar 

for construction activities that produce abnormally loud noises, such as use of high-impact 

equipment, pile driving, pavement sawing or air hammering. 

MnDOT will require and ensure that BNSF requires construction contractors to control dust and other 

airborne particulates in accordance with MnDOT and BNSF specifications in place at the time of Project

construction. MnDOT will ensure that MnDOT and BNSF adhere to BMPs for dust control, which may 

include the following measures as appropriate for the Project area:

▪ Minimize the duration and extent of areas being exposed or regraded at any one time. 

▪ Spray construction areas and haul roads with water, especially during periods of high wind or 

high levels of construction activity. 

▪ Minimize the use of vehicles on unpaved surfaces when feasible. 

▪ Tarp trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require trucks to maintain at least 

two feet of freeboard. 

▪ Pave, apply water as needed, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on unpaved access roads, 

parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 

▪ Use water sweepers to sweep paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at 

construction sites. 

▪ Use water sweepers to sweep streets if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public 

streets. 

▪ Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded 

areas inactive for ten days or more). 

▪ Enclose, cover, water or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). 

▪ Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact Page 25

▪ Utilize appropriate erosion control measures to reduce silt runoff to public roadways. 

▪ Replant vegetation as quickly as possible to minimize erosion in disturbed areas. 

▪ Use alternative fuels for construction equipment when feasible. 

▪ Minimize equipment idling time. 

▪ Maintain properly tuned equipment. 

Right of Way

MnDOT will ensure that the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended 

by the Surface Transportation Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 and 49 CFR, Part 24, and 

effective April 1989 will be followed by MnDOT and BNSF for the Project, to compensate landowners for 

property acquired for this Project. Relocation assistance will be provided by MnDOT if necessary. 

MnDOT will ensure that for temporary impacts, MnDOT and BNSF will ensure that land features will be

returned to match their prior condition.

Section 4(f) Resources

During construction of the CSAH 5 and realigned TH 12 intersection, a temporary connection 

(bypass/detour) will be provided by MnDOT on the trail to ensure users can continue to travel through 

the area.

Section 7 – Endangered Species

MnDOT will ensure that the Project includes minimization measures to prevent effects to the bat. 

Winter tree removal (November 1 to March 31) will occur in order to avoid possible impacts to the 

species during the pup rearing season (June 1 through July 31). Disturbed areas will be revegetated 

using native seed mixes per DNR, MnDOT, and USFWS guidance. In addition, the Project will utilize bionetting or natural netting for erosion control, which would reduce the risk of bat or other wildlife 

entrapment. MnDOT and BNSF have agreed to these requests for construction and these measures will 

be noted in construction documents and requests for proposals for construction.

Visual

MnDOT will ensure that lighting will be directed downward towards the road or railroad and full cutoff 

luminaire lighting heads will be used to minimize light pollution. 


FINDINGS OF FACT

and

CONCLUSIONS

WILLMAR RAIL CONNECTOR & INDUSTRIAL 

ACCESS PROJECT

State Project No. 3403-74

Prepared by:

Minnesota Department of Transportation

May 2, 2017
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page i

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUE .......................................................................................................... 1

ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 1

FINDINGS OF FACT................................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 2

3.2 Additional Information Regarding Items Discussed in the EA/EAW Since It Was 

Published.............................................................................................................................. 3

3.3 Findings Regarding Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant 

Environmental Effects......................................................................................................... 7

CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................... 22
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 1

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS

WILLMAR RAIL CONNECTOR & INDUSTRIAL ACCESS 

PROJECT

Located in:

City of Willmar and Willmar Township

Kandiyohi County, Minnesota

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

The proposed project will construct a new 2.8-mile railway between the Marshall and Morris 

Subdivisions of the BNSF Railway and a rail spur for industrial park access. Roadway modifications 

include a 2.5-mile realignment of US Trunk Highway (TH) 12, construction of two bridges over the 

proposed rail line, and other local road modifications.

Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is required for this project under 

Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, Subpart 22.A, for construction of a road on a new location over one 

mile in length. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is the project proposer.

MnDOT is also the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for review of this project, as per 

Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, Subpart 22.A.

MnDOT’s decision in this matter shall be either a negative or a positive declaration of the need for 

an environmental impact statement. MnDOT must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the project if it determines the project has the potential for significant environmental effects.

Based upon the information in the record, which comprises the Environmental 

Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW) for the proposed project, related 

studies referenced in the EA/EAW, written comments received, responses to the comments, and 

other supporting documents included in this Findings of Fact and Conclusions document, MnDOT 

makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:

ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND

2.1 The Minnesota Department of Transportation is the Responsible Governmental Unit and 

project proposer for the Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project. A combined 

Federal Environmental Assessment and State Environmental Assessment Worksheet 

(EA/EAW) has been prepared for this project in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 

4410 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et. seq.). The EA/EAW 

was developed to assess the impacts of the project and other circumstances in order to 

determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is indicated.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 2

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

2.2 The EA/EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and 

circulated for review and comments to the required EAW distribution list. A “Notice of 

Availability” was published in the EQB Monitor on February 6, 2017. A press release was 

distributed to local media outlets and legal notices were published in the Willmar Tribune

on February 8, 2017. Appendix A contains copies of the affidavits of publication for the legal 

notices. A notice was also published on the project web page 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d8/projects/willmarwye. These notices provided a brief 

description of the project and information on where copies of the EA/EAW were available 

and invited the public to provide comments that would be used in determining the need for 

an EIS on the proposed project. 

2.3 A public hearing/open house meeting was held on February 23, 2017 at the MnDOT District 

8 Office (2505 Transportation Road) in Willmar. Additional information pertaining to the 

publication of the EA/EAW and the public hearing/open house meeting is located in 

Appendix A.

2.4 The EA/EAW was made available for public review at four locations: Willmar Public Library 

(Willmar), MnDOT District 8 Office (Willmar), MnDOT Library (St. Paul), and Environmental 

Conservation Library (Minneapolis). The document was also posted for review on the 

project website listed in Section 2.2. Comments were received through March 8, 2017. 

2.5 Twenty-eight agency and public citizen comments were received during the EA/EAW

comment period. All comments received during the EA/EAW comment period were 

considered in determining the potential for significant environmental impacts. Comments 

received during the comment period and responses to substantive comments are provided 

in Appendix B. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

3.1 Project Description

3.1.1 Existing Conditions: Willmar is a regional hub on the BNSF Railway (BNSF) network. The 

Willmar Terminal is the confluence of three BNSF Subdivisions – the Marshall, Morris and 

Wayzata. The Marshall Subdivision runs southwest from the City of Willmar to the South 

Dakota border and further to the east to Sioux City, Iowa. The Morris Subdivision runs from 

Willmar to East Breckenridge, Minnesota. The Wayzata Subdivision runs from Minneapolis 

to Willmar, where it connects with the Morris and Marshall Subdivisions in the Willmar 

Terminal. While there is a direct connection between the Wayzata Subdivision to both the 

Morris and Marshall Subdivisions, there is not a direct connection between the Morris and 

Marshall Subdivisions. Trains moving north-south on the Morris and Marshall Subdivisions

must pull into the Willmar Terminal, reverse direction, and reposition locomotives and 

crews. This switching operation to transfer trains between the Morris and Marshall 

Subdivisions, creates excess train emissions and noise, consumes rail yard and mainline 

capacity, occupies several at-grade crossings, and impedes the flow of vehicular traffic 

within Willmar.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 3

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

Trunk Highway (TH) 12 runs parallel to the BNSF Morris Subdivision at the northwest 

corner of Willmar. TH 12 is currently a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 55 

miles per hour (mph). The existing roadway section typically has 12-foot driving lanes and 

10-foot wide paved shoulders. TH 40 is currently an east-west two-lane roadway 

connecting the Willmar Municipal Airport to Willmar. TH 40 has 12-foot driving lanes and 

two-foot paved shoulders. Kandiyohi County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 55 is a two-lane 

roadway that runs north-south between TH 23 and 1st Avenue West. From there, CSAH 

55/1st Avenue West heads east towards TH 12. CSAH 55 has 12-foot driving lanes and 

varying shoulder widths. 

3.1.2 Proposed Project: The recommended alternative as identified in the EA/EAW includes a 

2.8-mile railway consisting of a mainline connection, grading for a future siding, industrial 

park access spur line, access roads and mainline extension between the Marshall and 

Morris Subdivisions of the BNSF railway in the western portion of the City of Willmar and 

Willmar Township. Roadway modifications include a 2.5-mile realignment of Trunk 

Highway (TH) 12, construction of two bridges on TH 12 and TH 40 over the proposed rail 

line, new local access road between the realigned TH 12 and 1st Avenue West, and other 

road modifications to County State Aid Highway 55, 1st Avenue West, and 45th Street NW. 

A more detailed description of the proposed project components is included in Section 

III.F.2. (starting on page 32) of the EA/EAW.

3.2 Additional Information Regarding Items Discussed in the EA/EAW Since It Was 

Published 

Since the EA/EAW was published, the following information pertaining to the project has been 

added or updated:

3.2.1 The recommended alternative layout (Figure 22) has been updated to reflect design 

changes based on updated information and continued discussions with partner agencies. A 

number of figures have also been updated with the recommended improvements, and are 

included in Appendix C. The layout modifications are minor and did not result in increased 

environmental impacts. The following modifications were made to the layout:

▪ Roadway modifications to the segment of 1st Avenue W located between the new 

alignment of TH 12 and CSAH 55/45th Street NW have been updated. The proposed 

improvements are shown to consist of an aggregate surface, not paved roadway surface, to 

match the existing roadway surface. Also, the proposed cul-de-sac has been relocated 

approximately 700 feet to the east to maintain access to adjacent farmland. Roadway 

removals will be limited to the separation of this roadway segment from the new TH 12 

alignment (approximately 50 feet).

▪ The existing segments of TH 12 that will no longer serve a trunk highway purpose will

receive a mill and overlay as part of this project. The segments are: from the new 45th

Street NW connection to the existing 45th Street NW/TH 12 intersection; and from the new 

1st Avenue W connection to the east of the existing TH 12/CSAH 5 intersection. These 

segments are being considered for turnback as a local roadway. 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 4

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

▪ The east-west portion of CSAH 55/1st Avenue W that will no longer serve a state aid 

purpose will receive a mill and overlay as part of this project. This segment is being 

considered for turnback as a local roadway.

▪ Additional driveway connections have been shown on CSAH 55 and 45th Street NW to 

maintain existing field accesses.

3.2.2 Filtration basins and other storm water best management practices will be constructed to 

address infiltration and water quality treatment and areas sensitive to additional discharge 

from the road right of way. Seven stormwater BMPs (a combination of dry ponds and 

filtration basins) will be used to meet water quality and rate control requirements of the 

City of Willmar and NPDES stormwater permit for roadway improvements. Previously, nine 

BMPs were identified. See updated Figure 35: Stormwater Treatment in Appendix C, for 

the revised BMP locations as described below.

Proposed stormwater BMPs along CSAH 55 have been reduced from four to two BMPs. 

BMPs 5640 and 5461 have been eliminated. BMPs 5700 and 5721 are both proposed as 

filtration basins. 

The stormwater BMP located adjacent to the new TH 12 alignment and the new local 

access road to 1st Avenue W has also been revised. This location was previously identified 

as dry pond 5733. It has been updated as filtration basin 5023.

3.2.3 Information related to floodplain impacts has been updated and identified in Figure 31: 

Proposed Floodplain Impacts and Crossings in Appendix C. Also see Appendix E for 

updated floodplain assessment and hydraulic risk analysis documentation.

Crossing “A” was previously shown as a new 48-inch round culvert at the location of the 

new TH 12 alignment over County Ditch 12. Crossing “A” has been revised, proposing two 

42-inch round culverts at this location.

The southern-most crossing “B” was previously shown as a new 72” CMP round culvert 

under the new railway. Crossing “B” has been revised to a 60” CMP round culvert. 

Crossing “C” was previously identified as Bridge 94149 over Hawk Creek (County Ditch 10) 

and was proposed to be extended approximately 25 feet to account for shoulder widening 

on CSAH 55. This information has been revised, referring to Crossing C as Bridge 34J28. 

The existing Bridge 34J28 on CSAH 55 is sufficient and no modifications are needed for the 

shoulder widening on CSAH 55. The existing bridge is a 12-foot by 8-foot box culvert.

Crossing “D” (Bridge 91329) was previously identified as an existing 14-foot by 10-foot box 

culvert over Hawk Creek on TH 40. The existing bridge type and size have been revised to a 

15-foot, 4-inch by 9-foot, 3-inch steel pipe arch. In-kind replacement for this culvert is 

proposed as previously identified.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 5

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

Additionally, two pipes will be constructed under proposed Trunk Highway 12 (labeled 

Crossing “G” and “H”). These culverts will be outside of the FEMA floodplain, but require a 

Risk Assessment due to their size (anticipated size is greater than 48 inches).

Crossing “I” was previously shown as a 12-foot by 8-foot box culvert replacement. Based 

upon further review, the existing 12-foot by 6-foot Bridge #8468 was determined to have 

no structural or design issues. In order to reduce project impacts related to floodplain and 

existing utilities, replacement of the structure is no longer proposed. 

Culverts/hydraulic crossings have been sized to ensure high water levels will not adversely 

affect upstream infrastructure. The 100-year high water levels (HWLs) have been 

determined for the pre- and post-development runoff scenarios. Post development HWL 

rises relative to pre-development HWLs have been determined following a 100-year event. 

Additionally, inundation times that would result due to the additional water level rise have 

been calculated. Post development HWL and additional inundation times have been 

determined insignificant relating to alteration of wetlands, infrastructure impact, and 

agricultural impact.

3.2.4 Information related to the physical effects and alterations of surface waters has been 

updated to reflect design changes. Table 15 of the EA/EAW has been updated as follows:

Definition Wetland 

Impacts 

(acres)

Tributary 

Impacts 

(acres)

Wet Ditch 

Impacts 

(acres)

Total 

Impact 

(acres)

All Aquatic 

Resources

Wetlands, tributaries, roadside 

wet ditches, stormwater 

features, conveyance systems, 

and ditches

11.8* 0.5 0.2 12.5

WCA 

Regulated 

Wetlands

Natural Wetlands (WCA does 

not regulate incidental wetlands 

such as wet ditches)

11.8* No 

Regulation

No 

Regulation

11.8

USACE 

Jurisdictional 

Resources

Wetlands, tributaries, roadside 

wet ditches, stormwater 

features, conveyance systems 

and ditches which connect to a 

water of the U.S. 

3.8* 0.5 0.1 4.4

*Some resources may fall under regulation by WCA and the USACE. Not all aquatic resource impacts 

require mitigation.

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 and Minnesota Wetland Conservation 

Act (WCA) joint permit applications for replacement plans have been drafted as separate 

applications for the BNSF and the MnDOT portions of the project. These applications will be 

submitted for review, comment and approval. Wetland impacts for both portions of the 

project occur within Bank Service Area (BSA) 9 and Major Watershed 25 (Minnesota River –

Yellow Medicine River). The proposed method of wetland compensatory mitigation follows 

the approach outlined in the St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in 

Minnesota and the Minnesota WCA Rules, which requires 2:1 mitigation ratios for 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 6

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

replacement, if within the same BSA. Wetland mitigation for the rail will most likely be 

mitigated through the purchase of wetland bank credits from bank accounts in BSA 9. 

Wetland impacts from the roadway portions of this project will be mitigated for through 

the debit of MnDOT wetland bank credits. Aquatic resource impacts have changed with 

regards to updates in design. The rail project will impact approximately 2.5 acres of aquatic 

resources and will purchase approximately 5.0 acres of mitigation credits, where at least 

1.5 acres of those credits will be USACE approved. The road project will impact 

approximately 9.5 acres of aquatic resources and will purchase approximately 19.0 acres of

mitigation credits, where at least 6.4 acres of those credits will be USACE approved. Both 

the railway and roadway portions are expected to qualify for a Letter of Permission.

Wetland impacts occurring from both the roadway and the rail projects total approximately 

11.8 acres, where 9.3 acres of wetland impacts occur from roadway construction or 

modification and 2.5 acres of wetland impacts occur from the construction of the new rail 

line. The Wetland Assessment and Two Part Finding document and corresponding impact 

figures have been updated to reflect changes to wetland impacts and is included in 

Appendix E.

3.2.5 On January 6, 2017 correspondence was received from the USACE regarding their 

preliminary interpretation about which wetlands and tributaries impacted would most 

likely be considered Waters of the United States (WOUS) in the final Approved 

Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) [see Appendix D for correspondence]. Wetlands 1, 6, 7, 

45, 47, 48, and 58 as well as tributaries 51 and 54 were suggested to be WOUS in addition 

to those indicated on the previous ADJ that was issued on August 25, 2015. The formal ADJ 

for these additional resources has not been issued by the USACE. 

3.2.6 A pre-application meeting was held on February 14, 2017 with the WCA Local Government 

Unit (LGU) for Kandiyohi County in order to review the proposed railway design in regard to

wetland impacts, changes to inundation, and the potential to cause changes to wetland 

types. Slight changes to the railway drainage measures were requested and were 

incorporated into the joint permit application. 

3.2.7 A pre-application conference call was held on February 8, 2017 with the Kandiyohi County 

Ditch Authority to introduce and review the project in regard to impacts to the County 

ditch systems. Permit applications are being prepared separately for the BNSF and the 

MnDOT portions of the project, but will be submitted concurrently for review by the 

County Ditch Authority. The permit applications will be presented and reviewed at the 

same public hearing that will be held by the Kandiyohi County Ditch Authority.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 7

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

3.2.8 Cover types, both before and after the project, have been slightly modified to reflect 

changes to the design. Table 9 of the EA/EAW has been updated as follows for cover types 

within the general project area.

Cover Type Before 

(acres)

After

(acres)

Cultivated crops 89 0

Wooded/forest 0.5 0

Wetland 15 3

Impervious/developed 69 98.5

Pasture/hay 11 0

Stormwater BMP 0 5.5

Deep water/streams 0.5 0.5

Lawn/landscaped 0 77.5

Total 185 185

3.2.9 Updated right of way acquisition estimates have been prepared since the EA/EAW was 

released. The following table provides updated numbers to Table 23 in the EA/EAW for 

both permanent and temporary acquisitions. Figure 41 and Figure 42 have been updated to 

show the property that would be needed to construct the Project. 

Right of Way Impacts (Total and Strip Acquisitions)

Type of Acquisition Acres Number of Property 

Owners

Permanent Right of Way / 

Permanent Easement

302.4 17

Temporary Easement 19.7 16

3.3 Findings Regarding Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant 

Environmental Effects

Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 provides that an environmental impact statement shall be ordered for 

projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. In deciding whether a project 

has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following four factors described in 

Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp.7 shall be considered:

A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;

B. cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the 

cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is 

significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential 

effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures 

specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the 

proposer to minimize the contributions from the project;
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 8

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public 

regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and 

that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental 

impacts of the project; and

D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of 

other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project 

proposer, including other EISs.

MnDOT’s key findings with respect to each of these criteria are set forth below:

3.3.1 Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Impacts

MnDOT finds that the analysis completed during the EA/EAW process is adequate to 

determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The 

EA/EAW describes the type and extent of impacts anticipated to result from the proposed

project. In addition to the information in the EA/EAW, the additional information 

described in Section 3.2 of this Findings of Fact and Conclusions document as well as the 

public/agency comments received during the public comment period (see Appendix B)

were taken into account in considering the type, extent and reversibility of project 

impacts. Following are the key findings regarding potential environmental impacts of the

proposed project and the design features included to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these

impacts:

3.3.1.1 Land Use: The project is compatible with the City of Willmar’s future plans for the area 

and the planned industrial park development. A large portion of the land is currently 

leased, with the project partners (City of Willmar and BNSF) owning a number of farmed 

parcels. Approximately 93 acres of farmland will be converted to railroad or road right of 

way. The project will not prohibit farming on non-converted lands.

To ensure compatibility with the Willmar Municipal Airport Zoning Ordinance, 

coordination with the FAA and Willmar Area Joint Airport Zoning Board will continue 

throughout design and during construction. This includes review of all structures, 

including lighting improvements, within the airport influence zones to ensure they are 

compatible with necessary height restrictions. Construction data will be supplied as part 

of the FAA Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis – Notice of Proposed 

Construction or Alteration – Off Airport permit. 

3.3.1.2 Water Resources: 

Surface Waters: The project will involve work in surface waters located within the project 

corridor including Hawk Creek, unnamed tributaries to Hawk Creek, County Ditch 10, and 

County Ditch 46. Hawk Creek currently passes under existing TH 12, CSAH 55 and TH 40 via 

culvert bridges. The bridges at TH 12 and TH 40 will be replaced based on the MnDOT 

Bridge Preservation and Improvement Guidelines document due to existing structures 

being under-designed compared to current standards. The proposed railway will cross 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 9

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

Hawk Creek and County Ditch 46. Fifteen-foot diameter corrugated metal pipes (CMPs)

are proposed at both of these crossings. 

Impacts to tributaries within the project corridor from roadway improvements and 

associated culvert installation are approximately 0.1 acres. Surface water impacts from 

the railway and associated culvert installation are approximately 0.4 acres. The DNR will 

not require a Public Waters Work permit for the work occurring within Hawk Creek 

because of its status as an altered DNR Public Water. Compensatory mitigation through 

the USACE is not anticipated for any work occurring within surface waters due to no loss 

of aquatic resource value or function when compared to the existing characteristics of the 

waterbodies. Permit applications for County Ditch crossings will be prepared and 

submitted to the Kandiyohi County Ditch Authority to petition for proposed changes to 

the County Ditch system, but no changes to the hydraulic capacity of the County Ditches 

are proposed. 

Groundwater: The project is located within a wellhead protection area as identified by the 

Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The east portion of the project is in a high 

vulnerability Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) and a small portion of 

the project is located within a moderate vulnerability DWSMA. MDH guidance indicates 

that infiltration is not recommended in these areas. The project’s stormwater 

management reflects the MDH guidelines.

Thirty active and sealed wells are located within the project area. Any wells impacted by 

the project will be sealed by a licensed well contractor according to Minnesota Rules, 

Chapter 4725, or be relocated and coordinated with the MPCA and MDH.

Stormwater Management: For the roadway portions of the project, rate control and 

infiltration volume will be provided for the net new impervious surface as required by the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater 

permit. The project is also required to follow guidance set forth by the Minnesota 

Department of Health on infiltration within wellhead protection areas. The project will 

result in an increase in impervious of 29.5 acres and the east portions of the project are 

located within high vulnerability wellhead protection areas. The roadway project proposes

to construct seven best management practices (BMPs), a combination of dry ponds and 

filtration basins that will meet the requirements of the NPDES permit and the MDH rules.

Stormwater runoff BMPs are proposed to accommodate railway surface runoff resulting 

from stormwater events. Railway BMPs to be implemented will consist of vegetated/turf 

side slopes, turf swales and/or ditches, rip rap, filtration basins and equalizer 

culverts. Stormwater runoff from proposed railway infrastructure will be directed to turf 

established side slopes and/or adjacent flat bottom ditches. The typical railway ditch 

bottom widths proposed are 6’ wide and will maintain minimal longitudinal slope.

The railway will cross two agricultural drainage ditches (County Ditches 10 and 46) and 

also a tributary to County Ditch 10. These three crossings will be treated with nine

filtration basins (four at each of the two ditch crossings and one at the tributary to County 

Ditch 10) to filter runoff prior to discharge into the existing ditches. The filtration basin 

BMPs will meet MPCA criteria.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 10

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

Culverts along the project have been sized to ensure high water levels will not adversely 

affect upstream infrastructure. 100-year high water levels (HWLs) have been determined 

for the pre- and post-development runoff scenarios. Post-development HWL rise relative 

to pre-development HWLs, as well as inundation times, have been determined following a 

100-year event. Post development HWL and additional inundation times have been 

determined to be minimal relating to alteration of wetlands, infrastructure impacts, and 

agricultural impacts. 

Water appropriation: The installation or replacement of culverts within surface waters will 

require water appropriation. A dewatering plan, as well as information included in the 

project SWPPP and NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit, will be utilized during 

construction to ensure that the discharge does not adversely affect receiving waters and 

that the inlet and discharge points are adequately protected from erosion and scour. If 

dewatering rates exceed 10,000 gallons per day or a million gallons per year, the 

contractor will apply for a DNR Water Appropriation permit during the construction phase

of the project. 

Wetlands and wet ditches: Wetland and wet ditch impacts attributed to the railway 

portion of this project are approximately 2.5 acres of wetland (no wet ditch impacts), 

where 0.8 acres are under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Approximately 9.3 acres of 

wetland impacts and 0.1 acre of wet ditch impacts are attributed to the roadway portion 

of this project, where 3.2 acres are under the jurisdiction of the USACE. 

Two joint applications have been drafted for the BNSF portion and the MnDOT portion of 

the project. Compensatory mitigation is not anticipated for impacts occurring to 

tributaries. Included in the applications are replacements plans of the affected wetland 

areas. Proposed replacement is consistent with the Section 404 permit and the current 

Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulatory requirements. Wetland impacts will occur 

within Bank Service Area (BSA) 9 and Major Watershed 25 (Minnesota River-Yellow 

Medicine River) for both portions of the project. Mitigation for impacts associated with 

the roadway portion of this project will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio through the debit of 

MnDOT bank credits and impacts associated with the railway portion of the project will be 

replaced at a 2:1 ratio through the purchase of credits from a bank within BSA 9. Both 

Local Government Units (LGUs), Kandiyohi County and MnDOT, have reviewed the project

and have discussed the proposed replacement plans in pre-application meetings. 

Floodplain: The 100-year floodplain of Hawk Creek, unnamed tributaries to Hawk Creek, 

County Ditch 12 and County Ditch 46 are within the project area. These floodplains are 

fairly well contained within the banks of the creek and ditches within the project area. 

Approximately 2.9 acres of floodplain will be impacted at the following locations as 

identified in Figure 31 of the EA/EAW (see updated version in Appendix C: 

▪ Proposed culvert under proposed Trunk Highway 12, west of 30th Avenue NW, over 

County Ditch 12 (Crossing “A”)

▪ Proposed culvert on Hawk Creek east of CSAH 55 (Crossing “B”)

▪ Existing bridge 91329 on Trunk Highway 40 over Hawk Creek (Crossing “D”)

▪ Proposed culvert under proposed Trunk Highway 12, between 1st Avenue and CSAH 

55 (Crossing “E”)
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 11

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

▪ Proposed railroad culvert on County Ditch 46 east of CSAH 55 (Crossing “F”)

The bridge and culvert crossings associated with the floodplain will be sized such that they 

minimize changes in the floodplain either upstream or downstream. Based on the model, 

the stage increase of the floodplain will be less than 0.5 feet; therefore, there will be 

minimal floodplain impacts as a result of the project. The impact to the floodplain will be 

minimal and within the regulatory threshold, so no mitigation will be required. A 

floodplain assessment has been updated and is included in Appendix E. It is anticipated 

that there will be no net increase; however, there is some flexibility to increase this up to 

0.5 feet should changes in floodplain impacts occur in final design.

3.3.1.3 Contamination: There is a low likelihood of encountering contaminated materials as a 

result of construction activities. No known contaminated groundwater or soil were 

identified in the project area. Any potentially contaminated materials encountered during 

construction will be handled and treated in accordance with applicable state and federal 

regulations. 

It is anticipated that three houses and associated accessory structures located adjacent to 

the TH 40/CSAH 55 intersection will be demolished and removed. MnDOT will contract 

with experts in regulated waste to inspect the properties for the presence of regulated or 

contaminated materials. MnDOT will implement standard measures to help avoid, control 

and manage potential effects from contaminated materials, such as preparing and 

implementing a project-specific scope of work, site-specific health and safety plan, and 

hazardous material management plan. Any regulated or contaminated materials identified 

will be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations in 

advance of project construction.

All solid wastes generated by construction of the proposed project will be disposed of 

properly in a permitted, licensed solid waste facility. Project demolition of concrete, 

asphalt, and other potentially recyclable construction materials will be directed to the 

appropriate storage, crushing or renovation facility for recycling. Any contaminated spills 

or leaks that occur during construction would be the responsibility of the contractor, who 

will notify the Duty Officer and work with the MPCA to contain and remediate 

contaminated soil/materials in accordance with state and federal standards.

3.3.1.4 Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities and Sensitive Ecological Resources: The majority of the 

project area has been previously disturbed, drained and used for agriculture. Any wildlife 

displaced would likely relocate to suitable nearby areas, including lands immediately 

adjacent to the project area. Prairie remnants outside the project area will be avoided in 

the project design. Vegetation impacts include herbaceous and tree impacts. The areas 

likely to be impacted include wind breaks adjacent to farmsteads and along fence lines, 

areas adjacent to Hawk Creek and an unnamed tributary to Hawk Creek located west of 

CSAH 55.

Protection measures include: design the project to avoid impacts to any identified Areas 

of Environmental Sensitivity (AES); protect and preserve vegetation from damage in 

accordance with MnDOT Spec 2572.3; prohibit vehicle and construction activities, 

including the location of field offices, storage of equipment and other supplies at least 25 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 12

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

feet outside the AES to be preserved, also in accordance with MnDOT spec 2572.3; use 

redundant sediment/erosion control BMPs for protection of areas of environmental 

sensitivity; and use of native seed mixes for revegetation of disturbed soils not proposed 

for mowed turf grass.

3.3.1.5 Historic: One site (the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Mainline: St. Anthony to Breckenridge 

RR Corridor Historic District), previously determined to be eligible for listing in the 

National Register, was evaluated by MnDOT’s Cultural Resource Unit (CRU) for potential 

impacts due to the proposed project. The proposed construction of the railroad line that 

would extend off the existing main line would constitute the only direct effect to the 

historic district. It was determined that the proposed project would not result in an 

adverse effect to the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Mainline: St. Anthony to Breckenridge 

RR Corridor Historic District. 

3.3.1.6 Visual: The project area landscape consists of level terrain, resulting in views of 

farmsteads and open agricultural fields extending into the horizon in many areas. The 

Marshall and Morris BNSF subdivision railroad lines and TH 12 currently provide linear 

visual references. The railway will introduce a new visual resource to the project area; 

however, the view will be fairly limited to adjacent properties (limited number of 

residences in the project area) and will likely be visible from nearby transportation routes. 

The grade separations will result in bridges measuring approximately 30 feet in height 

above current terrain levels similar to other nearby overpasses. 

Road users will experience a change while traveling on realigned TH 12. However, the 

new views will be similar to current views of the agricultural areas outside of the City of 

Willmar. The nearest home is approximately 600 feet from the new TH 12 and CSAH 55 

intersection. 

The project will introduce new light sources due to intersection lighting at the overpasses 

and rail connection. With the agricultural setting and few residences in the area, the new 

lighting sources are not anticipated to create a major impact. Several industrial 

businesses along CSAH 55/1st Avenue W are currently lit. Due to the distant location of 

the remaining residences and already lighted industrial area on CSAH 55/1st Avenue W, 

the project will have minimal light and visual impacts.

3.3.1.7 Construction Noise and Dust: Construction related activities will result in temporary noise 

level increases associated with construction equipment and pile driving. Elevated noise 

levels are, to a degree, unavoidable for this type of project. MnDOT will require that 

construction equipment be properly muffled and in proper working order. MnDOT and its 

contractors will comply with applicable local noise restrictions and ordinances to the 

extent that is reasonable. Advanced notice to the City of Willmar will be provided of any 

abnormally loud construction activities such as use of high-impact equipment, pile driving, 

pavement sawing or air hammering. High-impact noise construction activities will be 

limited in duration to the greatest extent possible. 

Dust generated during construction will be minimized through standard dust control 

measures such as applying water to exposed soils and limiting the extent and duration of 

exposed soil conditions. Construction contractors will be required to control dust and 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 13

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

other airborne particulates in accordance with MnDOT and BNSF specifications in place at 

the time of project construction. During construction, particulate emissions will 

temporarily increase due to the generation of fugitive dust associated with activities such 

as grading and other soil disturbance. The following dust control measures will be 

considered as appropriate:

▪ Minimize the duration and extent of areas being exposed or regraded at any one time. 

▪ Spray construction areas and haul roads with water, especially during periods of high 

wind or high levels of construction activity. 

▪ Minimize the use of vehicles on unpaved surfaces when feasible. 

▪ Tarp trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require trucks to maintain 

at least two feet of freeboard. 

▪ Pave, apply water as needed, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on unpaved access 

roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 

▪ Use water sweepers to sweep paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at 

construction sites. 

▪ Use water sweepers to sweep streets if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent 

public streets. 

▪ Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas 

(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 

▪ Enclose, cover, water or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, 

sand, etc.). 

▪ Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 

▪ Utilize appropriate erosion control measures to reduce silt runoff to public roadways. 

▪ Replant vegetation as quickly as possible to minimize erosion in disturbed areas. 

▪ Use alternative fuels for construction equipment when feasible. 

▪ Minimize equipment idling time. 

▪ Maintain properly tuned equipment. 

3.3.1.8 Social Impacts: Vehicular travel patterns have the potential to shift slightly as a result of 

the project due to the realignment of TH 12 and closure of CSAH 55/1st Avenue W at the 

new railroad connection. For some businesses located along existing TH 12, the new 

alignment will divert traffic from the front of their business and will require users to 

access their sites from a local roadway connection rather than TH 12. Another shift in 

travel will occur along 45th Street which will require users of the township roadway to 

travel an additional 2,400 feet to the west in order to access TH 12. Traffic impacts are 

expected to be minimal due to low traffic volumes. 

The project will provide a positive long-term social impact for residents, businesses, and 

the greater Willmar community. By relocating this train movement and eliminating the 

switching operation, delays for rail traffic will be reduced in the Willmar Terminal and 

corresponding delays for automobile traffic and non-motorized users will be reduced at

the at-grade rail crossings that presently are occupied by switching trains. Associated 

quality of life improvements include: decreased noise, vibration, and delay in travel time; 

improved air quality due to reductions in train and motor vehicle idling; and improved 

emergency response travel time reliability.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 14

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

3.3.1.9 Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists: The project will not negatively 

impact any existing non-motorized transportation facility or activity on a permanent basis. 

The project will create a new intersection with realigned TH 12 and CSAH 5, temporarily 

impacting the trail; however the trail will remain open during construction (see Section 

4(f) discussion in Section 3.3.1.14). Because the project area consists primarily of 

agricultural and industrial uses outside of the urbanized area, it was determined that 

additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities are not appropriate. Sidewalk and/or trail 

facilities may be installed in the future with development should the area urbanize and 

there is greater demand for these facilities. 

3.3.1.10 Environmental Justice: An Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis was completed as part of the 

EA/EAW. There are concentrations of both minority and low-income populations within 

the study area. These EJ populations are generally located in the residential subdivisions 

north of the existing TH 12 alignment, within close proximity to 30th Street (CSAH 5), 

which include the Parkwood Estates manufactured home community. All adverse impacts 

(on EJ and non-EJ populations alike) as described throughout this document will be 

effectively mitigated, minimized, or avoided. Therefore, the project will not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations. 

The EA/EAW notes that both EJ and non-EJ populations in the study area will benefit from 

the project, as it will provide a positive long-term social impact for Willmar residents, 

businesses, and the greater Willmar community. By relocating train movements and 

eliminating the switching operation, corresponding delays in automobile traffic will be 

anticipated to be reduced in the Willmar Terminal and adjacent railroad crossings. 

Associated quality of life improvements will also result, such as decreased noise, vibration, 

delay time on trips and improved air quality, emergency response reliability and traveler 

accessibility/mobility. Based on the EJ analysis, and taking into account benefits to EJ 

populations, the proposed action will not result in disproportionately high and adverse 

effects on minority or low-income populations. 

3.3.1.11 Economics: This section describes the potential effects of the project on economic activity, 

including a review of potential changes in local tax revenue related to the project, 

potential impacts to local businesses resulting from changes in roadway access, 

operational changes to the existing freight rail network, the effect of the project on 

economic development within the City of Willmar, and the effect of capital investment 

related to Project construction on employment. 

Property Tax Revenue: The project will result in the acquisition of privately-owned 

property for additional right of way for rail and roadway improvements. The property tax 

revenue associated with these acquisitions represents a very small proportion of the 

overall county, city, and school district tax base and overall economic effect of the project 

is expected to be minimal. 

Travel Time Impacts to Local Businesses: The project will result in the modification of the 

local roadway network. The economic effect of these roadway modifications will be 

changes in access to local businesses (particularly the businesses along CSAH 55/1st 

Avenue W and TH 12), which may affect travel distance and time for customers, 

employees, and shippers. The project will result in a slight increase in travel distance (0.4 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 15

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

miles) for businesses along CSAH 55/1st Avenue W, and an increase in travel time of just 

over one minute. Changes to some of the businesses located along TH 12 are slightly 

longer. These changes were determined to be minimal.

Freight Rail: The proposed railway connection will improve local and regional rail system 

operational efficiency, train velocity and fluidity, and rail network optionality and 

connectivity and therefore will not have an adverse economic impact on freight rail 

operators or shippers. 

City of Willmar Economic Development: Significant infrastructure investments have been 

made to establish an industrial park on the former airport site and support planned 

growth and development in Willmar. The project’s railway component would allow for a 

spur line to serve the industrial park, making it possible for the industrial park to be served 

by all three major freight modes (air, rail and truck) and allowing it to serve as a regional 

transshipment hub. This is expected to bring new business and employment 

opportunities into Willmar, benefiting the area’s economy. 

In addition to the economic effects described above, construction of the project will 

represent a substantial capital investment in the regional economy that will increase 

employment, earnings, and economic output during the short-term construction period. 

3.3.1.12 Right of Way Impacts: As stated in the EA/EAW and updated in Section 3.2.9 of this 

document, the project is expected to require acquisition of approximately 302 acres of 

permanent right of way and approximately 20 acres of temporary easement across 

portions of 43 parcels. Much of the property is owned and has been committed for project 

use by the partner agencies (City of Willmar, BNSF Railway, and MnDOT). For private 

property, seven total parcel acquisitions are anticipated including parcels with two

residential properties. One parcel includes relocating the home on another portion of the 

property. The Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended 

by the Surface Transportation Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 and 49 CFR, Part 

24, and effective April 1989 will be followed for the project, to compensate landowners 

for property acquired for this project.

3.3.1.13 Noise and Vibration: There is no new information related to noise and vibration. The 

following summarizes the findings from the EA/EAW.

Traffic noise levels were modeled at 32 representative receptor locations throughout the 

project corridor. In general, the analysis determined that construction of the project will 

result in increases in traffic noise levels compared to existing conditions. Changes in 

daytime traffic noise levels are projected to vary from -14.1 dBA to 9.1 dBA from existing 

to future (2040) build conditions. A noise barrier analysis was completed on a total of four

potential locations along the corridor. Of the four barriers analyzed, noise barriers were 

not found to be feasible and reasonable and are not proposed.

For train noise analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) general noise assessment 

identified moderate impacts at four receptors related to the at-grade crossing of the 

existing mainline near 45th Street: R13–R16. No severe impacts were identified. The 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 16

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

dominant noise source at receptors R13–R16 was the locomotive warning horn for the 

mainline at-grade crossing. Mitigation measures for the moderate impact at the four 

receptors were evaluated. However, noise barriers are unfeasible for mitigating noise at 

receptors near at-grade crossings (where locomotive warning horns are used) because the 

roadway creates a large gap in the barriers. This gap greatly diminishes the noise 

reduction of the barriers. In addition to feasibility concerns, noise mitigation measures for 

a small number of receptors are not cost effective. Therefore noise mitigation measures 

are not proposed.

Train vibration screening distances were determined using information in the FTA Transit 

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual. The project includes diesel 

locomotive trains in an area with residential receptors; therefore, a screening distance of 

200 feet was identified and applied to the proposed rail alignment. No vibration-sensitive 

receptors were identified within the vibration screening buffer, so no further vibration 

assessments were performed.

3.3.1.14 Section 4(f) Resources: There are two Section 4(f) resources impacted by the project. As 

discussed in the Historic section, the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Mainline: St. Anthony to 

Breckenridge Railroad Corridor Historic District is an active rail corridor that has previously 

been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, 

it is a Section 4(f) resource. Although the proposed project would impact the historic 

property, the impact has been determined to have “no adverse effect” because the 

construction of the project rail line extending of the historic rail corridor main line will not 

alter the existing location/alignment, materials, workmanship, design, feeling and 

association of the main line. The Minnesota Historic Preservation Office (MnHPO), the 

official with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) resource, has been informed of FHWA’s de 

minimis impact finding as part of the EA/EAW public and agency comment period. There 

were no comments received related to this Section 4(f) resource during the 30-day public 

comment period. MnHPO has provided a letter of concurrence for the FHWA

determination (see Attachment 2). The de minimis process is now complete. No 

mitigation will be provided.

The second Section 4(f) resource that will be impacted by the project is a recreational trail 

located along the east side of CSAH 5 that is owned and operated by Kandiyohi County. 

The 10-foot wide trail, which is approximately 0.9 miles long, will be subject to a 

temporary occupancy as a result of the construction of the CSAH 5 and realigned TH 12 

intersection. To provide a new roadway crossing for the trail, the project will include 

installing pedestrian ramps, painting crosswalks, and incorporating pedestrian countdown 

timers at the new roadway intersection. As detailed in the EA/EAW, the temporary 

occupancy is not considered a use under Section 4(f) because during construction of the 

intersection, the trail will remain open, a temporary connection (bypass/detour) will be 

provided on the trail to ensure users can continue to travel through the area, and all other 

criteria for a temporary occupancy exception are satisfied. Written concurrence from 

Kandiyohi County was appended to the EA/EAW as the owner of the resource. There 

were no public comments received related to this Section 4(f) park resource during the 

30-day public comment period.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 17

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

3.3.1.15 Section 6(f) Resources: There are no lands or facilities within the project that have been 

planned, developed, or improved with LAWCON funds. Therefore, there will be no 

Section 6(f) impacts.

3.3.1.16 Section 7 Endangered Species: As stated in the EA/EAW, MnDOT’s Office of Environmental 

Stewardship (OES), is FHWA’s designated representative to review Section 7 resources 

within Minnesota for federally-listed threatened species. There is one species, the 

northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) identified within Kandiyohi County. 

Although no critical habitat has been designated for this species, removal of trees can 

result in a loss of habitat. Approximately 0.5 acres of tree removal will occur as part of the 

project. 

Staff from OES determined that the project “may affect, but will not cause prohibited 

incidental take” of the northern long-eared bat. OES staff noted that the project will occur 

within the northern long-eared bat’s range, but there are no documented maternity 

roosts and/or hibernacula within the project area. No tree removals will occur within 0.25-

mile of a known hibernaculum or within 150 feet from a maternity roost tree. USFWS did 

not object or rebut the conclusion reached by OES staff. 

As recommended by OES staff, the project will include minimization measures to prevent 

effects to the bat. Winter tree removal (November 1 to March 31) will occur in order to 

avoid possible impacts to the species during the pup rearing season (June 1 through July 

31). Disturbed areas will be revegetated using native seed mixes per DNR, MnDOT, and 

USFWS guidance. In addition, the project will utilize bio-netting or natural netting for 

erosion control, which would reduce the risk of bat or other wildlife entrapment. MnDOT 

and BNSF have agreed to these requests for construction and these measures will be 

noted in construction documents and requests for proposals for construction.

3.3.1.17 Section 401: Any waters that are determined to be under the jurisdiction of the USACE will 

also require Section 401 Water Quality Certification. As described in the EA/EAW, this will 

involve approximately 4.0 acres of USACE-regulated aquatic resources. In Minnesota, The 

USACE and the MPCA have a joint application form. Permits from the USACE, including 

General Permits and Letters of Permission, include pre-certification from the MPCA 

demonstrating compliance with Section 401.

3.3.1.18 Section 404: Fifty-eight water resources were identified within or near the project area. 

The USACE issued an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for delineated aquatic 

resources within the project area. Twenty-seven delineated aquatic resources were 

determined to be non-jurisdictional and five delineated aquatic resources were 

determined to be jurisdictional by the USACE. 

The jurisdiction of the remaining delineated aquatic resources has not yet been 

determined. On January 6, 2017 correspondence was received from the USACE regarding 

their preliminary findings about which wetlands and tributaries impacted by the Project 

would most likely be considered Waters of the United States (WOUS). Wetlands 1, 6, 7, 

45, 47, 48, and 58 as well as tributaries 51 and 54 were suggested to be WOUS in addition 

to those indicated on the previous ADJ issued on August 25, 2015. 
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 18

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

The USACE indicated that the railway and roadway are two separate projects, and will 

require two permits. The railway portion of the project will impact approximately 0.8

acres of USACE-regulated wetlands. The roadway portion of the project will impact 

approximately 3.2 acres of USACE-regulated wetlands. Both the railway and roadway 

portions are expected to qualify for a Letter of Permission.

3.3.1.19 Indirect Effects: The Project is consistent with long-term plans for the City of Willmar and 

Kandiyohi County that are intended to provide orderly growth and development in the 

western limits in the City of Willmar. It is anticipated that construction of the railway will 

promote growth and development of the planned industrial park on the former airport 

site (located between realigned TH 12 and TH 40 and west of CSAH 5). Growth of the 

industrial park has the potential to impact air, water, and other natural systems. An 

environmental assessment for the former airport site was completed by the City of 

Willmar in 2010 as part of the FFA land release to the City. 

Possible indirect effects would likely occur in both the No Build Alternative and 

Recommended Alternative due to the public investments already made in the project 

area. However, the Project and its future rail spur may increase the attractiveness of the 

industrial park, leading to a shortened build-out timeframe. For future actions, including 

industrial park development, there would be regulations and permits that would have to 

be followed and obtained as that development occurs, minimizing the indirect impacts 

associated with the Project.

3.3.1.20 Summary finding with respect to these criteria: MnDOT finds that the project, as it is 

proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the 

type, extent, and reversibility of impacts to the resources evaluated in the EA/EAW and in 

the Findings summary above. Project impacts will be mitigated as described in the 

EA/EAW and in the Findings above.

3.3.2 Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

Three roadway improvement projects outside of the project area were identified in the 

EA/EAW. MnDOT will be completing a mill and overlay of TH 23 in 2017. In addition, 

Kandiyohi County intends to construct a grade separation of the BNSF Marshall line just 

south and west of the project. Kandiyohi County will also be reconstructing portions of 

CSAH 5 and CSAH 15 in 2018. 

Activities that are expected to occur within the project area include the development of a 

new industrial park between the proposed railway and CSAH 5 from just south of the 

realigned TH 12 to TH 40. Exact timing and site plans have yet to be developed for the 

area, but the City’s Comprehensive Plan and land use maps identify the area as future 

industrial park. It is expected that the industrial park will be fully developed by 2040.
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 19

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

All of the reasonably foreseeable future projects mentioned above were considered in the 

EA/EAW (see Section IV.A.19., pages 99-107.) No potentially significant cumulative effects 

from the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable future actions were 

identified. This project is not believed to cause any anticipated adverse environmental 

impacts that have not been addressed. Future projects, including the industrial park 

development, will be required to meet all applicable regulations and permits.

3.3.3 Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public 

Regulatory Authority

3.3.3.1 The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in 

coordination with regulatory agencies (including the coordination and approvals described 

in Section 3.3.1 above) and will be subject to the plan approval and permitting processes. 

Permits and approvals that have been obtained or may be required prior to project 

construction include those listed in Table 1. 

3.3.3.2 The permits listed in Table 1 include general and specific requirements for mitigation of 

environmental effects of the project. Therefore, MnDOT finds that the environmental 

effects of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authority. 

Table 1– Agency Approvals and Permits

Unit of Government Type of Application/Permit Status

Federal

Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA)

Environmental Assessment Approval Complete

EIS Need Decision Pending

Section 4(f) temporary occupancy 

concurrence

Complete

Section 4(f) De Minimis Complete

MnDOT CRU on behalf of 

FHWA

Section 106 determination Complete

Tribal Consultation Complete

MnDOT OES on behalf of 

FHWA

Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Complete

Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA)

Compliance with NEPA and related 

environmental laws and regulations

Pending

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

Section 404 Permit (Letter of Permission) 

for roadway

To be obtained

Section 404 Permit (Letter of Permission) 

for railway

To be obtained

Federal Aviation 

Administration

Obstruction Evaluation / Airport Airspace 

Analysis – Notice of Proposed Construction 

or Alteration – Off Airport

To be obtained
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 20

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

Unit of Government Type of Application/Permit Status

State

MnDOT 

Environmental Assessment/Environmental 

Assessment Worksheet Approval

Complete

EIS Need Decision Pending

Wetland Conservation Act Replacement 

Plan for roadway.

To be obtained

Staff Approved Geometric Layout To be obtained

Preliminary Construction Plans To be obtained

Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources 

License to Cross Public Lands and Waters To be obtained by 

contractor, if necessary

Construction Dewatering To be obtained by 

contractor, if necessary

NHIS Review Complete

Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency

Section 401 Certification To be obtained

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES CSW) Permit for roadway.

To be obtained

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES CSW) Permit for railway.

To be obtained

Local

City of Willmar Municipal Consent/Project Approval To be obtained

Kandiyohi County

Project Approval To be obtained

County Ditch Drainage and Hydraulic 

Capacity Design Approval

To be obtained

Wetland Boundary/Type Approval Complete

Wetland Conservation Act Replacement 

Plan for railway.

To be obtained

Private

BNSF

Railroad Agreement To be obtained

Railroad Permit To be obtained
Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project Page 21

May 2, 2017 Attachment 1 - Findings of Fact & Conclusions

3.3.4 Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of 

Other Environmental Studies

3.3.4.1 MnDOT has extensive experience in roadway construction. Many similar projects have 

been designed and constructed throughout the area encompassed by this governmental 

agency. Design and construction staff is familiar with the project area. BNSF has extensive 

experience in railway construction and has completed previous projects near the project 

area.

3.3.4.2 No problems are anticipated which MnDOT staff have not encountered and successfully 

solved many times on similar projects in or near the project area. MnDOT finds that the 

environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the 

assessment of potential issues during the environmental review process and MnDOT’s 

experience in addressing similar issues on previous projects. No problems are anticipated 

which BNSF staff have not encountered and successfully solved on similar projects. Like 

MnDOT, BNSF finds the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and 

controlled.

Appendix A

APPENDIX A – Public Involvement: EA/EAW Comment 

Period

Public Hearing Record – Page A-1

EQB Notice of Availability – Page A-2

Public Hearing Certificate of Compliance – Page A-4

Newspaper Legal Notice and Affidavit of Publication – Page A-5

News Release – Page A-7

Newspaper Article for Public Hearing – Page A-9
Page A-1

Public Hearing Record

A public hearing and open house for Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project was held as 

follows:

Thursday, February 23, 2017, 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.

MnDOT District 8 Office, 2505 Transportation Road, Willmar, MN

Eighty-three individuals signed in for the public hearing/open house meeting. The purpose of the 

meeting was to provide an update on the project and receive comments on the EA/EAW. Upon 

completion of a brief presentation at the public hearing, attendees were invited to provide comments 

through one of two ways: written comments (on comment cards provided at the meeting) and oral 

statements to a certified court reporter. Copies of all written and oral testimonies are included in 

Appendix B along with responses to substantive comments.

Staff from MnDOT and their consultant were on hand at the public hearing/open house meeting to 

discuss the project and to answer questions. Several informational items regarding the project were 

made available at the meeting including the following:

• Open House display boards

o Welcome board

o Project summary

o Project process

o Project area map 

o Purpose and need

o Environmental review process 

o Preliminary design alternatives 

o Alternative 1

o Alternative 2A

o Recommended Alternative

• Table-top copy of Recommended Alternative Layout for review and comments

• Open House handouts

o Comment and feedback form

o Project summary

o Public Comment Period/Public Hearing overview

• Open House sign-in sheet

• Public Hearing sign-in sheet for court reporter

• Public Hearing PowerPoint Presentation 

Following a project presentation to the audience by consulting staff and time for public comments, the 

open house format resumed so attendees could ask questions to MnDOT and consulting staff. It was 

made clear to those in attendance that these conversations were not considered part of the official

public hearing record, but rather an opportunity to continue discussing the project with staff and others 

in attendance.

Included on the following pages are copies of the newspaper legal notices and Minnesota Environmental 

Quality Board (EQB) Monitor publication that announced the availability of the EA/EAW and provided 

details of the public hearing/open house meeting.
Page A-2

EQB Notice of Availability
Page A-3
Page A-4
Page A-5

Newspaper Legal Notice
Page A-6
Page A-7

News Release
Page A-8
Page A-9

Newspaper Article for Public Hearing

Published in West Central Tribune, February 22, 2017
Appendix B

APPENDIX B - EA/EAW Comments and Responses

The EA/EAW for the Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project was distributed on February 6, 

2017 to agencies and organizations on the official distribution list, as well as additional 

agencies/organizations that had either requested a copy of the document, and/or that could be affected 

by the proposed project. The comment period for the EA/EAW officially closed at the end of the 

business day on March 8, 2017. A public hearing and open house to receive comments on the proposed 

project and EA/EAW was held on February 23, 2017 (see Appendix A to further details). At the public 

hearing, attendees were invited to provide comments through one of two ways: written comments and

oral statements.

• Written Statements: Attendees were invited to submit written comments through March 8, 2017 on 

cards provided at the open house, in letter, or via e-mail. 

• Oral Statements: Statements were recorded by a certified court reporter.

During the public review and comment period, FHWA and MnDOT received comments on the EA/EAW 

from a total of 28 agencies and individuals, including 10 oral statements that were received at the public 

hearing.

Consistent with state and federal environmental review rules, substantive comments received are 

responded to in this appendix, as part of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions for the project record.

Specifically, responses have been prepared for substantive statements pertaining to analysis conducted 

for and documented in the EA/EAW, including: incorrect, incomplete or unclear information; permit 

requirements; content requirements. These comments and responses are included on the following 

pages. Written comments agreeing with the EA/EAW project information, general opinions, statements 

of fact, or statements of preference were not formally responded to, are also included. 

Following the comments and responses is the official transcript of the public hearing. Responses to 

comments provided during the public hearing are included in the Comments and Responses to Those 

Comments section.

Comments and Responses to Those Comments – Page B-1

Public Hearing Transcript – Page B-38
Page B-1

Comments and Responses to Those Comments 

This section contains the comments and written responses to all comments received from the following 

individuals/agencies during the public comment period:

• City of Willmar

• Kandiyohi County

• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

• David Hallberg

• Fernando Alvarado

• State Representative David Baker

• William Fry

• Larry Clark

• Errol Bluhm

• Kurt Schimek

• David Peterson

• Clinton Raasch

• Dane Kallevig

• Aaron Larson

• Carol Laumer

• Steve Ahmann

• Darrin and Amber Brouwer

• Doug Ohden

• Gary Ascheman

• Congressman Collin Peterson

• Governor Mark Dayton

• Rollie Nissen

• US Environmental Protection Agency

• Jim Heidecker

• Richard Heidecker

• Jason and Sadie Fussy

• Kandiyohi County & City of Willmar Economic Development Commission

• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-2

Comments Response

City of Willmar 1. With the inclusion of federal funding for the project, federal 

agencies (Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] and Federal 

Highway Administration [FHWA]) have the right to guide 

decisions based on federal best practices, policies and 

guidelines. A technical analysis was prepared regarding the 1st

Avenue crossing (Appendix C of EA/EAW) that considered 

safety, economic impacts, change in distance and travel times, 

overall project crossings, roadway jurisdiction impacts, and 

other considerations. Upon completion of this analysis, the FRA 

and FHWA determined since the safety analysis for each option 

was similar and the other factors did not demonstrate a 

significant burden to users, that there was not enough benefit 

to support an at-grade crossing at 1st Avenue. 

Based upon feedback from the property owners and businesses 

located along 1st Avenue and input from local agencies, the 

new local road connection between realigned TH 12 and the 

businesses located along CSAH 55/1st Avenue was identified as 

the best alternate to the existing crossing. The proposed 

connection minimizes traffic delay and additional miles of travel

required to the extent practicable. The new road maintains two 

access points into the 1st Avenue industrial area.

2. Roads that would be turned back to the city are proposed to be 

resurfaced as part of this project. Additional discussion between 

MnDOT, Kandiyohi County and the City of Willmar related to 

turnback issues will occur outside of the environmental process.

3. The project has been revised since the original TIGER application 

based on a reduction in funding, changes in train activity, and 

additional evaluation of the original design. While the removal 

of the 1st Avenue crossing is a deviation from the original 

concept, it still meets the overall project purpose and need to 

improve safety, reduce delays, and enhance quality of life within 

the City of Willmar.

1

3

2
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-3

Comments Response

Kandiyohi County 1. While the removal of a 1st Avenue connection to CSAH 55 

would result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled and travel 

time, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) determined the increases did 

not demonstrate a significant burden from existing conditions 

for businesses and highway users. FHWA and FRA maintain the 

safety risks associated with establishing new at-grade railroad 

crossings exceed other potential impacts that may occur with 

the closure of 1st Avenue.

The project does create roadway jurisdictional issues for both 

the county and city. Additional discussion related to turnback 

and state aid funding issues will occur outside of the 

environmental process.

1
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-4

Comments Response

MN Department of Natural Resources 1. The proposed project FEMA floodplain impacts and culvert crossings 

will be designed to minimize stage increase and floodplain fill. The 

maximum threshold for floodplain impacts is 0.5-feet. However, no 

stage increase is acceptable that would cause flooding or increase 

the likelihood of flooding of an adjacent property or infrastructure. 

Cumulative impacts of multiple crossings were taken into 

consideration when the hydraulics analysis was completed. 

2. The project will be required to comply with the Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency (MPCA) Construction General Permit requirements. 

One of these requirements is to maintain a natural vegetation 

buffer or use redundant sediment and erosion control BMPs when a 

buffer is not feasible. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP) for this project will engage these practices and provide 

levels of redundancy to ensure minimization of any surrounding 

water resources impact. Ultimately, where vegetation protection 

and erosion prevention techniques can be augmented to prevent 

sediment transport; these practices will be designed. However, 

when this is not possible the proposed ditches adjacent to the linear 

project components will be maximized as sediment traps and assist 

in overall project sediment control management. Ditch checks and 

other velocity control devices will be utilized for controlling flow 

and enabling sediment deposition before it travels downstream to 

Hawk Creek. Additionally, the proposed permanent stormwater 

BMPs will be utilized during construction for redundant temporary 

erosion and sediment control measures. The proposed BMPs were 

analyzed using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) Atlas 14 precipitation frequency estimates. Along with 

project BMPs, a stabilized emergency overflow will be required per 

MnDOT requirements for each discharge location. The elevation of 

the overflows will be established to provide adequate separation 

between the proposed roadway and railroad infrastructure to 

mitigate for future more intense rainfall and provide a resilient 

stormwater management system. Solid SWPPP design, diligent 

oversight, effective communication, and thorough documentation 

are the most important elements to ensure that overall project 

environmental compliance is achieved during and after the 

construction process is complete.

1

2
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-5

Comments Response

David Hallberg #1 In response to the roadway alignment and geometric mark-ups on 

the map:

1st Avenue

A grade separated crossing at 1st Avenue was explored, but 

determined not to be acceptable due to property impacts to the 

adjacent business. 

Highway 12 Alignment

As stated in the EA/EAW, the recommended alternative (which 

includes the realignment of Hwy 12) was selected due to the project 

risks associated with grade separating Hwy 12 from the new railroad 

on the current Hwy 12 alignment. Additional project costs with 

elevating Hwy 12 on 30-foot walls and maintenance concerns 

associated with snow removal were part of the rationale for 

realigning Hwy 12.

The alignment proposed by black line on the map would not allow 

for Hwy 12 to continue – it would only serve County State Aid 

Highway (CSAH) 55. The recommended alternative that realigns Hwy 

12 would serve both Hwy 12 and CSAH 55 traffic. 

TH 40

Traffic volumes on Hwy 40 are well below the planning-level 

threshold for a four-lane roadway. Additional travel lanes are not 

needed.

Outside of Project Area – CSAH 55 Kandiyohi County

The “bridge” shown on the southern end of the comment map is 

under consideration by Kandiyohi County as a separate project. 
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-6

Comments Response

David Hallberg #2

From: David Hallberg

Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 8:05 PM

To: Rasmussen, Paul (DOT)

Subject: Willmar Wye Comments

I'm excited about this Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project.

It will be great for the railroad.

It will be great for the city of Willmar if the RR puts two tracks in.

It will be even greater for the area when the spur is operating in the industrial 

park.

BUT, for those of us that live west of the project it is a huge obstacle. It's in the 

way. We need a comprehensive road plan that gives good access to the city of 

Willmar and the under utilized Hwy 23 bypass. It would be best if there was no 

new at grade crossings. The Alternative 2 plan for Hwy 12 has too many curves and 

adds another intersection with co. road 5....not a good plan.

The Railroad has to contribute more:

2 tracks

assurance of the spur

help pay for rerouting of traffic

GOOD LUCK,

David C. Hallberg

12533 75th ave NW

Pennock, MN 56279

1. The proposed project would not add any new at-grade crossings. Hwy 40 

and Hwy 12 will go over the railroad via bridges so roadway traffic from the 

west will not be impacted by railroad operations. The existing connection 

to 1st Avenue will be closed, with traffic from the west utilizing the 

realigned Hwy 12 and the new local access road.

The roadway network, under the recommended alternative, provides good 

access to the City of Willmar and provides an easy connection to TH 23. 

Past plans that called for a bypass of the city have been rendered obsolete 

by the relocation of the airport (bypass alignment would be in the airport 

runway protection zone where roadways are not allowed). The 

recommended alternative provides a connection that highway users could 

utilize to avoid going through the City of Willmar).

2. The existing intersection of Hwy 12 and CSAH 5 will be modified with the 

new intersection being relocated to the south. The existing intersection will 

only serve local traffic once the highway is realigned. Since the new 

intersection will include the Hwy 12 traffic, the existing intersection is 

expected to see a reduction in highway through traffic volumes and will 

primarily serve north-south traffic (see the Traffic Memo in Appendix B of 

the EA/EAW). The curves on the realigned Hwy 12 will be designed to meet 

state standards for a design speed of 60 miles per hour. 

3. BNSF is a partner in the project. When federal funding received for the grant 

was below the amount requested, BNSF asked that the siding (2nd track) not 

be constructed (would include preserving right of way and completing grading 

work for future tracks). The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) agreed 

with the request and indicated the project would be considered consistent 

with the grant application. 

The partners in the project (MnDOT, BNSF, Kandiyohi County, City of 

Willmar, and the City of Willmar/Kandiyohi County Economic Development 

Commission) are in negotiations regarding a threshold (number of trains) 

which would trigger the construction of the siding. Once the threshold is 

reached for a to-be-determined duration, the siding would be constructed. 

The negotiations are continuing beyond the duration of the environmental 

process, but will include the siding construction issue.

BNSF will be contributing financially to the project. Estimated total project 

contributions are included on page 38 of the EA/EAW. Final contributions 

and partner agreements are in process.

1

2

3
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-7

Comments Response

Fernando Alvarado 1. While the removal of a 1st Avenue connection would result in an 

increase in vehicle miles traveled and travel time costs as noted 

in the CSAH 55/1st Avenue Study – found in Appendix C of the 

EA/EAW – both the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determined the 

increases did not demonstrate a significant burden from existing 

conditions for businesses and the travelling public. FHWA and 

FRA maintain the safety risks associated with establishing new 

railroad crossings (regardless of the rail or road being their first)

exceed other potential impacts that may occur with the closure

of 1st Avenue.

Under the recommended alternative, existing businesses will 

remain in place. They will have a new access point from the 

west, but will maintain their existing eastern access. The new

western access point will be off of Hwy 12 slightly further to the 

east than today, but will serve all of the businesses on 1st 

Avenue. Existing businesses will be able to continue to operate 

and will continue to contribute to the economic wellbeing of the 

area.

1
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-8

Comments Response

State Representative David Baker 1. With the inclusion of federal funding for the project, federal agencies

(Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] and Federal Highway 

Administration [FHWA]) have the right to guide decisions based on 

federal best practices, policies and guidelines. A technical analysis 

was prepared regarding the 1st Avenue crossing (Appendix C of 

EA/EAW) that considered safety, economic impacts, change in 

distance and travel times, overall project crossings, roadway 

jurisdiction impacts, and other considerations. While the removal of a 

1st Avenue connection would result in an increase in vehicle miles 

traveled and travel time costs as noted in the CSAH 55/1st Avenue 

Study both the FRA and FHWA determined the increases did not 

demonstrate a significant burden from existing conditions for 

businesses and the travelling public. FHWA and FRA maintain the 

safety risks associated with establishing new railroad crossings 

(regardless of the rail or road being their first) exceed other potential 

impacts that may occur with the closure of 1st Avenue.

2. FRA and FHWA policies discuss creating roadway crossings at existing 

railroad lines. The policies do not specifically discuss new railways 

crossing existing roadways (an uncommon circumstance). However, 

general practices and guidelines from the federal agencies do not 

support creating at-grade crossings, and in fact, encourage their 

elimination when feasible. With the inclusion of federal funding for 

the project, the federal agencies have the right to guide decisions 

based on federal best practices, policies and guidelines.

As noted above, the removal of the 1st Avenue connection will result 

in an increase in vehicle miles traveled and travel time, FHWA and FRA 

determined the increases did not demonstrate a significant burden 

from existing conditions for businesses and the travelling public. 

Based upon feedback from the property owners and businesses 

located along 1st Avenue and input from local agencies, the new local 

road connection between realigned TH 12 and the businesses located 

along CSAH 55/1st Avenue was identified as the best alternate to the 

existing crossing. The proposed connection minimizes traffic delay 

and costs associated with additional miles of travel required to the 

extent practicable. The new road maintains two access points into the 

1st Avenue industrial area.

1

2
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-9

Comments Response

Mr. William Fry (Verbal Comments at Public Hearing)

Well, good evening. My name is William Fry, Bill Fry for short. I live here in Willmar, 

1504 Country Club Drive NE. Give you a little bit of background. I worked for the railroad 

for 41-plus years. I am now retired. I retired here in Willmar, moved up here in 2006. 

Other than that, I've been traveling around the country since 1973. I grew up in 

Aberdeen, South Dakota, lived in about 13 different areas traveling with the railroad. I 

want to say I am an expert on railroad operations. I have testified in federal, state courts 

for both the railroad, the plaintiffs and the defendants on railroad operations.

I want to make clear that I am for this project; however, it needs to go back to the way it 

was originally written. When they applied for the grants, there was two tracks proposed 

in here. And I know some people I recognize that have been to some of these meetings.

Those two tracks mean a big thing. One track is going to cost nothing but congestion and 

it's not going to accomplish our goals of keeping trains out of Willmar.

With one track there, the only places to meet are Clara City -- everybody should know 

where that is, about 20 miles south -- and Kerkhoven, which is approximately 20 miles 

west.

What it will end up being is a standoff. A train will come in there and park to make 

meets. Without another additional track for that train to get around, where is the train 

going to go? Back to Willmar. And it will have defeated - we'll have spent $40 million for 

one parking spot. It's like putting a one-way bridge on Highway 12 and trying to get 

through, everybody taking their turn. It just doesn't work. You need two tracks there to 

make this project work.

It's a phenomenal project, it's an expensive one, but we need two tracks there. And if we 

don't get two tracks immediately, you're going to hear the rumor that we're going to 

grade for it, we'll build it in the future. I can tell you many places right now where 

they've graded for tracks and have never built. It just has to be done that way or the 

project is no good.

Well, three tracks would be very nice, trust me. Even with two tracks there. No. One is 

the proposal now. It was originally proposed with two tracks, and the railroad backed 

out and said they didn't want to spend that much money right now. Well, let's not spend 

any money until we get the two tracks back, guys. That's what we need.

When first discussing the project, and before funding was received, 

BNSF, MnDOT, the City of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, and the City 

of Willmar and Kandiyohi County Economic Development 

Commission had submitted the TIGER application with the main 

railway and a siding (2nd track). Since the application, the number 

of trains has decreased and federal funding from the TIGER grant 

was less than asked for as part of the application that was 

submitted. When federal funding received for the grant was below 

the amount requested, BNSF asked that the siding (2nd track) not 

be constructed (the project would include preserving right of way 

and completing grading work for future tracks). The Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) agreed with the request and indicated 

that the project would be considered consistent with the grant 

application. 

The partners in the project (MnDOT, BNSF, Kandiyohi County, City 

of Willmar, and the City of Willmar/Kandiyohi County Economic 

Development Commission) are in negotiations regarding a threshold 

(number of trains) which would trigger the construction of the 

siding. Once the threshold is reached for a to-be-determined 

duration, the siding would be constructed. The negotiations are 

continuing beyond the duration of the environmental process, but 

will include the siding construction issue.

It is expected that there will be times when trains are parked on the 

new alignment to change crews or to perform maintenance for 

those going north to south between the Marshall and Morris 

Subdivisions. Even with one track, the project still provides the 

opportunity to improve conditions in the downtown area by 

removing the switching operation for a majority of the trains. 

Should the parking of trains occur on the railway connection, it 

would not impact roadway traffic due to the proposed overpasses 

at Hwy 12 and Hwy 40. 
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-10

Comments Response

Does that answer your question? Excuse me one minute. My estimate is that with one 

track, we'll see approximately 25 percent of the trains using it. The other 75 percent will 

continue into Willmar. With two tracks, it will probably be 95 percent of the trains would 

use it and five percent still going to Willmar. 

I would like to make one more comment. We had a meeting Tuesday night with the city 

council members. There was Mr. John Huseby at the -- what was his name? I don't want 

to pronounce it wrong. Huseby? He was there, and he was asked by Mr. Christianson 

twice if trains would ever stop on that track. His answer was no. I want to say he spoke 

the wrong answer. I don't know where he got that information, but trains will be 

stopped on that track.

William Fry (Written Comments)

To Whom it concerns,

I am against this project unless it is done as it was presented to the taxpayers originally. 

One single track will not work.

This project was originally given with TWO railroad tracks to be put in immediately. For 

the sake of saving some money, it has been changed to one single track. This will not 

work and do what it was originally designed to accomplish. One of the main reasons fo 

the State, County and City to be involved as to take trains out of Willmar for safety, noise 

reduction and congestion. With only one track, trains will still come into Willmar that 

could by-pass but the single track will be blocked with other traffic. My estimate is that 

only about 25% of the trains that could possibly use this by-pass would. The other 75% 

would still come into Willmar because of only having one track for a meet/pass plan. Has 

anyone done a study on this? Do not spend taxpayer money without benefit for the 

taxpayers.

I want to be clear. I am for this project if it is done with TWO track immediately. Do all 

at the same time because it’s already taken 100 years to get this close. There would be 

no incentive on the RR’s position to spend money.
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-11

Comments Response

Larry Clark (Verbal Comments at Public Hearing)

I live at 2510 NW 30th Street. I'm Larry Clark. I understand what he's talking about with the 

one track, but if they put the second track there, which I believe they really should have so if 

two trains would meet coming from the west going down to the Clara City line and the other 

one coming up, that it should not become a parking lot for another train to sit there, and 

what my fear is is that if it becomes a parking lot because the railroad sees whoever is in 

control of the train traffic. Well, we can always run into Willmar back the same way we used 

to go. This is going to be a waste of money if we do it with that process going up. And who's 

going to monitor that process to make sure that's not a parking lot for a train out there?

I mean, you can go into the town of Benson and you'll see trains on the tracks there for 15 

minutes, 20 minutes. They'll pay the fine versus moving the train. The fine is minimal; it's 

nothing. So even if they did fine them for putting the train on that as a parking lot for a train, 

what good is it? Something's got to be done to make sure there is no train sitting on that as a 

parking lot. I just hope somebody has got this in mind and plan to monitor that and really 

police it and enforce it.

See response to William Fry on page B-9.

Errol Bluhm (Verbal Comments at Public Hearing)

My name is Errol Bluhm. I live at 3201 SE 15th Avenue in Willmar. First comment is I like the 

use of your politically correct term environmental justice populations. Sounds to me like a 

bunch of bird (unintelligible). I know what you're talking about. My comments come more in 

the form of a question, and I guess you already told me you're not going to give me an 

answer to my question, but I want to put this question on everybody's mind. Maybe there is 

more depth to this than I've been given at this time, but both of these -- all three of these 

alternatives are going to make some changes.

Number one alternative is the most direct. Obviously, looking at the maps over there and up 

on the board, there is the least amount of change that's going to have to be made. I know 

that you're saying that it would be a significant cost for a long bridge and retaining wall and 

all that kind of stuff, but without a doubt it's the most direct route.

Both of the other alternatives, 2A and 2B, would require significant rerouting and the need 

for purchase of right-of-way land from private landowners. And according to the information 

that you provided up there, that would be about 175 acres. I don't know why there is a 

difference. You also cited more farmland that would be affected. But one or the other, at 

least 175 acres would have to be acquired.

Is the projected cost of all that private land acquisition included in the proposals for 

Alternative 2A and 2B, and how much of that cost would be paid by taxpayers?

1.The EA/EAW section III.C. provides an evaluation of the different

impacts between Alternative TH12-1 (maintaining Hwy 12 on its 

current alignment via a new bridge) and Alternative TH12-2 

(reconstructing Hwy 12 on a new alignment). In this evaluation it was 

determined that Alternative TH12-1 would require about 50 percent 

less right of way, among other benefits. However, other concerns and 

project risks were also identified, including issues related to 

constructing a longer bridge span with high retaining walls. These 

issues would result in increased impacts to noise for nearby 

properties, road safety during winter conditions, snow storage and 

maintenance, visual impacts, and overall project costs. For these 

reasons as outlined in the EA/EAW, Alternative TH12-2 on a new 

alignment was pursued.

2.The identified right of way impact of 293 acres includes approximately 

93 acres of farmland. Of the 293 acres, 118 acres are owned by the 

project’s partner agencies. Most of this land is currently leased for 

farming practices. It is correct approximately 175 acres will have to be 

acquired to construct the project.

3.The total project costs identified in the EA/EAW includes right of way 

acquisition costs. BNSF Railway will be responsible for right of way 

associated with the railroad and MnDOT will be responsible for right 

of way associated with road improvements not currently owned by 

the partner agencies.

1

2

3
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-12

Comments Response

Kurt Schimek (Verbal Comments at Public Hearing)

My name is Kurt Schimek. I live at 1660 36th Street SE. I am the general manager and I've 

worked at Farm Service Elevator for over 20 years at 3939 County Road 55, also known as 1st 

Avenue there on the map. Along with the feed mill, we also have other ag companies such as 

Pals, Pals Propane, Willmar Logistics and Willmar Poultry Farms at our ag business along 

County Road 55, 1st Avenue. We estimate we have over 20,000 trucks per year that enter or 

leave our facility that head west and then south onto 55. That translates to ten trucks per 

hour during business hours. These trucks haul beef, grain, feed ingredients, barn equipment 

and propane.

We would like to express our strong opinion of the safety of ten trucks pulling on and off 

again on Highway 12 to come in and out of our ag site and then leave our ag site as far more 

dangerous than a railroad at-grade crossing. Again, with the current proposal, ten trucks per 

hour during business hours by getting on and off Highway 12 for a short amount of time and 

a short distance fully loaded, then exiting it, in and out, to get out of our facility. These 

numbers do not include our neighboring businesses also along 55, 1st Avenue, that work with 

large semis as part of their business or consider the small vehicles, the cars and trucks of our 

employees and customers driving to come in and out of our business.

We strongly encourage all parties involved to consider and weigh the safety of the at-grade 

crossing versus the safety of numerous semis that will be need to come on and off the new 

Highway 12.

Finally, we have advised since the inception that the Wye Project be placed on the west side 

of 55 or directly on top of the existing 55 and not on the east, and that the bridge be placed 

on the current Highway 12 which would be further west to allow the train to go underneath 

Highway 12, and then allow the trains to go directly towards 55 before turning south. If you 

want me to explain that on the map, I can do that.

This plan would eliminate the need for an at-grade crossing altogether and make the most 

economic sense for the taxpayers. This plan will provide four wins: Number one, safety; 

number two, a win for the taxpayers; three, a win for the citizens of Willmar; and four, the 

railroad.

This alternative is not too close to the airport as the height of the bridge will be higher than 

the height of the train, so that argument doesn't have any legitimacy to it. We would 

recommend further research into this option. We agree with a project moving forward, but it 

needs a little more research.

1. The 1st Avenue technical analysis (Appendix C of EA/EAW) 

evaluated the likelihood and severity of a railway crash at 1st 

Avenue/CSAH 55 as compared to the likelihood and severity of 

crashes on the highway network if an at-grade intersection of 

the railway was determined unacceptable. The difference 

between options was less than one crash per year. Due to the 

higher severity of crashes associated with at-grade 

railway/roadway crossings – even if the risk is low – FRA and 

FHWA believe that it is better to eliminate or prevent the 

creation of an at-grade roadway and railway intersection when 

other options exist. 

To minimize the likelihood of highway crashes, the roadway 

design includes turn lanes onto and off of Hwy 12, CSAH 55 and 

the new local access roadway. This enables the trucks (and other 

vehicles) to safely exit and enter Hwy 12 at specific locations in a 

dedicated lane. Hwy 12 will also have acceleration lanes so that 

the heavier vehicles can get up to speed before merging onto the 

highway.

2. An alternative railway route west of CSAH 55 was originally 

evaluated, but was eliminated from consideration due to its 

proximity to the Willmar Municipal Airport. The proposed 

alignment would have interfered with the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA’s) Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), and 

would not have been supported or approved by the FAA. 

Additionally, this alternative would not provide a connection to 

the new industrial park, and would not be supportive of the 

economic development planned for by the City of Willmar and 

Kandiyohi County as identified in the purpose and need of the 

EA/EAW.

1

2
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-13

Comments Response

David Peterson (Verbal Comments at Public Hearing)

My name is David Peterson. I live at 1800 127th Avenue in Svea. And Bill pretty much 

covered what my comments were. I guess that's why he got to go first. But in addition 

to that, I mean, some of the others brought up -- like Bill said, I also worked on the 

railroad for a number of years as a yardmaster and in charge of the local movements of 

trains, and I also would state that what Bill said would very, very, almost absolutely 

happen. And if there's crews that are short on time, they will bring a train in there. If it 

has to have work done on it, it will park there and it will sit and it will be right back to if 

there's more crews that are short on time, the trains will come right into Willmar without 

that extra track that was in the original proposal.

And along with that, if the railroad is allowed to cut their expenses because of a 

downturn in business, are they giving -- are they removing their resistance to the atgrade crossing? Because they do put in at-grade crossings. They put one in downtown 

Delano here a few years back right in the middle of a main track and the siding. I mean, if 

the railroad does not have a strong resistance to it, it can be done.

And on the other part of that, too, if you go with the route that you're talking now and 

you want to have them enter Highway 12, are there acceleration and turning lanes built 

into it? I mean, when you look at Highway 23, when they built the four lanes on that, I've 

noticed more recently that since the last couple of years Cold Spring Granite moved out 

of town, and after 23, when they built 23, there was no acceleration or turning lanes, but 

now there are.

You know, when you say this is your preferred option, have they looked at those options 

for, like the previous speaker said, for the trucks that are pulling out and slowing down 

traffic.

And like Bill and some of the other comments about the railroad says, well, we'll grade it 

and we will build it. And somebody mentioned Benson, how they block the trains there.

It's probably well before I was born that the railroad planned on putting in that signal, 

automatic crossing that goes from the Morris Subdivision to the Watertown or Aberdeen 

Subdivision, and I think they just finally got it done, but it had nothing to do with, you 

know, traffic or whatever, just the money that they wanted to spend. And I think most of 

us know who owns that toy railroad and I think the money isn't really an issue if they 

want to spend it.

1. See response to William Fry on page B-9.

2. BNSF supports the recommended alternative – they do not 

support an at-grade intersection at 1st Avenue for safety reasons

and due to the fact that a reasonable alternative access exists for 

linking 1st Avenue and Hwy 12 and CSAH 55. Decisions at other 

at-grade intersections are made on a case by case situation.

3. Acceleration lanes and turn lanes are included in the project at 

the Hwy 12/new local access road and Hwy 12/CSAH 55 

intersections.

1

2

3
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-14

Comments Response

Mr. Clinton Raasch (Verbal Comments at Public Hearing)

They plan on bringing 45th along on the north side of the track there, and then they're 

taking Highway 12 away from me so I have no exposure for my business, and kind of ruin 

my -- I got a hill for selling cars. It's going to ruin that. My sign out in front, it's not going 

to be able to be seen. And when they take 12 away, they're going to bring a different 

highway to me and bring 45th behind Highway 12 through the intersection and turn that 

into a township road which is not going to be plowed on a, you know, hourly basis.

My business is a 24-hour business and my road needs to be plowed, you know. It's been 

plowed by the county. And the township will never -- they don't take care of 45th. I 

have had to go down and help many stranded people on 45th in the past 18 years. It's 

usually done with a road grader and it's -- the road grader has got too many roads to take 

care of, so it takes a long time.

And the crossing that they're proposing, they're going to change it into a commercial 

crossing which is going to cause all kinds of horn noise at night, so I won't be able to rest.

And also, they're proposing putting -- our road's fed into the corner to get into that 

crossing at an angle, so we can't see west at all. And I've tried to tell them over and over 

that it's not acceptable. The road's coming to that crossing got to be able to see just as 

good to the west as they are to the east. There's been one person killed in that 

intersection already, and it is extremely unsafe. You cannot look to the west if you're 

looking to the southeast to approach that crossing. So I've talked to them, and so far 

every proposal still shows them dumping me into that crossing at an angle just the way it 

is right now, and it can't be done that way. So that's the end.

The other impact it's going to be, during all this construction, it's going to cause a large 

loss of work. My customers ain't going to drive through tore up roads to get to me. It's 

going to have a huge impact on my business.

And also, there's a drainage ditch that goes through my neighbor's driveway and our 

driveway that will be affected, how the lay of the land is going to be, so that's got to be 

done so it drains properly.

1. Comment noted. The realignment of Hwy 12 will shift traffic 

patterns and will reduce traffic volumes on the former Hwy 12 

roadway segments that remain in place. 

2. Comment noted. The issue of plowing will be brought to the 

attention of the township.

3. It is correct that the location of the 45th Street NW public 

crossing will be shifted approximately 1⁄2 mile to the west,

converting the existing private crossing into a public crossing. 

The resulting horn use at the public crossing will be shifted west

to this location. Mitigation measures for train noise were 

evaluated and determined to not meet the cost effective criteria 

for the moderate impact identified in the analysis. Noise barriers 

were found to be ineffective as the openings required for 

driveway access eliminate any benefit that would be provided by 

a wall.

4. The project team will continue to explore the intersection sight 

lines and visibility in greater detail during the final design phase 

of the project. The current location is consistent with sight line 

standards, but will be reviewed for visibility.

5. Property access will be maintained during road construction. 

Additional information will be provided related to construction 

staging prior to construction commencing.

6. Stormwater drainage has been addressed and is discussed in 

detail in Section IV.A.11 of the EA/EAW. Two stormwater 

facilities are proposed adjacent to 45th Street to address 

drainage issues related to the road realignment of Hwy 12 and 

45th Street.

1

2

3

4

5

6
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-15

Comments Response

Mr. Dane Kallevig (Verbal Comments at Public Hearing)

I just wanted to mention that from the presentation I didn't hear any discussion about 

911 access and the impact this project has on the emergency service to people who have 

intersections that have been changed. I am in a zone where it would impact access with 

longer distance, and 911 emergency service is important, and it was not addressed.

The other thing I want to mention is with change in access to property, will there be an 

impact on property values and how is the county and the tax authorities going to address 

those impacts? Will we see changes in property values from the project?

1.Emergency response service should be similar under the 

recommended alternative to current conditions. Both Hwy 12 and 

Hwy 40 will have grade separated crossings with the railway, which 

will eliminate any delays associate with train traffic. Emergency 

responders coming from Willmar would utilize either of these 

routes to get to properties within the project area. 

 It is acknowledged that access will change for some parcels, but the 

relocated access is in the same general vicinity as it is today with 

the exception of parcels currently located on existing Hwy 12. The 

realignment of Hwy 12 to the south is anticipated to have the most 

impact in terms of emergency response. A few of the properties 

will now be off of local roads that connect into the realigned Hwy 

12 rather than directly off it. For these properties, there will be an 

increase in emergency response times. Major changes in travel 

time; however are not expected.

2.Changes in access should not impact most properties in terms of 

value within the project area. Commercial properties that lose 

highway frontage may experience a decrease in property values. 

Properties will be assessed and values will be assigned. Changes in 

highway frontage (where access modifications will directly impact 

properties) will be a part of the right of way acquisition process. 

3.Most parcels not directly impacted by the project are not 

anticipated to have changes in property values. Parcels directly 

impacted by the project – where property is acquired for the 

project – would be anticipated to have a change in property value 

(due to a reduction in the size of the property). Commercial 

properties with changes in highway frontage/visibility may also 

have a change in value.

1

2

3
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-16

Comments Response

Mr. Steve Ahmann (Verbal Comments at Public Hearing)

I just want to say that I support the concept and the long-term planning for the benefit of 

Burlington Northern and the residents of the city of Willmar for future expansion into the

industrial park.

One of my concerns is I believe that some alternatives might want to be considered, and those are 

based on costs to the taxpayers. Number one would be the relocation of the railroad to as close 

to County Road 55 as possible and also to extend the construction area that was earlier outlined 

in the construction zone to include the area further south of Willmar connecting to State Highway 

23 intersection and County Road 55. That should be included in the financial overview of costs.

Also, I believe Highway 12 should be kept in its current location and build a 30-foot high retaining 

wall, which it will only be, I believe, at the highest point. The other areas of the retaining will not 

be as high. I don't think the impact to the community will be severe. It should also maintain our 

current infrastructure that the city and the state, the utility companies have put in along Highway 

12 for lighting, street lighting, everything. It will be an asset to maintain that versus just tearing it 

out for the cumbersome rerouting of Highway 12 further south. Cost at this particular time 

should not be the primary -- shouldn't be the primary issue of going forward with it or not going 

forward with it. I would prefer that this project be done in an appropriate way that is best for 

traffic, best for businesses, and best for the community.

Furthermore, the second rail must, I repeat, must be included. Otherwise, the benefit to the city 

of Willmar and its residents with noise traffic and future traffic cannot be guaranteed. It must be 

part of the project, eliminate, and give some benefit to the taxpayers of the city of Willmar who 

support this project. It seems that the taxpayers of Willmar are not going to be directly benefited 

if we don't get the second line put in. The traffic will continue downtown, and we are not assured 

of that, and there is nothing that I can see right now that assures the city of Willmar will have any 

authority to have Burlington Northern install the second track at any future date.

As I understand through previous years on the city council, that it is very, very cumbersome to 

dictate to the railroad corporations what we need. It is somewhat more cumbersome and difficult 

than dealing with Congress, as many people can attest. I wish that would change, but that seems 

to be the situation we're in right now. I appreciate all the input and all the hard work from 

everyone. The hearts are in the right place. It's just a matter of now doing the right thing for the 

long-term benefit.

And I am also concerned about the dissecting of the newly acquired development land south of 

current Highway 12 that is not -- that will cost the city future funds for improvement and longterm maintenance that currently, in the current Highway 12 position, will not be associating or 

giving us further -- additional taxpayer funds to maintain and improve in the future. 

1. The railway could not be located closer to CSAH 55 due to its tiein points on the Morris and Marshall Subdivisions. Moving the 

railway closer to CSAH 55 would directly impact multiple 

commercial properties and would require their relocation. Areas 

west off CSAH 55 were rejected due to their proximity to the 

new Willmar Municipal Airport and potential interference issues 

with the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Runway 

Protection Zone (RPZ). 

Areas further to the south – with a new rail grade separation 

near TH 23 – are under consideration by Kandiyohi County. The 

county has preliminary plans completed for grade separating the 

railway, but is short of the funding necessary to complete 

construction. The county is actively searching for additional 

funding. 

2. See response to Errol Bluhm comment #1 on page B-11.

3. See response to William Fry on page B-9.

4. The realignment of Hwy 12 will improve access to the City’s 

future industrial park and could benefit development of the 

adjacent land. The roadway segments of the former Hwy 12 

alignment will be resurfaced and become local streets that will 

serve local businesses. Additional discussion related to roadway 

turnback with the City of Willmar and Kandiyohi County will 

occur outside of the environmental process.

1

2

3

4
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-17

Comments Response

Mr. Aaron Larson (Verbal Comments at Public Hearing)

Aaron Larson, 219 Anthony Street SE, Willmar. I'm a member of the -- former member of 

the City of Willmar Planning Commission. I strongly encourage and support MnDOT and 

BNSF to add two rail lines back into the project. I believe for the project to be successful 

for the long term, there needs to be two tracks for the rail bypass. Also, for the 

significant amount of public investment in the project, that BNSF should hold up to their 

end of the bargain and have two tracks as was originally proposed in the project.

Aaron Larson (Written Comments)

I strongly encourage and support MnDOT and BNSF to add 2 rail lines back into the 

project. I believe for the project to be a success for the long term, there needs to be two 

tracks for the rail bypass. Also, for the significant amount of public investment in the 

project, BNSF should hold up their end of the deal and build 2 tracks as originally 

planned.

See response to William Fry on page B-9.

Ms. Carol Laumer (Verbal Comments at Public Hearing)

My one comment is if the project moves forward, a quiet zone should be installed at the 

time of all this work going into place so we're not getting that again.

Number two, I don't know the industry, but according to the people that spoke regarding 

two tracks, that needs to be looked at.

Number three, with the decreased number of trains, I see that this project should be 

scrapped and not using my taxpaying dollars for this.

And then number four is find an alternate way and less expensive cost for the industrial 

park that's needed.

1. There are no new at-grade crossings proposed that would 

require the use of train horns. However, the location of the 45th

Street NW public crossing will be shifted approximately 1⁄2 mile to 

the west, resulting in horn use to also be shifted west. 

Mitigation measures for train noise were evaluated and 

determined to not meet the cost effective criteria for the 

moderate impact identified in the analysis. The City of Willmar 

can pursue a quiet zone for this new crossing in the future, but 

that is considered to be a separate project and is not considered 

a mitigation measure for noise associated with train horns.

2. See response to William Fry on page B-9.

3. Comment noted.

4. A future connection to the City’s planned industrial park is one of 

the purposes of the project. It is also intended to alleviate traffic 

issues and improve railroad operations associated with train 

switching within the Willmar Terminal. The recommended 

alternative was the only alternative that met all of the purpose 

and need items identified for the project.
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-18

Comments Response

Darrin and Amber Brouwer (Written Comments)

You never responded to my last comment card.

1. Your website listed on slide presentation doesn’t work. –

www.dot.state.mn.us/d8/willmarwye

a. Should be 8/projects/will...

2. Quality of Life – Decrease of quality of life for those who live in town, why has no 

one ever contacted us who live where it is moving to?

3. Hwy 12 re-aligned will benefit residents living North of Hwy 12, but what about 

those living south of it or around where it is moving to?

4. What is next step? Last meeting they said next step in process with the timeline 

for it.

5. What about new contention now between not all parties being in agreement 

because of effect on businesses along 1st Avenue (Elevator/Pals/Etc.)? Will they 

come with a new plan or alternative?

6. Why did no one contact us after our last comment card?

1. The presentation website was incorrect. The other materials 

provided the correct address. We apologize for the error.

2. Residents and businesses in the study area have been notified of 

the project multiple times via previous mailings, open house 

notices, group meetings, and newspaper articles. MnDOT staff 

had additional contact with property owners directly impacted 

by the project.

3. The realignment of Hwy 12 is expected to alter travel patterns 

for residents and businesses in the area. The new Hwy 12 and 

railway alignments will impact some properties as noted in the 

EA/EAW. It will require the additional acquisition of private 

property, it will result in changes in access for some properties, 

and there will be changes in noise for some properties. Overall, 

the community will benefit from the project for the reasons 

outlined in the EA/EAW; however, it is acknowledged that some 

individuals/properties may be negatively impacted as noted 

above and in the EA/EAW. 

4. The next steps include completing the environmental review and 

preliminary design phase. Municipal consent and agreements 

with partner agencies will be completed over the spring and 

summer 2017. Final construction plans will begin near the end of 

2017 once a contractor is selected for the design-build process. 

Construction is anticipated to begin spring 2018. 

5. The final decision regarding 1st Avenue will be determined upon 

completion of the environmental review process. Once the final 

decision is made, the partner agencies will work together to 

implement the final decision. 

6. We apologize that there was no follow-up from the previous 

comment card. Since then, MnDOT staff has reached out for 

further discussion.
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-19

Comments Response

Doug Ohden

From: Doug Ohden 

Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 8:55 AM

To: Rasmussen, Paul (DOT)

Subject: Comments on the Willmar rail WYE

Dr. Mr Rassmussen 

Just voicing my opinion on the willmar rail spur project. My vote goes to alternate #1 as I 

feel it is by far the most simple and cost effective way. Bringing Hwy. 12 down south of 

Farm service elevator will make the already heavy truck traffic more concentrated.

Also please keep in mind the life flight helicopter service at the airport west of town.

Please keep an eye on this project as Willmar has screwed up every area road project it 

has done for the last 25 years. If you don’t believe me I will more than gladly drive you 

around and show you.

Thank you 

Doug Ohden

1. See response to Errol Bluhm comment #1 on page B-11.

2. Emergency response services were considered during the 

alternatives analysis. One of the primary issues identified by 

emergency responders was maintaining roadway access 

between the hospital and the airport via Hwy 40. With the 

proposed overpass of TH 40 over the new railway, railroad 

operations will not interfere with emergency response times to 

the airport.

1

2
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-20

Comments Response

Gary Ascheman

From: Gary Ascheman 

To: Rasmussen, Paul (DOT)

Subject: BNSF reroute Alternatives

Paul, have we looked at all the options to turn these trains? Looks like the BNSF in 

Benson only needed about 1,215 feet to make a direction change. That is if Google 

measurement is about right. I see some opportunities to make a similar direction change 

just on the west side of Willmar with a LOT less track and out of the airport restrictions 

and a lot less farmland being impacted. If you’re interested.

Snapshot #1 below shows the Benson BNSF rail curve that let’s Morris route either to 

continue south east or change directions to the south West. Note estimated distance.

1. Multiple options were explored as part of this project and are 

described in the Section III, Alternatives, of the EA/EAW. In 

addition, BNSF has been evaluating a new railway connection 

between the Morris and Marshall Subdivisions for over a decade. 

Each option has a number of benefits and impacts. The 

recommended alternative was selected in order to divert railway 

traffic away from the downtown area, minimize impacts to 

business and residential properties, and provide a connection to 

the City’s industrial park.

2. BNSF Railway determined the turning radius required for the 

new railway connection based on the speed and length of 

expected trains and current railroad design standards. Other 

locations, including the Benson track, were built with previous 

standards that are no longer applicable per BNSF operational 

requirements.

3. The location shown in snapshots #2 and #3 would impact 

multiple business properties and road crossings. As stated in the 

previous response, the turning radius may not be acceptable for 

BNSF Railway per current design standards. Grade separating 

Hwy 12, Hwy 40, and the railroad would expand the construction 

limits well beyond the radius line shown in the snapshots. It is 

anticipated that this location would result in significantly more 

social and environmental impacts due to the proximity to 

businesses, residences, and roadways. The recommended 

alternative was selected in order to divert railway traffic away 

from the downtown area, minimize impacts to business and 

residential properties, and provide a connection to the city’s 

planned industrial park.

1
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-21

Comments Response

Snapshot #2 shows a possible curve site with a potential curve diameter of about 1589 

feet.

2
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-22

Comments Response

Snapshot #3 shows an estimated curve with a diameter of about 1589 feet to let the 

trains either route South West or North West. Consider putting the HWY 12 Bridge over 

the curve and route HWY 40 up and over the new bridge. I am sure there are pros and 

cons but this seems to keep it simple and a lot less expensive. Not sure if there is room or 

a need for a second track. Not trying to crash anyone’s parade but was this ever 

considered an option for that area?

Open to discussion. Thanks

Gary J. Ascheman

Administrative Manager

Farm Service Elevator Company

3
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-23

Comments Response

Congressman Collin Peterson With the inclusion of federal funding for the project, federal 

agencies (Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] and Federal 

Highway Administration [FHWA]) have the right to guide decisions 

based on federal best practices, policies and guidelines. A 

technical analysis was prepared regarding the 1st Avenue crossing 

(Appendix C of EA/EAW) that considered safety, economic 

impacts, change in distance and travel times, overall project 

crossings, roadway jurisdiction impacts, and other considerations. 

While the removal of a 1st Avenue connection would result in an 

increase in vehicle miles traveled and travel time as noted in the 

CSAH 55/1st Avenue Study both the FRA and FHWA determined 

the increases did not demonstrate a significant burden from 

existing conditions for businesses and the travelling public. FHWA 

and FRA maintain the safety risks associated with establishing 

new railroad crossings (regardless of the rail or road being their 

first) exceed other potential impacts that may occur with the 

closure of 1st Avenue.

FRA and FHWA policies discuss creating roadway crossings at 

existing railroad lines. The policies do not specifically discuss new 

railways crossing existing roadways (an uncommon circumstance). 

However, general practices and guidelines from the federal 

agencies do not support creating at-grade crossings, and in fact, 

encourage their elimination when feasible. With the inclusion of 

federal funding for the project, the federal agencies have the right 

to guide decisions based on federal best practices, policies and 

guidelines.

Based upon feedback from the property owners and businesses 

located along 1st Avenue and input from local agencies, the new 

local road connection between realigned TH 12 and the 

businesses located along CSAH 55/1st Avenue was identified as 

the best alternate to the existing crossing. The proposed 

connection minimizes traffic delay and costs associated with 

additional miles of travel required to the extent practicable. The 

new road maintains two access points into the 1st Avenue 

industrial area.
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-24

Comments Response

Rollie Nissen

I have 3 suggestions:

(See map #1) Do not eliminate the 1st Ave Connection to County 55. The traffic count at 

that at grade crossing will mostly be commercial traffic from the elevator, PALS, and 

Quam Construction. It would give those businesses better and easier access to the south 

and west (and eventually to the east if we can find funding to finally complete the 

westerly bypass (#3 on map).

#2 Eliminate the service road indicated on the map (#2). I have not talked to anyone who 

sees this as viable option. Truckers hate it! The turkey feed trucks leaving Farm Service 

are top heavy and could easily tip on that curvy road. Also access to and from Hwy 12 will 

be more difficult and probably create a bottleneck.

#3 Find the money to finally complete #3. It is not currently an option for the county to 

fund that alone.

1. With the inclusion of federal funding for the project, federal 

agencies (Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] and Federal 

Highway Administration [FHWA]) have the right to guide 

decisions based on federal best practices, policies and 

guidelines. A technical analysis was prepared regarding the 1st

Avenue crossing (Appendix C of EA/EAW) that considered 

safety, economic impacts, change in distance and travel times, 

overall project crossings, roadway jurisdiction impacts, and 

other considerations. Upon completion of this analysis, the FRA 

and FHWA determined since the safety analysis for each option 

was similar and the other factors did not demonstrate a 

significant burden to users, that there was not enough benefit 

to support an at-grade crossing at 1st Avenue. 

2. With the removal of 1st Avenue at the new railway connection, 

the proposed access road connecting 1st Avenue to Hwy 12 

maintains a second access in and out for businesses for the

industrial area. Based upon feedback from the property owners 

and businesses located along 1st Avenue and input from local 

agencies, the new local road connection between realigned TH 

12 and the businesses located along CSAH 55/1st Avenue was 

recommended to reduce concerns with truck traffic delay and 

additional miles of travel required. The road will be designed to 

accommodate truck traffic at a travel speed of 30 miles per 

hour. 

3. MnDOT is working with Kandiyohi County to identify potential 

funding opportunities for the proposed county project. MnDOT 

is limited in its abilities to participate on a non-trunk highway 

project; however there are other funding programs that are 

being explored.
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-25

Comments Response

Governor Mark Dayton Please refer to the response to Representative Collin Peterson on 

page B-23.
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-26

Comments Response

US Environmental Protection Agency 1. Six of the eight impacted jurisdictional resources are currently 

utilized for farming practices or are mowed roadside ditch areas. 

As described in the EA/EAW, the recommended alternative was 

designed to avoid the larger portions of these resources and the 

majority of the construction activity will be occurring at the 

edges. Of the other two resources impacted by the 

recommended alternative, wetland number 1 is located within 

the roadway median along existing TH 12 and wetland 58 is 

located as a wetland fringe along Hawk Creek south of TH 40. 

The proposed work at wetland 1 will tie the new TH 12 to the 

existing alignment where construction activity will occur along 

the existing roadway. The proposed work at wetland 58 will 

replace the existing bridge under TH 40.

Construction activities within or near areas of environmental 

sensitivity will utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid 

unnecessary impacts where practicable. Given the length of the 

rail and roadway corridors, there will be opportunities to avoid 

adjacent and incidental wetlands while accessing the 

construction areas.

The project will be required to comply with the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction 

Stormwater permit which requires that areas of environmental 

sensitivity are protected with a natural, 50-foot buffer or 

redundant BMPs. 

The project will also be subject to a permit from the Army Corps 

of Engineers for impacts to wetlands. As part of the permit, 

activities and measures will be identified for minimizing impacts 

to wetlands. 

Work within wetlands will be limited to the extent of the 

construction limits and nearby wetland areas will be protected 

with appropriate perimeter control BMPs. 

Winter construction in wetlands will not likely be feasible.

1
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-27

Comments Response

2. A list of potential strategies to reduce air quality impacts during 

construction is provided on pages 92-93 of the EA/EAW. This list 

includes similar measures as provided by the US EPA enclosure. 

The project will implement strategies as needed during 

construction.

3. There are limited subject places related to children’s health 

located within the project area. Homes are located in the project 

area, but there are no schools, daycare centers or playgrounds.

4. The identified businesses were not part of an Environmental 

Justice population. There are a couple businesses impacted by 

the rerouting of Hwy 12. The businesses include a surplus 

warehouse, an auto repair shop, and a mini storage. Traffic will 

change in front of most of these businesses and they will be 

served by local roadways rather than Hwy 12. The auto repair 

business will still have some visibility from Hwy 12, but the mini 

storage and the warehouse will not. 

5. Minnesota’s climate requires transportation infrastructure to 

withstand a wide spectrum of weather events, from cold and ice 

to heat and flooding. There is an increased likelihood that the 

project area will experience more heavy rain/flooding events, 

warmer winters, new species ranges, droughts, and high heat 

due to climate change. Hawk Creek may experience increased 

flooding due to heavy rain events. The project is being designed 

using Atlas 14 estimates (per MnDOT standards) to manage 

stormwater and reduce flooding risks along the Hawk Creek 

floodplain. In addition, all infrastructure is being designed using 

MnDOT and BNSF best management practices to ensure the 

project will meet its useful life. 

6. Pages 77-78 of the EA/EAW recommend the use of native seed 

mixes for revegetation of disturbed soils. The use of native seed 

mixes was identified to benefit the Poweshiek skipperling and 

Regal Fritillary butterflies. These mixes will also benefit other 

pollinators, including honey bees. 

2

3

4
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-28

Comments Response

5

6
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-29

Comments Response
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-30

Comments Response
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-31

Comments Response

Jim Heidecker

From: Jim Heidecker

Date: March 8, 2017 at 8:12:54 AM

To: Paul Rasmussen

Subject: Willmar WYE

To whom it may concern,

I as a land owner will be severely affected by this project. At our Westside Storage mini 

storage facility we will not only loose drive by visibility and great access, It will now be a 

“backstage view” and difficult access at best, which will be difficult to explain how to get 

to the facility to the average customer. 

It will also split our field there into small odd shaped pieces that are inefficient and 

difficult to farm with modern large farm equipment. Not only that, it will now make our 

Hwy 12 development frontage not very desirable.

Then there is our Farm by the industrial park that will be split into pieces, again making it 

more difficult and inefficient also the building site destroyed. 

On the other hand the plan does make sense for the highway and rail system. The initial 

plan with the barrier walls and long bridge was not a very good plan to me. The plan 2b 

does seem to make the most sense I agree with getting rid of the at-grade RR crossing. 

The people against 2b seem to think it is more difficult to make the turns to get semis to 

the elevator etc. If a person looks at it with an open mind, you realize that currently 

semis heading east on 12 turning on 55 make a almost 180 degree turn to go west on 55 

to the elevator. We know this as we have hauled millions of bushels of corn to FSE over 

the decades and it is an unsafe difficult turn which will be alleviated by the 2b plan.

Thank you for considering my comments,

Jim Heidecker

1. It is acknowledged that directions to the storage facility and 

the view from Hwy 12 will change. From the north and west, 

access will be provided by the new Hwy 12/45th Street 

intersection using the existing Hwy 12 (that will be converted 

to a local roadway). From the south and east, access will be 

provided by new Hwy 12/CSAH 55 intersection, heading north 

on existing 45th Street, and west on the existing Hwy 12 (that 

will be converted to a local roadway). The facility will be 

visible from the new Hwy 12.

2. It is acknowledged that the project will result in the 

acquisition of private property, and that some properties are 

being divided. MnDOT is required to follow the Uniform 

Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act, which requires 

agencies to compensate property owners based on fair 

market values for the required acquisitions and impacts to 

current property operations. Fair market values are 

determined by independent property appraisals. MnDOT 

staff will work with the owners through the property 

acquisition process regarding these concerns and to ensure 

the property owners are fairly compensated for the project’s 

impacts.

3. See response to comment #2 above.

4. Comment noted.

1

2

3

4
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-32

Comments Response

Richard Heidecker

From: Richard Heidecker

Date: March 8, 2017 at 8:19:20 AM MST

To: Paul Rasmussen

Subject: Willmar wye

To whom it may concern,

I as a land owner will be severely affected by this project. At our Westside Storage mini 

storage facility we will not only loose drive by visibility and great access, It will now be a 

“backstage view” and difficult access at best, which will be difficult to explain how to get 

to the the facility to the average customer. 

It will also split our field there into small odd shaped pieces that are inefficient and 

difficult to farm with modern large farm equipment. Not only that, it will now make our 

Hwy 12 development frontage not very desirable.

Then there is our Farm by the industrial park that will be split into pieces, again making it 

more difficult and inefficient also the building site destroyed. 

On the other hand the plan does make sense for the highway and rail system. The initial 

plan with the barrier walls and long bridge was not a very good plan to me. The plan 2b 

does seem to make the most sense I agree with getting rid of the at-grade RR crossing. 

The people against 2b seem to think it is more difficult to make the turns to get semis to 

the elevator etc. If a person looks at it with an open mind, you realize that currently 

semis heading east on 12 turning on 55 make a almost 180 degree turn to go west on 55 

to the elevator. We know this as we have hauled millions of bushels of corn to FSE over 

the decades and it is an unsafe difficult turn which will be alleviated by the 2b plan.

Thank you for considering my comments,

Richard Heidecker

See response to Jim Heidecker on page B-31.
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-33

Comments Response

Jason and Sadie Fussy

From: Jason Fussy 

Date: March 8, 2017 at 10:48:17 PM MST

To: Paul Rasmussen

Subject: Willmar Wye Comments

Following are my comments referring to the public hearing of the Willmar Wye project. 

My name, and address are at the end of the statement. 

I have been a resident of Willmar for approximately 18 years. I did not grow up in this 

area, but decided to make this city my home. I previously lived on the north side of 

Willmar between the RR tracks and the race track (924 Olaf Ave). After getting married 

and having several children, me and my wife decided to move outside of the city limits 

and away from the hussle and bussle of Willmar. We were looking for a peaceful and 

inviting place to raise our family. We purchased land which is located on the west side of 

Cty Rd 55 and North of Hwy 40 in 2008 and built a home that summer. We have lived in 

this establishment up to the present date. We have enjoyed a quiet and serene sense of 

living in this area up until now. 

We have dealt with semi trucks utilizing Cty Rd 55 for all 8+ years we have lived here, but 

they are definitely tolerable, and we knew this would be occurring when we bought the 

property and built. Tolerable, this is the word I use since the so called future extreme of 

the Willmar Wye project will surpass this standard by many times. Some of the following 

reasons are why I am against the Willmar Wye project. These reasons are from a 

person/family that will be directly affected by a project that does not make sense. 

When I look at the “Project Benefits” I cannot argue with the fact it will reduce the 

number of trains traversing through downtown Willmar, Delay and emissions savings for 

travelers by reducing wait times, or that it will Improve Quality of life for residents of the 

north side of Willmar. What I do not agree with is the following:

- Encourage Economic growth. This has been tried time and time again in Willmar and 

has not succeeded. What makes a train/spur into an undeveloped section of 

industrial park an attractive setting for a new business to develop in Willmar. This 

town has not succeeded in Economic growth and development for many years, and it 

is not because there was not a train available for shipping opportunities. It is the 

quality of the city that brings this down and sets Willmar as a NON attractive site for 

business development. This has been years in the making for many years and this 

1. Comment noted. The industrial park and its service by the rail 

spur has been something the city and county have jointly been 

working on together to implement over the past decade. The 

EA/EAW notes that these are long-term plans.

2. The project will reduce the number of trains going into and out 

of the Willmar Yard, which will reduce exposure for crashes for 

automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists. It is not a stretch to say 

that exposure will decrease with the project since all crossings on 

the new alignment will be grade separated and there will be 

fewer trains in downtown, where there are at-grade 

intersections. 

3. Comment noted.

4. The EA/EAW document reviews possible social and 

environmental impacts related to the proposed project. Quality 

of life benefits for residents within the city of Willmar and north 

of the existing railroad line were identified. The rural setting for 

the project area limits the potential impacts to additional 

populations. There are few residential properties in the project 

area. Potential impacts to these properties were analyzed, and 

while some impacts may occur due to increased noise, change in 

viewshed, or change in traffic patterns, these impacts were 

found not to require mitigation. 

5. A benefit-cost analysis was completed for the project and was 

included as Appendix E in the EA/EAW. The benefit-cost analysis 

indicated a benefit over 2 (anything over 1 is considered to have 

higher benefits than costs). The benefit-cost analysis took into 

account the lower train volumes. Benefits would be expected to 

increase if train volumes were higher.

6. There are a number of factors that account for the safety of a 

roadway. The new Hwy 12 alignment and the proposed roadway 

curves will be designed to meet current trunk highway 

standards. It was also discussed in the EA/EAW that the straight 

roadway alternative (keeping Hwy 12 on its present alignment on 

walls) had safety concerns due to being elevated, having a 

skewed bridge, and winter maintenance (snow removal and 

blowing and drifting conditions). 

7. The recommended alternative is currently a single track. In the 

future, a second track could be constructed if it meets thresholds 

1
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-34

Comments Response

will not fix this problem. 

- Improving safety for travelers by reducing at-grade crossing exposure is just reaching 

into the dark to try and find another reason for justifying this project. There are 

safety measures taken at the crossings that are utilized right now, and other safety 

options could be added at a cost much, much, much lower than what this project 

would cost. Bottom line is that this is not a legitimate reason. 

- Increasing multimodal opportunities for shippers is also a farce. This can be argued 

time and time again, but we still fall back on my reasoning for the false comment on 

Encouraging Economic Growth. 

Personal reasons that would pertain to the Project Benefits mainly deal with the 

promotion of “Quality of Life”. I agree the quality of life for people on the north side of 

Willmar would be improved. Since I lived there for 5 years, I cannot argue this. What I 

do not understand is that it will decrease the quality of life for others (including myself 

and my family that tried to escape this reduction of quality of life in the first place). The 

people that will incur a reduction in the “Quality of Life” are being ignored. We have 

asked what will be done to correct the reduction in quality of life for us, along with the 

reduction in our property value that will occur with the building of this railroad and 

possible rerouting of Hwy 12. Nothing has been done, and we have actually been told 

that because so many (north side of Willmar) will benefit from this, that you are more or 

less insignificant to the concerns of the project. It is frustrating when I hear this and see 

that it is the same thing that has happened to our country in past years. It seems as 

though the reason it does not matter is that we do not matter. The “good” of the project 

trumps the fact of doing the right thing. Thus quality of life is better for the north side of 

Willmar, but the reduction in quality of life for the people being directly affected by this 

project needs to be addressed. 

I look at this project as a true waste of tax payer money. I have argued and been vocal 

about the wasteful spending of our government in the past, and this is a true example of 

wasteful spending. I could name 50 things that could be done with this 40+ million 

dollars that would benefit the citizens of our state and country more than building a RR 

bypass and rerouting Hwy 12. I also look at it thinking that the amount of trains that will 

be coming into Willmar at this present date has declined with the different options that 

are present with the transfer of oil to refineries. This reduction in traffic will definitely 

reduce the advantages of this project from the day it initially started planning. Also, why 

oh why are we considering taking a straight road (Hwy 12) and putting multiple curves in 

the layout of this highway. This does not make sense and could also cause an increase in 

future accidents, especially with icy MN conditions. A straight road is safer than a road 

that are currently under discussion by the project partners.

8. Those properties that are directly impacted by the project will be 

compensated through the right of way acquisition process as 

discussed in the EA/EAW. Properties where there are no direct 

impacts from the project were studied with regard to noise, 

change in viewshed, access and traffic. No mitigation (other than 

some access changes) was noted. Noise barriers were not found 

to be cost effective, traffic patterns were within capacities of 

existing roadways, and there is little that can be done to mitigate 

for changes in the viewshed – there will be a new highway and a 

new railway where previously there was not. 

2

3

4

5

6
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-35

Comments Response

with curves, which has been proven for many years. Once again, wasted tax payers 

dollars are at stake with this project. 

If this project does go through, I would hope that this project reduces cost by having one 

track for the entire length of Cty Rd 55 to try and save some costs. I also think that the 

people that will be directly affected by a railroad outside of their front doors will be 

compensated for the reduction of property value along with the reduction in “Qualtiy of 

Life”. If this continues, there are things that need to be addressed either on a personal 

level or possibly taking a legal stand on this project. 

I truly hope this project does not take place for reasons above, and will revere this stand 

throughout the planning of this project. Thank you

7

8
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-36

Comments Response

Kandiyohi Willmar EDC No Substantive Comments
Appendix B – Comments and Responses Page B-37

Comments Response

MPCA No Substantive Comments
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 1

1 WILLMAR WYE RAIL CONNECTOR AND INDUSTRIAL

2 PARK ACCESS PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING

3

4 TAKEN ON: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2017

5

6 COMMENCING AT: 5:30 P.M.

7

8 TAKEN AT: MN Department of Transportation

9 2505 Transportation Road

10 Willmar, Minnesota 56201

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 Taken on 2/23/17 By Charles G. Williamson

Page B-38
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 2

1 MS. JACK CORKLE: Good evening

2 everyone. Thank you for joining us tonight.

3 We are here for the Willmar Wye Project,

4 which is a roadway and highway project, and

5 I'm going to give a short presentation on the

6 environmental document. It's part of the

7 federal process that we're required to go

8 through because the project has some federal

9 funding. So I'm going to talk about some

10 stuff that may not be as interesting as other

11 elements of the project, but I do have to

12 talk about all the impacts associated with

13 the project, so I'm going to try to do that

14 fairly quickly here this evening.

15 So we've got the open house. The

16 public hearing will start at 5:30. We'll go

17 beyond 6:00, if we need to, to collect all of

18 the comments, and then we can go back to the

19 open house format after that and we can ask

20 questions and have more of a conversation.

21 So that's sort of the general

22 overview. I will give a little bit more

23 instructions later on. But we did have a

24 sign-in sheet for people that wanted to talk

25 tonight, and if you do want to talk tonight,

Page B-39
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 3

1 I would appreciate you grabbing one of those

2 numbers because then we can correspond for

3 our court reporter taking the official

4 comments. They can make sure that we've got

5 names and addresses officially documented

6 correctly.

7 So if you do want to talk tonight

8 publicly, there is a number out in the back

9 that you can grab. If you're uncomfortable

10 speaking in front of the group, after

11 everybody that's done speaking in front of

12 the group with the microphone at the podium,

13 you can come up and talk to the court

14 reporter and give your comments just to him

15 outside of the group. So we give you a

16 couple different options to submit your

17 comments tonight. So thank you.

18 Thank you for coming tonight. We

19 are here for the Willmar Wye industrial

20 project, and this is really a roadway and

21 railway project that connects the Morris and

22 Marshall subdivisions and provides access to

23 Willmar's industrial park.

24 There are a number of agencies

25 that have been working together

Page B-40
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 4

1 collaboratively on this project. We have the

2 City of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, MnDOT, we

3 have the Kandiyohi County and City of Willmar

4 Economic Development Commission. Federal

5 Highway Administration has also been

6 involved, as has the Federal Railroad

7 Administration and the Burlington Northern

8 Santa Fe Railway.

9 We have had a number of public

10 engagement activities throughout the course

11 of this project over the past year and even

12 prior to that, prior to the project getting

13 the federal funding; there has been a number

14 of open house meetings; there has been

15 presentations throughout the community; there

16 were some focus groups that were held with

17 targeted groups; we had some popup events; we

18 were at the Farmers Market and at the county

19 fair; there has been radio interviews and

20 presentations; we've had one-on-one meetings

21 with property owners throughout the area; and

22 then tonight we are having our official

23 public hearing.

24 Overall, in terms of the project's

25 schedule, we are currently in the preliminary

Page B-41
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 5

1 design and environmental review, so tonight

2 is kind of the key part of the environmental

3 review process. Design is going to continue

4 into early 2019 with construction starting in

5 2018 and going in through 2020. And part of

6 the project and part of the reason why we

7 have some overlap between the construction

8 and the design is that this project is going

9 to be done design/build, so there is going to

10 be some design packages while they're doing

11 the construction, and then public engagement

12 will be occurring throughout the course of

13 the project.

14 Upcoming events and major

15 milestones: Right now we are in the EA, or

16 the environmental document. We are in the

17 public comment period. That continues until

18 March 8th. So if you don't want to make a

19 comment tonight or you want to talk to a

20 neighbor or somebody in the community and you

21 still want to provide additional comments,

22 you can do that until March 8th. And that's,

23 again, on the document.

24 We've got the public hearing

25 tonight. We will be going to the City of

Page B-42
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 6

1 Willmar for municipal consent, which means

2 city approval of the project later this

3 spring. We will get all of the agreements

4 between all the partners completed this

5 summer, and then we will start the letting

6 process for the design/build process at the

7 end of the year and with construction

8 starting in the spring of 2018 and completing

9 in the fall of 2020 with the roadway portion

10 of the project. Or excuse me, with the

11 railway portion of the project.

12 So the environmental review

13 process is a very formalized process that we

14 go through. We have to explain the purpose

15 and the need for the project. In other

16 words, why are you doing what you're

17 proposing to do? We have to develop and

18 evaluate a number of alternatives, we have to

19 assess what the environmental impacts are to

20 those different alternatives, and then

21 identify mitigation for any of the impacts

22 that we may cause as a result of a particular

23 alternative.

24 So then we have the public and

25 agency review and comment. So this is the

Page B-43
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 7

1 opportunity to say you missed an impact or

2 there's something else you need to take into

3 consideration before you finalize what you're

4 going to do.

5 We will then formally respond to

6 the comments that are here and that are given

7 to us until March 8th, and that's done

8 through -- in another environmental document,

9 and then after everything has been addressed,

10 there's signoff from the federal agencies.

11 So going back to the beginning of

12 the process, what is the project purpose?

13 So the purpose of the project is

14 to improve the rail operation efficiency in

15 the Willmar terminal, facilitate the movement

16 of north-south rail freight through the city

17 of Willmar, to reduce the number of train

18 trips that cause the delays to traffic at

19 at-grade crossings in Willmar, to provide

20 rail access to the Willmar industrial park,

21 and to improve the quality of life within the

22 city of Willmar.

23 The needs and terms of it are very

24 similar to the project purpose, and again,

25 it's really facilitating regional railroad

Page B-44
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 8

1 operations due to the lack of north-south

2 connectivity. Right now if a train is on the

3 Morris Subdivision, which is the northern

4 rail line, we're up here, and they want to

5 get them to the southern rail line, they have

6 to go into the terminal and turn around.

7 They have to have the engine get moved from

8 one end of the train to the other, and then

9 they have to go back out through town. So

10 the idea of putting in the new railway is to

11 prevent those trains from having to go into

12 the downtown area.

13 So it's going to help reduce some

14 freight/rail traffic fluctuations that can

15 result in congestion and stacking in the

16 different railway subdivisions. It will

17 enhance national train flows through the

18 network, it will improve railroad operations

19 in the Willmar terminal, it will reduce some

20 of the delays right now that cars have to

21 wait for and pedestrians have to wait for in

22 the downtown at the at-grade crossings, it

23 will help promote some of the economic

24 development in terms of the city's industrial

25 park and again reduce some of those trains in

Page B-45
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 9

1 the downtown area to enhance the quality of

2 life.

3 As part of the process, we had to

4 look at a number of alternatives. We looked

5 at roadway and railway alternatives. We also

6 looked at doing nothing. So we have to

7 compare whatever recommended project we come

8 forward with against the do nothing

9 alternative.

10 So in terms of the railway

11 alternatives, we had looked at an alignment

12 further to the west of the one that's been

13 proposed. MnDOT had some old highway

14 right-of-way through that area. That

15 alternative got rejected because it was too

16 close to the new airport. We can't have

17 objects in the flight zone path that are that

18 close, and so that alternative was not

19 viable.

20 We looked at a loop track east of

21 the existing rail yard where the trains would

22 still have to come into the rail yard and

23 turn around and come out. So trains are

24 still having to come into the downtown,

25 they're still going to go through those

Page B-46
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 10

1 at-grade crossings, and so that alternative

2 was rejected. And so then we came up with

3 the alternative that you see on the boards

4 tonight and that were included in the

5 environmental document. It's approximately

6 2.8 miles of new track.

7 We then looked at Highway 12

8 alternatives. One alternative kept Highway

9 12 where it is today. With that alternative,

10 however, Highway 12 had to be put up on walls

11 in order to make the railroad work and to get

12 rid of the at-grade railway crossings, and so

13 that ended up with Highway 12 being up

14 approximately 30 feet in the air.

15 We also looked at two new Highway

16 12 -- or excuse me, one new Highway 12

17 alignment, and that was 2.5 miles of new

18 roadway, and that's what's shown on the maps.

19 We also looked at alternatives for

20 Highway 40. So Highway 40 runs east-west out

21 to the airport, and a couple of those

22 alternatives looked at whether or not we

23 would allow an at-grade crossing with the new

24 railway or if we should cul-de-sac Highway

25 40. Those alternatives were rejected, and

Page B-47
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 11

1 instead we're going to put a bridge over the

2 railway so that Highway 40 will continue out

3 to the airport.

4 Then we looked at a couple of

5 options for 1st Avenue or the County Highway

6 55 when it turns east-west. I think that's

7 probably of interest tonight. So we looked

8 at whether or not that at-grade intersection

9 could remain or if another alternative needed

10 to be looked at.

11 We also looked -- we did do a

12 quick look at whether or not we could put a

13 bridge or a grade-separated crossing in that

14 area, and that really impacted the existing

15 properties that were right next to the

16 railway and then would've ended up requiring

17 acquisition of most of those properties

18 immediately adjacent.

19 So the alternative that did get

20 recommended was to close the existing access

21 and provide an alternative access to 1st

22 Avenue off of Highway 12. So instead of

23 accessing 1st Avenue like we do today, you

24 would get onto Highway 12 from either

25 direction and then follow up to 1st Avenue.

Page B-48
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 12

1 So alternative 1, I kind of went

2 through these, Highway 12 stays on its

3 current location. It has a longer bridge on

4 Highway 12 with the railway. The highway is

5 on 30-foot retaining walls. It does require

6 the realignment of 45th Street, which is

7 consistent across the different alternatives.

8 There is 2.8 miles of new railway which is

9 consistent across all of the alternatives,

10 and it does also include the conversion of a

11 current private railroad crossing to a public

12 crossing at that new 45th Street at the

13 northern end. That is also consistent across

14 the alternative.

15 Alternative 2A, this alternative

16 left the at-grade in at 1st Avenue and then

17 also created what we call quadrant

18 interchange, a quadrant interchange at the

19 northern end of the Highway 55 and the

20 Highway 12 option that provided some mobility

21 from traffic on Highway 12 to easier -- to

22 more easily access Highway 55.

23 This alternative had about 2.5

24 miles of new Highway 12, it resulted in

25 simpler bridges, and it got rid of those high

Page B-49
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 13

1 retaining walls, and it does, like I had

2 mentioned before, include that realignment of

3 45th Street and has the 2.8 miles of new

4 railway and it converts that private railway

5 crossing into a public crossing. The public

6 crossing under all the alternatives would

7 have gates and bells so that there will be

8 the extra safety measures for that at-grade

9 crossing.

10 Alternative 2B is what we're

11 calling the recommended alternative. So this

12 alternative is very similar to Alternative

13 2A. The primary difference is that the 1st

14 Avenue is provided via a new connection

15 versus the existing connection that exists

16 today.

17 In terms of the impacts associated

18 with the recommended alternative, there is a

19 number of areas that we needed to document.

20 Those areas included land use. So the whole

21 project itself disturbs about 140 acres of

22 land. It does avoid for the most part the

23 airport runway protection zones. We're not

24 in the immediate landing path of the runway.

25 We do have some considerations in terms of

Page B-50
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 14

1 height that we're making sure that we're

2 under, and we are under that.

3 In terms of land conversion, we're

4 using the former airport site, so that is

5 city-owned land that would now go towards the

6 project and it will result in approximately

7 90 acres of land that is currently being

8 farmed will now either be roadway or railway.

9 The project or the proposed

10 process what is shown for both the railway in

11 that area is consistent with the city and the

12 county comprehensive plans with regard to

13 future growth and economic development with

14 the new industrial park.

15 In terms of water resources, we

16 have about 30 acres of new impervious

17 surface, so that's land that would get either

18 hard-surfaced that currently is not. There

19 is approximately 11 acres of water resources

20 that are impacted, so that's either wetlands,

21 creeks or ditches. There is approximately --

22 of those 11 acres, approximately four of

23 those are Army Corps of Engineers

24 jurisdictional wetlands or ditches. So

25 essentially an Army Corps wetland has a

Page B-51
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 15

1 little bit higher meaning or value than a

2 regular wetland because it flows into public

3 water bodies of the United States. So four

4 of the 11 acres fall into that category.

5 There is approximately three acres

6 of floodplain that are going to be impacted

7 that are mitigated, and there will be a

8 couple of wells that will have to be sealed

9 for properties near Highway 40 and County

10 Road 55 that are being acquired with those.

11 The current wells there will have to be

12 closed and sealed.

13 Other additional water resource

14 impacts. There are some culvert replacements

15 and extensions along Hawk Creek, which is

16 also known as County Ditch 10, County Ditch

17 12, County Ditch 46, and there is an unnamed

18 tributary east of County Highway 55 that is

19 also impacted.

20 We will be using filtration basins

21 and ditch checks for the new storm water

22 runoff to meet Minnesota Pollution Control

23 Agency requirements. The project will not

24 have wet ponds as you sometimes see along

25 highways, and part of the reason for that is

Page B-52
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 16

1 our proximity to the airport. Having open

2 water is not good for waterfowl or it

3 attracts waterfowl, which is not a good

4 combination with airplanes. So you won't see

5 big ponds out there.

6 In terms of fish and wildlife

7 resources, a majority of the area has been

8 previously disturbed, either drained for

9 agricultural use or was in use for the

10 airport, so there is not a lot of natural

11 habitat left out there.

12 There are some native prairie

13 remnants and some federal wildlife lands

14 outside of the immediate project area. We

15 have a couple of butterflies that have the

16 right habitat in there, but we don't

17 anticipate the project to impact them. They

18 were not found out on site anywhere, it's

19 just the habitat that could potentially

20 support them.

21 And then as part of the project in

22 terms of the mitigation, we will be using

23 native prairie grasses as part of our turf

24 reestablishment to make sure that we are not

25 spreading any evasive species and we can help

Page B-53
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 17

1 with the prairie growth in the area.

2 Section 4F resources. Section 4F

3 resources are parks or historic resources.

4 The Morris Subdivision Sub, so that's the

5 northern portion or the northern railway

6 alignment, is considered historic and it is

7 eligible for listing on the National Register

8 of Historic Places.

9 The types of improvements that

10 we're doing, we're essentially connecting

11 into the existing line at grade and creating

12 a new bridge. We're not changing the

13 elevation of the railway or the tracks or

14 doing any highering or lowering, so the State

15 Historic Preservation Office has indicated

16 that there will not be an adverse effect

17 associated with the project to that rail

18 line.

19 There is a recreational trail

20 along County Highway 55 -- or excuse me,

21 along County Highway 5, and we will be

22 disturbing that to put in a new intersection

23 with Highway 12, so that is going to be a

24 temporary impact to that recreational

25 resource. We will have a detour during the

Page B-54
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 18

1 project so that people can still use the

2 trail, so it will still be open during

3 construction.

4 In terms of roadway and access

5 changes, the big one is that we are

6 realigning Highway 12, so we have 2.5 miles

7 of new highway. We are closing the 1st

8 Avenue access. We have a new access to 1st

9 Avenue that is going to be -- excuse me,

10 there's a cul-de-sac that's changed to 1st

11 Avenue west of County Highway 55 as well.

12 And then we have the new access road to 1st

13 Avenue that will be east of the railroad

14 tracks.

15 New Highway 12 will divert some

16 traffic away from existing businesses along

17 the corridor or it's being shifted. Local

18 access will have to be provided via 45th

19 Street for businesses on the north and then

20 coming up via Highway 12 and County 55 from

21 the south. And it will result in improved

22 traffic and safety operations near the

23 Willmar terminal. So we'll have fewer trains

24 coming through the at-grade intersections.

25 One of the bigger changes, as

Page B-55
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 19

1 we've noted before, is the closure of 1st

2 Avenue. The Federal Highway Administration

3 and the Federal Railroad Administration do

4 not support the creation of any new at-grade

5 railroad crossings due to safety reasons, and

6 we were required to demonstrate that the

7 proposed change -- we had to note whether or

8 not the changes that's recommended for the

9 new frontage road, whether that would be a

10 significant burden or a significant change

11 from existing conditions.

12 Several factors were considered

13 when we went through that process to evaluate

14 what the change would be if 1st Avenue was

15 closed. We looked at safety, we looked at

16 travel time, we looked at some economic

17 impacts in terms of delay for businesses or

18 people getting to and from those locations,

19 as well as some jurisdictional issues.

20 There were similar safety benefits

21 for all of the sub-options that were looked

22 at. So that was the Alternative 2A.

23 Alternative 2B, and one that

24 didn't even -- and one that we called 2C,

25 which is not presented here tonight, which

Page B-56
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 20

1 had no new access to 1st Avenue. You had to

2 use the access off of current Highway 12 in

3 order to get there.

4 The travel time, distance and time

5 did not demonstrate any significant burden or

6 differences between the different

7 alternatives. There is approximately a half

8 a mile additional distance and about a minute

9 and a half of travel time compared to

10 existing conditions between 1st Avenue and

11 19th Avenue and south 55, and there is

12 approximately a mile additional distance and

13 about 1.6 minutes of additional travel time

14 compared to existing conditions for the area

15 between the 45th Street intersection and 1st

16 Avenue.

17 Federal Highway and Federal

18 Railroad determined that the new access road

19 provides a reasonable alternative based on

20 what was found in terms of the travel time

21 and the safety and impacts for it with

22 closing 1st Avenue.

23 In terms of right-of-way impacts,

24 the right-of-way impacts is the amount of

25 land that would be needed to construct the

Page B-57
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 21

1 project that's not already under ownership.

2 So the permanent easement or

3 right-of-way acquisition is about 290 acres.

4 Approximately 118 or 120 acres is already

5 owned by the partner agencies, either by

6 Burlington Northern or by the City of

7 Willmar, and then the remaining approximately

8 175 acres of land are privately owned. We're

9 going to need approximately 19 acres of

10 temporary easements in order to construct the

11 projects.

12 We are requiring the removal of

13 two homes at the intersection of Trunk

14 Highway 40 and County Highway 55. There is

15 three homes that are in the existing

16 intersection. One of those homes is going to

17 be relocated, the other two will be torn

18 down.

19 We also looked at noise as part of

20 the study, and so we studied both roadway and

21 train noise and vibrations. Traffic noise

22 barriers were not found to be reasonable or

23 feasible with the realignment of the Highway

24 12.

25 Train horn use at realigned 45th

Page B-58
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 22

1 Street will create new noise because right

2 now it's a private crossing, so the horns

3 don't have to sound. With the public

4 crossing, they do, so that will be an

5 increase in noise. But noise barriers are

6 not considered feasible for mitigating noise

7 at at-grade crossings, so there won't be any

8 changes to it.

9 The one thing, the noise will

10 occur during construction activities. There

11 will be some pile driving associated with the

12 bridge work and the grading. MnDOT by

13 statute is not required to follow local noise

14 ordinances but will try to do so. So there

15 will be limited night construction. Those

16 types of activities will be avoided as much

17 as possible.

18 The other thing to note in terms

19 of the noise is that the realignment of

20 Highway 12 actually does provide a noise

21 benefit to the residents living north of

22 Highway 12 near the County 5 intersection.

23 Air quality. The project is not

24 anticipated to have a major impact in terms

25 of air quality. There is not a ton of

Page B-59
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 23

1 congestion in terms of what's considered a

2 hot spot where you have an intersection of 60

3 or 80,000 vehicles a day, and there is not

4 general congestion on most of Highway 12 at

5 this point, so there is not going to be a big

6 change in terms of air quality in the area.

7 We think the benefits, there will

8 be some to the Willmar yard, but again, it's

9 not a significant number or increase.

10 In terms of visual impacts, there

11 will be a change in the area. The view shed

12 will be different than it is today. Highway

13 12 will be on a new alignment and there is

14 going to be a new railway. So those changes

15 will occur. So there will be some elevation

16 that's going to be noticed, especially

17 associated with the bridges.

18 In terms of contamination and

19 regulated waste, no known contaminated sites

20 were identified. If we find some during

21 construction, there are procedures and rules

22 that we need to follow which we will in order

23 to mitigate and remove the soils.

24 The removal and relocation of

25 those two buildings that I had talked about

Page B-60
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 24

1 earlier, those two residential structures,

2 will likely require the removal of regulated

3 waste. So that's things like lead, asbestos

4 that have mercury that can be found in some

5 older homes. So MnDOT will be working with a

6 consultant to access the properties and

7 determine what materials, if any, are on

8 site, and then, again, we will follow the

9 appropriate procedures and regulations to get

10 rid of those.

11 Environmental justice. This is

12 low income and minority populations, and the

13 understanding is to make sure that there is

14 not a disproportionate impact to those

15 individuals.

16 The study of the area does

17 indicate that there are environmental justice

18 populations within the project area. Those

19 populations are mostly concentrated north of

20 existing Highway 12. The realignment of

21 Highway 12 will actually improve noise

22 conditions for those residents and there's

23 really no other impacts that are anticipated

24 for those populations as part of the project.

25 Indirect cumulative impacts are

Page B-61
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 25

1 things that might not directly be associated

2 the project but are expected to occur over

3 time or kind of added them together. So

4 essentially, the timing of development in and

5 near the industrial park could be a little

6 bit faster with the project. The idea was to

7 enhance the economic viability of the area

8 and help promote the industrial park with

9 eventual access to the railway.

10 Additional farmland would be

11 removed from agricultural use if that is the

12 case. Even if it's only temporarily now

13 being in agricultural use, it is a change.

14 It's likely that additional wetlands would

15 likely need to be filled and it's likely that

16 there would be impacts to other aquatic

17 resources, such as ditches.

18 There was a historic building that

19 had a removal, a hangar building from the old

20 airport. Let's see. And those are the big

21 things that would happen as a result of the

22 project and other activities that have

23 recently occurred or would continue to occur.

24 There are a number of permits and

25 approvals that are needed in order to

Page B-62
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 26

1 actually construct this project. So we need

2 approval from the Federal Highway

3 Administration; the Federal Railroad

4 Administration; the Army Corps of Engineers,

5 and that's the wetland impacts that we talked

6 about earlier; the Federal Aviation

7 Administration. Again, that's looking at the

8 heights of some of our structures in terms of

9 the bridge. The Pollution Control Agency in

10 terms of how we treat our storm water and

11 additional runoff. The Minnesota Department

12 of Natural Resources will be doing some work

13 in the creeks in order to extend those

14 culverts, so we'll need to get some permits

15 for that. And we need the approval of the

16 City of Willmar, working with Kandiyohi

17 County and some of the ditches that are

18 required. Burlington Northern, there is some

19 agreements with them in terms of access to

20 different properties, and then MnDOT in terms

21 of working in some of its right-of-way for

22 part of the project.

23 So we will transition to the

24 public hearing. And I think I went through

25 most of this earlier, but I'll give a quick

Page B-63
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 27

1 synopsis. There are a couple of new folks

2 that came into the room.

3 If you could fill in a

4 registration so that we can get a number so

5 that we can make sure that names are

6 officially recorded and mailing addresses.

7 So when you come up to speak, please give

8 your name and address for the record. And if

9 you can, focus your comments related to the

10 environmental document and the alternatives

11 that have been presented within the

12 environmental document.

13 I think in terms of the people

14 that have signed up thus far, we think five

15 minutes should be -- speak for five minutes.

16 If we get too many folks -- I want to make

17 sure that everybody has a chance to speak,

18 and we might have to decrease that time, but

19 we will try to do it -- we'll give folks a

20 few minutes to talk about what they'd like.

21 If you would like to provide

22 comments but are uncomfortable in front of

23 doing it in front of the group, we invite you

24 to come up and talk to the court reporter and

25 you can give your comments to him and not

Page B-64
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 28

1 have to speak in front of the group. And

2 then after that we will revert back to the

3 open house meeting with the rest of the

4 group.

5 If you would like to provide

6 written comments, you can do so as well.

7 Those can be submitted tonight or they can be

8 submitted up until March 8th, and you can

9 submit those until 4:00 p.m. You can send

10 them to Paul Rasmussen, -- and I'll leave

11 this slide up for folks tonight -- you can

12 mail them via regular mail if you like, you

13 can e-mail them or you can fax them.

14 As we go through the public

15 hearing tonight, the public hearing is to

16 collect comments. We can't have a dialogue

17 as part of the public hearing, so we won't be

18 answering questions. It's really to collect

19 comments on the document in the project. We

20 will be happy to talk to you once we revert

21 back to the open house portion of the

22 meeting.

23 So once everybody gets done

24 speaking in front of the group that wants to

25 speak in front of the group, we will revert

Page B-65
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 29

1 back to the side table and then we can answer

2 questions and have that dialogue, but the

3 purpose of the public hearing is to just

4 record the comments on the project and the

5 environmental document. Okay. I know it's

6 very formal, but it's the process we have to

7 follow.

8 So thank you. And if the person

9 that has number one is willing to speak, we'd

10 appreciate that. Thank you.

11 MR. WILLIAM FRY: Jack, could you

12 put up this big one up there? I know you had

13 a slide on that. I'd like to have that up

14 there since I'm speaking.

15 MS. JACK CORKLE: There we go.

16 And can I have you sign in and mic up?

17 MR. WILLIAM FRY: Well, good

18 evening. My name is William Fry, Bill Fry

19 for short. I live here in Willmar, 1504

20 Country Club Drive NE.

21 Give you a little bit of

22 background. I worked for the railroad for

23 41-plus years. I am now retired. I retired

24 here in Willmar, moved up here in 2006.

25 Other than that, I've been traveling around

Page B-66
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 30

1 the country since 1973. I grew up in

2 Aberdeen, South Dakota, lived in about 13

3 different areas traveling with the railroad.

4 I want to say I am an expert on railroad

5 operations. I have testified in federal,

6 state courts for both the railroad, the

7 plaintiffs and the defendants on railroad

8 operations.

9 I want to make clear that I am for

10 this project; however, it needs to go back to

11 the way it was originally written. When they

12 applied for the grants, there was two tracks

13 proposed in here. And I know some people I

14 recognize that have been to some of these

15 meetings.

16 Those two tracks mean a big thing.

17 One track is going to cost nothing but

18 congestion and it's not going to accomplish

19 our goals of keeping trains out of Willmar.

20 With one track there, the only

21 places to meet are Clara City -- everybody

22 should know where that is, about 20 miles

23 south -- and Kerkhoven, which is

24 approximately 20 miles west.

25 What it will end up being is a

Page B-67
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 31

1 standoff. A train will come in there and

2 park to make meets. Without another

3 additional track for that train to get

4 around, where is the train going to go? Back

5 to Willmar. And it will have defeated --

6 we'll have spent $40 million for one parking

7 spot. It's like putting a one-way bridge on

8 Highway 12 and trying to get through,

9 everybody taking their turn. It just doesn't

10 work. You need two tracks there to make this

11 project work.

12 It's a phenomenal project, it's an

13 expensive one, but we need two tracks there.

14 And if we don't get two tracks immediately,

15 you're going to hear the rumor that we're

16 going to grade for it, we'll build it in the

17 future. I can tell you many places right now

18 where they've graded for tracks and have

19 never built. It just has to be done that way

20 or the project is no good.

21 Any questions anyone? I'll be

22 willing to answer any question that I know of

23 railroad operations. Yes.

24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: When you

25 say two tracks, are you making two additional

Page B-68
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 32

1 tracks to the existing one, so there will be

2 a total of three tracks?

3 MR. WILLIAM FRY: No. Well, three

4 tracks would be very nice, trust me. Even

5 with two tracks there. No. One is the

6 proposal now. It was originally proposed

7 with two tracks, and the railroad backed out

8 and said they didn't want to spend that much

9 money right now. Well, let's not spend any

10 money until we get the two tracks back, guys.

11 That's what we need.

12 Does that answer your question?

13 Excuse me one minute. My estimate is that

14 with one track, we'll see approximately 25

15 percent of the trains using it. The other 75

16 percent will continue into Willmar. With two

17 tracks, it will probably be 95 percent of the

18 trains would use it and five percent still

19 going to Willmar. Yes.

20 MS. JACK CORKLE: Well, can we --

21 this isn't supposed to be a dialogue, so --

22 MR. WILLIAM FRY: Can't answer

23 questions?

24 MS. JACK CORKLE: No, you can't.

25 You can make your statement and then other

Page B-69
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 33

1 people get to make their statement.

2 MR. WILLIAM FRY: Come on!

3 MS. JACK CORKLE: No.

4 MR. WILLIAM FRY: Well, I made my

5 dialogue and I'll answer any questions

6 afterwards for anybody who would like them.

7 If the state ever has any questions, I would

8 like to address those, and they can call me.

9 I put my name on here.

10 I would like to make one more

11 comment. We had a meeting Tuesday night with

12 the city council members. There was Mr. John

13 Huseby at the -- what was his name? I don't

14 want to pronounce it wrong.

15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Huseby.

16 MR. WILLIAM FRY: Huseby? He was

17 there, and he was asked by Mr. Christianson

18 twice if trains would ever stop on that

19 track. His answer was no. I want to say he

20 spoke the wrong answer. I don't know where

21 he got that information, but trains will be

22 stopped on that track.

23 There are some railroad people in

24 there. If anybody has any questions of them

25 afterwards, they will be happy to back up

Page B-70
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 34

1 that, I'm sure.

2 Thanks everybody.

3 MS. JACK CORKLE: We have speaker

4 number two that wanted to give a comment on

5 the project? Anybody else? We can skip

6 speaker number two. Anybody else that would

7 like to make a public comment for the record?

8 Number three? Okay. Yup.

9 MR. LARRY CLARK: I live at 2510

10 NW 30th Street. I'm Larry Clark. I

11 understand what he's talking about with the

12 one track, but if they put the second track

13 there, which I believe they really should

14 have so if two trains would meet coming from

15 the west going down to the Clara City line

16 and the other one coming up, that it should

17 not become a parking lot for another train to

18 sit there, and what my fear is is that if it

19 becomes a parking lot because the railroad

20 sees whoever is in control of the train

21 traffic. Well, we can always run into

22 Willmar back the same way we used to go.

23 This is going to be a waste of

24 money if we do it with that process going up.

25 And who's going to monitor that process to

Page B-71
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 35

1 make sure that's not a parking lot for a

2 train out there?

3 I mean, you can go into the town

4 of Benson and you'll see trains on the tracks

5 there for 15 minutes, 20 minutes. They'll

6 pay the fine versus moving the train. The

7 fine is minimal; it's nothing. So even if

8 they did fine them for putting the train on

9 that as a parking lot for a train, what good

10 is it?

11 Something's got to be done to make

12 sure there is no train sitting on that as a

13 parking lot. I just hope somebody has got

14 this in mind and plan to monitor that and

15 really police it and enforce it.

16 Thank you.

17 MS. JACK CORKLE: Number four?

18 Number five?

19 MR. ERROL BLUHM: My name is Errol

20 Bluhm. I live at 3201 SE 15th Avenue in

21 Willmar. First comment is I like the use of

22 your politically correct term environmental

23 justice populations. Sounds to me like a

24 bunch of bird (unintelligible). I know what

25 you're talking about.

Page B-72
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 36

1 My comments come more in the form

2 of a question, and I guess you already told

3 me you're not going to give me an answer to

4 my question, but I want to put this question

5 on everybody's mind. Maybe there is more

6 depth to this than I've been given at this

7 time, but both of these -- all three of these

8 alternatives are going to make some changes.

9 Number one alternative is the most

10 direct. Obviously, looking at the maps over

11 there and up on the board, there is the least

12 amount of change that's going to have to be

13 made. I know that you're saying that it

14 would be a significant cost for a long bridge

15 and retaining wall and all that kind of

16 stuff, but without a doubt it's the

17 most direct route.

18 Both of the other alternatives, 2A

19 and 2B, would require significant rerouting

20 and the need for purchase of right-of-way

21 land from private landowners. And according

22 to the information that you provided up

23 there, that would be about 175 acres. I

24 don't know why there is a difference. You

25 also cited more farmland that would be

Page B-73
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 37

1 affected. But one or the other, at least 175

2 acres would have to be acquired.

3 So my question is this: Is the

4 projected cost of all that private land

5 acquisition included in the proposals for

6 Alternative 2A and 2B, and how much of that

7 cost would be paid by taxpayers?

8 Thank you.

9 MR. KURT SCHIMEK: My name is Kurt

10 Schimek. I live at 1660 36th Street SE. I

11 am the general manager and I've worked at

12 Farm Service Elevator for over 20 years at

13 3939 County Road 55, also known as 1st Avenue

14 there on the map.

15 Along with the feed mill, we also

16 have other ag companies such as Pals, Pals

17 Propane, Willmar Logistics and Willmar

18 Poultry Farms at our ag business along County

19 Road 55, 1st Avenue. We estimate we have

20 over 20,000 trucks per year that enter or

21 leave our facility that head west and then

22 south onto 55. That translates to ten trucks

23 per hour during business hours. These trucks

24 haul beef, grain, feed ingredients, barn

25 equipment and propane.

Page B-74
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 38

1 We would like to express our

2 strong opinion of the safety of ten trucks

3 pulling on and off again on Highway 12 to

4 come in and out of our ag site and then leave

5 our ag site as far more dangerous than a

6 railroad at-grade crossing.

7 Again, with the current proposal,

8 ten trucks per hour during business hours by

9 getting on and off Highway 12 for a short

10 amount of time and a short distance fully

11 loaded, then exiting it, in and out, to get

12 out of our facility.

13 These numbers do not include our

14 neighboring businesses also along 55, 1st

15 Avenue, that work with large semis as part of

16 their business or consider the small

17 vehicles, the cars and trucks of our

18 employees and customers driving to come in

19 and out of our business.

20 We strongly encourage all parties

21 involved to consider and weigh the safety of

22 the at-grade crossing versus the safety of

23 numerous semis that will be need to come on

24 and off the new Highway 12.

25 Finally, we have advised since the

Page B-75
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 39

1 inception that the Wye Project be placed on

2 the west side of 55 or directly on top of the

3 existing 55 and not on the east, and that the

4 bridge be placed on the current Highway 12

5 which would be further west to allow the

6 train to go underneath Highway 12, and then

7 allow the trains to go directly towards 55

8 before turning south. If you want me to

9 explain that on the map, I can do that.

10 This plan would eliminate the need

11 for an at-grade crossing altogether and make

12 the most economic sense for the taxpayers.

13 This plan will provide four wins:

14 Number one, safety; number two, a win for the

15 taxpayers; three, a win for the citizens of

16 Willmar; and four, the railroad.

17 This alternative is not too close

18 to the airport as the height of the bridge

19 will be higher than the height of the train,

20 so that argument doesn't have any legitimacy

21 to it.

22 We would recommend further

23 research into this option. We agree with a

24 project moving forward, but it needs a little

25 more research.

Page B-76
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 40

1 Thank you.

2 MS. JACK CORKLE: Number seven?

3 Number eight? I saw somebody grab number

4 eight. They didn't want to be number five

5 originally.

6 MR. DAVID PETERSON: My name is

7 David Peterson. I live at 1800 127th Avenue

8 in Svea. And Bill pretty much covered what

9 my comments were. I guess that's why he got

10 to go first.

11 But in addition to that, I mean,

12 some of the others brought up -- like Bill

13 said, I also worked on the railroad for a

14 number of years as a yardmaster and in charge

15 of the local movements of trains, and I also

16 would state that what Bill said would very,

17 very, almost absolutely happen. And if

18 there's crews that are short on time, they

19 will bring a train in there. If it has to

20 have work done on it, it will park there and

21 it will sit and it will be right back to if

22 there's more crews that are short on time,

23 the trains will come right into Willmar

24 without that extra track that was in the

25 original proposal.

Page B-77
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 41

1 And along with that, if the

2 railroad is allowed to cut their expenses

3 because of a downturn in business, are they

4 giving -- are they removing their resistance

5 to the at-grade crossing? Because they do

6 put in at-grade crossings. They put one in

7 downtown Delano here a few years back right

8 in the middle of a main track and the siding.

9 I mean, if the railroad does not have a

10 strong resistance to it, it can be done.

11 And on the other part of that,

12 too, if you go with the route that you're

13 talking now and you want to have them enter

14 Highway 12, are there acceleration and

15 turning lanes built into it? I mean, when

16 you look at Highway 23, when they built the

17 four lanes on that, I've noticed more

18 recently that since the last couple of years

19 Cold Spring Granite moved out of town, and

20 after 23, when they built 23, there was no

21 acceleration or turning lanes, but now there

22 are.

23 You know, when you say this is

24 your preferred option, have they looked at

25 those options for, like the previous speaker

Page B-78
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 42

1 said, for the trucks that are pulling out and

2 slowing down traffic.

3 And like Bill and some of the

4 other comments about the railroad says, well,

5 we'll grade it and we will build it. And

6 somebody mentioned Benson, how they block the

7 trains there.

8 It's probably well before I was

9 born that the railroad planned on putting in

10 that signal, automatic crossing that goes

11 from the Morris Subdivision to the Watertown

12 or Aberdeen Subdivision, and I think they

13 just finally got it done, but it had nothing

14 to do with, you know, traffic or whatever,

15 just the money that they wanted to spend.

16 And I think most of us know who owns that toy

17 railroad and I think the money isn't really

18 an issue if they want to spend it.

19 MS. JACK CORKLE: Number nine?

20 Number 10? We're done. No more folks that

21 signed up? Okay. Anybody else that didn't

22 grab a number that wants to give a public

23 comment?

24 Okay. So we will close the

25 official public hearing portion. If anybody

Page B-79
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 43

1 would like to talk to the court reporter, we

2 have a signup sheet for that as well, if you

3 can just sign in your name and mailing

4 address. Okay. And the rest of the group

5 can come back and we can have a dialog.

6 Thank you.

7 MR. CLINTON RAASCH: They plan on

8 bringing 45th along on the north side of the

9 track there, and then they're taking Highway

10 12 away from me so I have no exposure for my

11 business, and kind of ruin my -- I got a hill

12 for selling cars. It's going to ruin that.

13 My sign out in front, it's not going to be

14 able to be seen.

15 And when they take 12 away,

16 they're going to bring a different highway to

17 me and bring 45th behind Highway 12 through

18 the intersection and turn that into a

19 township road which is not going to be plowed

20 on a, you know, hourly basis.

21 My business is a 24-hour business

22 and my road needs to be plowed, you know.

23 It's been plowed by the county. And the

24 township will never -- they don't take care

25 of 45th. I have had to go down and help many

Page B-80
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 44

1 stranded people on 45th in the past 18 years.

2 It's usually done with a road grader and

3 it's -- the road grader has got too many

4 roads to take care of, so it takes a long

5 time.

6 And the crossing that they're

7 proposing, they're going to change it into a

8 commercial crossing which is going to cause

9 all kinds of horn noise at night, so I won't

10 be able to rest.

11 And also, they're proposing

12 putting -- our road's fed into the corner to

13 get into that crossing at an angle, so we

14 can't see west at all. And I've tried to

15 tell them over and over that it's not

16 acceptable. The road's coming to that

17 crossing got to be able to see just as good

18 to the west as they are to the east. There's

19 been one person killed in that intersection

20 already, and it is extremely unsafe. You

21 cannot look to the west if you're looking to

22 the southeast to approach that crossing.

23 So I've talked to them, and so far

24 every proposal still shows them dumping me

25 into that crossing at an angle just the way

Page B-81
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 45

1 it is right now, and it can't be done that

2 way. So that's the end.

3 The other impact it's going to be,

4 during all this construction, it's going to

5 cause a large loss of work. My customers

6 ain't going to drive through tore up roads to

7 get to me. It's going to have a huge impact

8 on my business.

9 And also, there's a drainage ditch

10 that goes through my neighbor's driveway and

11 our driveway that will be affected, how the

12 lay of the land is going to be, so that's got

13 to be done so it drains properly.

14 But that's pretty much what I have

15 to say, I guess.

16 MR. DANE KALLEVIG: I just wanted

17 to mention that from the presentation I

18 didn't hear any discussion about 911 access

19 and the impact this project has on the

20 emergency service to people who have

21 intersections that have been changed. I am

22 in a zone where it would impact access with

23 longer distance, and 911 emergency service is

24 important, and it was not addressed.

25 The other thing I want to mention

Page B-82
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 46

1 is with change in access to property, will

2 there be an impact on property values and how

3 is the county and the tax authorities going

4 to address those impacts? Will we see

5 changes in property values from the project?

6 That's about as concise as I can

7 be right now.

8 MR. AARON LARSON: Aaron Larson,

9 219 Anthony Street SE, Willmar. I'm a member

10 of the -- former member of the City of

11 Willmar Planning Commission. I strongly

12 encourage and support MnDOT and BNSF to add

13 two rail lines back into the project. I

14 believe for the project to be successful for

15 the long term, there needs to be two tracks

16 for the rail bypass.

17 Also, for the significant amount

18 of public investment in the project, that

19 BNSF should hold up to their end of the

20 bargain and have two tracks as was originally

21 proposed in the project.

22 And that concludes my statement.

23 Thank you.

24 MS. CAROL LAUMER: My one comment

25 is if the project moves forward, a quiet zone

Page B-83
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 47

1 should be installed at the time of all this

2 work going into place so we're not getting

3 that again.

4 Number two, I don't know the

5 industry, but according to the people that

6 spoke regarding two tracks, that needs to be

7 looked at.

8 Number three, with the decreased

9 number of trains, I see that this project

10 should be scrapped and not using my taxpaying

11 dollars for this.

12 And then number four is find an

13 alternate way and less expensive cost for the

14 industrial park that's needed.

15 MR. STEVE AHMANN: I just want to

16 say that I support the concept and the

17 long-term planning for the benefit of

18 Burlington Northern and the residents of the

19 city of Willmar for future expansion into the

20 industrial park.

21 One of my concerns is I believe

22 that some alternatives might want to be

23 considered, and those are based on costs to

24 the taxpayers.

25 Number one would be the relocation

Page B-84
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 48

1 of the railroad to as close to County Road 55

2 as possible and also to extend the

3 construction area that was earlier outlined

4 in the construction zone to include the area

5 further south of Willmar connecting to State

6 Highway 23 intersection and County Road 55.

7 That should be included in the financial

8 overview of costs.

9 Also, I believe Highway 12 should

10 be kept in its current location and build a

11 30-foot high retaining wall, which it will

12 only be, I believe, at the highest point.

13 The other areas of the retaining will not be

14 as high. I don't think the impact to the

15 community will be severe.

16 It should also maintain our

17 current infrastructure that the city and the

18 state, the utility companies have put in

19 along Highway 12 for lighting, street

20 lighting, everything. It will be an asset to

21 maintain that versus just tearing it out for

22 the cumbersome rerouting of Highway 12

23 further south.

24 Cost at this particular time

25 should not be the primary -- shouldn't be the

Page B-85
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 49

1 primary issue of going forward with it or not

2 going forward with it. I would prefer that

3 this project be done in an appropriate way

4 that is best for traffic, best for

5 businesses, and best for the community.

6 Furthermore, the second rail must,

7 I repeat, must be included. Otherwise, the

8 benefit to the city of Willmar and its

9 residents with noise traffic and future

10 traffic cannot be guaranteed. It must be

11 part of the project, eliminate, and give some

12 benefit to the taxpayers of the city of

13 Willmar who support this project.

14 It seems that the taxpayers of

15 Willmar are not going to be directly

16 benefited if we don't get the second line put

17 in. The traffic will continue downtown, and

18 we are not assured of that, and there is

19 nothing that I can see right now that assures

20 the city of Willmar will have any authority

21 to have Burlington Northern install the

22 second track at any future date.

23 As I understand through previous

24 years on the city council, that it is very,

25 very cumbersome to dictate to the railroad

Page B-86
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 50

1 corporations what we need. It is somewhat

2 more cumbersome and difficult than dealing

3 with Congress, as many people can attest. I

4 wish that would change, but that seems to be

5 the situation we're in right now.

6 I appreciate all the input and all

7 the hard work from everyone. The hearts are

8 in the right place. It's just a matter of

9 now doing the right thing for the long-term

10 benefit.

11 And I am also concerned about the

12 dissecting of the newly acquired development

13 land south of current Highway 12 that is

14 not -- that will cost the city future funds

15 for improvement and long-term maintenance

16 that currently, in the current Highway 12

17 position, will not be associating or giving

18 us further -- additional taxpayer funds to

19 maintain and improve in the future.

20 Thank you.

21 (Whereupon, the public hearing was

22 at adjourned at 6:55 p.m.)

23

24

25

Page B-87

Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 52

A

Aaron 46:8,8

Aberdeen 30:2

42:12

able 43:14

44:10,17

absolutely

40:17

acceleration

41:14,21

acceptable

44:16

access 1:2 3:22

7:20 11:20

11:21 12:22

18:4,8,8,12

18:18 20:1,2

20:18 24:6

25:9 26:19

45:18,22

46:1

accessing

11:23

accomplish

30:18

acquired 15:10

37:2 50:12

acquisition

11:17 21:3

37:5

acres 13:21

14:7,16,19,22

15:4,5 21:3,4

21:8,9 36:23

37:2

activities 4:10

22:10,16

25:22

add 46:12

added 25:3

addition 40:11

additional 5:21

15:13 20:8

20:12,13

25:10,14

26:11 31:3

31:25 50:18

address 27:8

33:8 43:4

46:4

addressed 7:9

45:24

addresses 3:5

27:6

adjacent 11:18

adjourned

50:22

Administration

4:5,7 19:2,3

26:3,4,7

adverse 17:16

advised 38:25

ag 37:16,18

38:4,5

agencies 3:24

7:10 21:5

agency 6:25

15:23 26:9

agree 39:23

agreements

6:3 26:19

agricultural

16:9 25:11

25:13

AHMANN 47:15

ain't 45:6

air 10:14 22:23

22:25 23:6

airplanes 16:4

airport 9:16

10:21 11:3

13:23 14:4

16:1,10

25:20 39:18

alignment 9:11

10:17 17:6

23:13

allow 10:23

39:5,7

allowed 41:2

alternate 47:13

alternative

6:23 9:9,15

9:18 10:1,3,8

10:9 11:9,19

11:21 12:1

12:14,15,15

12:23 13:10

13:11,12,12

13:18 19:22

19:23 20:19

36:9 37:6

39:17

alternatives

6:18,20 9:4,5

9:11 10:8,19

10:22,25

12:7,9 13:6

20:7 27:10

36:8,18

47:22

altogether

39:11

amount 20:24

36:12 38:10

46:17

angle 44:13,25

answer 29:1

31:22 32:12

32:22 33:5

33:19,20

36:3

answering

28:18

Anthony 46:9

anticipate

16:17

anticipated

22:24 24:23

anybody 33:6

33:24 34:5,6

42:21,25

applied 30:12

appreciate 3:1

29:10 50:6

approach

44:22

appropriate

24:9 49:3

approval 6:2

26:2,15

approvals

25:25

approximately

10:5,14 14:6

14:19,21,22

15:5 20:7,12

21:4,7,9

30:24 32:14

aquatic 25:16

area 4:21 8:12

9:1,14 11:14

14:11 16:7

16:14 17:1

20:14 23:6

23:11 24:16

24:18 25:7

48:3,4

areas 13:19,20

30:3 48:13

argument

39:20

Army 14:23,25

26:4

asbestos 24:3

asked 33:17

assess 6:19

asset 48:20

associated

2:12 13:17

17:17 22:11

23:17 25:1

associating

50:17

assured 49:18

assures 49:19

attest 50:3

attracts 16:3

at-grade 7:19

8:22 10:1,12

10:23 11:8

12:16 13:8

18:24 19:4

22:7 38:6,22

39:11 41:5,6

authorities

46:3

authority

49:20

automatic

42:10

Avenue 11:5,22

11:23,25

12:16 13:14

18:8,9,11,13

19:2,14 20:1

20:10,11,16

20:22 35:20

37:13,19

38:15 40:7

Aviation 26:6

avoid 13:22

avoided 22:16

B

back 2:18 3:8

7:11 8:9 28:2

28:21 29:1

30:10 31:4

32:10 33:25

34:22 40:21

41:7 43:5

46:13

backed 32:7

background

29:22

bargain 46:20

barn 37:24

barriers 21:22

22:5

based 20:19

47:23

basins 15:20

basis 43:20

beef 37:24

beginning 7:11

believe 34:13

46:14 47:21

48:9,12

bells 13:7

benefit 22:21

47:17 49:8

49:12 50:10

benefited

49:16

benefits 19:20

23:7

Benson 35:4

42:6

best 49:4,4,5

beyond 2:17

big 16:5 18:5

23:5 25:20

29:12 30:16

bigger 18:25

Bill 29:18 40:8

40:12,16

42:3

bird 35:24

bit 2:22 15:1

25:6 29:21

block 42:6

Bluhm 35:19

35:20

BNSF 46:12,19

board 36:11

boards 10:3

bodies 15:3

born 42:9

bridge 11:1,13

12:3 17:12

22:12 26:9

31:7 36:14

39:4,18

bridges 12:25

23:17

bring 40:19

43:16,17

bringing 43:8

brought 40:12

build 31:16

42:5 48:10

building 25:18

25:19

buildings 23:25

built 31:19

41:15,16,20

bunch 35:24

burden 19:10

20:5

Burlington 4:7

21:6 26:18

47:18 49:21

business 37:18

37:23 38:8

38:16,19

41:3 43:11

43:21,21

45:8

businesses

18:16,19

19:17 38:14

49:5

butterflies

16:15

bypass 46:16

C

call 12:17 33:8

called 19:24

calling 13:11

care 43:24 44:4

CAROL 46:24

cars 8:20 38:17

43:12

case 25:12

category 15:4

cause 6:22

7:18 44:8

45:5

CERTIFICATE

51:1

certify 51:3

chance 27:17

change 19:7,10

19:14 23:6

23:11 25:13

36:12 44:7

46:1 50:4

changed 18:10

45:21

changes 18:5

18:25 19:8

22:8 23:14

36:8 46:5

changing 17:12

charge 40:14

Charles 1:25

51:3

checks 15:21

Christianson

33:17

cited 36:25

citizens 39:15

city 4:2,3 5:25

6:2 7:16,22

14:11 21:6

26:16 30:21

33:12 34:15

46:10 47:19

48:17 49:8

49:12,20,24

50:14

city's 8:24

city-owned

14:5

Clara 30:21

34:15

Clark 34:9,10

clear 30:9

CLINTON 43:7

close 9:16,18

11:20 39:17

42:24 48:1

closed 15:12

19:15

closing 18:7

20:22

closure 19:1

Club 29:20

Cold 41:19

collaboratively

4:1

collect 2:17

28:16,18

combination

16:4

come 3:13 9:7

9:22,23,24

27:7,24 31:1

33:2 36:1

38:4,18,23

40:23 43:5

coming 3:18

18:20,24

34:14,16

44:16

COMMENCING

1:6

comment 5:17

5:19 6:25

33:11 34:4,7

35:21 42:23

46:24

Page B-89
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 53

comments 2:18

3:4,14,17

5:21 7:6 27:9

27:22,25

28:6,16,19

29:4 36:1

40:9 42:4

commercial

44:8

Commission

4:4 46:11

community

4:15 5:20

48:15 49:5

companies

37:16 48:18

compare 9:7

compared 20:9

20:14

completed 6:4

completing 6:8

comprehensi...

14:12

concentrated

24:19

concept 47:16

concerned

50:11

concerns 47:21

concise 46:6

concludes

46:22

conditions

19:11 20:10

20:14 24:22

congestion

8:15 23:1,4

30:18

Congress 50:3

connecting

17:10 48:5

connection

13:14,15

connectivity

8:2

CONNECTOR

1:1

connects 3:21

consent 6:1

consider 38:16

38:21

consideration

7:3

considerations

13:25

considered

17:6 19:12

22:6 23:1

47:23

consistent 12:7

12:9,13

14:11

construct

20:25 21:10

26:1

construction

5:4,7,11 6:7

18:3 22:10

22:15 23:21

45:4 48:3,4

consultant

24:6

contaminated

23:19

contamination

23:18

continue 5:3

11:2 25:23

32:16 49:17

continues 5:17

control 15:22

26:9 34:20

51:9

conversation

2:20

conversion

12:10 14:3

converts 13:4

CORKLE 2:1

29:15 32:20

32:24 33:3

34:3 35:17

40:2 42:19

corner 44:12

corporations

50:1

Corps 14:23,25

26:4

correct 35:22

51:8

correctly 3:6

correspond 3:2

corridor 18:17

cost 30:17

36:14 37:4,7

47:13 48:24

50:14

costs 47:23

48:8

council 33:12

49:24

country 29:20

30:1

county 4:2,3,18

11:5 14:12

15:9,16,16,17

15:18 17:20

17:21 18:11

18:20 21:14

22:22 26:17

37:13,18

43:23 46:3

48:1,6 51:2,6

couple 3:16

10:21 11:4

15:8 16:15

27:1 41:18

course 4:10

5:12

court 3:3,13

27:24 43:1

courts 30:6

covered 40:8

create 22:1

created 12:17

creating 17:11

creation 19:4

Creek 15:15

creeks 14:21

26:13

crews 40:18,22

crossing 10:23

11:13 12:11

12:12 13:5,5

13:6,9 22:2,4

38:6,22

39:11 41:5

42:10 44:6,8

44:13,17,22

44:25

crossings 7:19

8:22 10:1,12

19:5 22:7

41:6

culvert 15:14

culverts 26:14

cul-de-sac

10:24 18:10

cumbersome

48:22 49:25

50:2

cumulative

24:25

current 12:3,11

15:11 20:2

38:7 39:4

48:10,17

50:13,16

currently 4:25

14:7,18

50:16

customers

38:18 45:5

cut 41:2

D

Dakota 30:2

DANE 45:16

dangerous

38:5

date 49:22

David 40:6,7

day 23:3 51:4

51:10

dealing 50:2

decrease 27:18

decreased 47:8

defeated 31:5

defendants

30:7

Delano 41:7

delay 19:17

delays 7:18

8:20

demonstrate

19:6 20:5

Department

1:8 26:11

depth 36:6

design 5:1,3,8

5:10

design/build

5:9 6:6

determine 24:7

determined

20:18

detour 17:25

develop 6:17

development

4:4 8:24

14:13 25:4

50:12

dialog 43:5

dialogue 28:16

29:2 32:21

33:5

dictate 49:25

difference

13:13 36:24

differences

20:6

different 3:16

6:20 8:16

12:7 20:6

23:12 26:20

30:3 43:16

difficult 50:2

direct 36:10,17

direction 11:25

51:9

directly 25:1

39:2,7 49:15

discussion

45:18

disproportio...

24:14

dissecting

50:12

distance 20:4,8

20:12 38:10

45:23

disturbed 16:8

disturbing

17:22

disturbs 13:21

ditch 15:16,16

15:17,21

45:9

ditches 14:21

14:24 25:17

26:17

divert 18:15

document 2:6

5:16,23 7:8

10:5 13:19

27:10,12

28:19 29:5

documented

3:5

doing 5:10

6:16 9:6

17:10,14

26:12 27:23

50:9

dollars 47:11

doubt 36:16

downtown

8:12,22 9:1

9:24 41:7

49:17

downturn 41:3

drainage 45:9

drained 16:8

drains 45:13

drive 29:20

45:6

driveway 45:10

45:11

driving 22:11

38:18

due 8:1 19:5

dumping 44:24

E

EA 5:15

earlier 24:1

26:6,25 48:3

early 5:4

easement 21:2

easements

21:10

easier 12:21

easily 12:22

east 9:20 15:18

18:13 39:3

44:18

east-west

10:20 11:6

economic 4:4

8:23 14:13

19:16 25:7

39:12

effect 17:16

efficiency 7:14

eight 40:3,4

either 11:24

14:8,17,20

16:8 21:5

elements 2:11

elevation 17:13

23:15

Elevator 37:12

eligible 17:7

eliminate

39:10 49:11

emergency

45:20,23

employees

38:18

encourage

38:20 46:12

ended 10:13

11:16

enforce 35:15

engagement

4:10 5:11

engine 8:7

Engineers

14:23 26:4

enhance 8:17

9:1 25:7

enter 37:20

41:13

environmental

2:6 5:1,2,16

6:12,19 7:8

10:5 24:11

24:17 27:10

27:12 29:5

35:22

equipment

37:25

Errol 35:19,19

especially

23:16

essentially

14:25 17:10

25:4

estimate 32:13

37:19

evaluate 6:18

19:13

evasive 16:25

evening 2:1,14

29:18

events 4:17

5:14

eventual 25:9

everybody

3:11 27:17

28:23 30:21

31:9 34:2

everybody's

36:5

excuse 6:10

10:16 17:20

18:9 32:13

existing 9:21

11:14,20

13:15 17:11

18:16 19:11

20:10,14

21:15 24:20

32:1 39:3

exists 13:15

exiting 38:11

expansion

47:19

expected 25:2

expenses 41:2

expensive

31:13 47:13

expert 30:4

explain 6:14

Page B-90
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 54

39:9

exposure 43:10

express 38:1

extend 26:13

48:2

extensions

15:15

extra 13:8

40:24

extremely

44:20

e-mail 28:13

F

facilitate 7:15

facilitating

7:25

facility 37:21

38:12

factors 19:12

fair 4:19

fairly 2:14

fall 6:9 15:4

far 27:14 38:5

44:23

Farm 37:12

farmed 14:8

Farmers 4:18

farmland 25:10

36:25

Farms 37:18

faster 25:6

fax 28:13

Fe 4:8

fear 34:18

feasible 21:23

22:6

February 1:4

51:4

fed 44:12

federal 2:7,8

4:4,6,13 7:10

16:13 19:2,3

20:17,17

26:2,3,6 30:5

feed 37:15,24

feet 10:14

fewer 18:23

fill 27:3

filled 25:15

filtration 15:20

finalize 7:3

finally 38:25

42:13

financial 48:7

find 23:20

47:12

fine 35:6,7,8

first 35:21

40:10

fish 16:6

five 27:14,15

32:18 35:18

40:4

flight 9:17

floodplain 15:6

flows 8:17 15:2

fluctuations

8:14

focus 4:16 27:9

folks 27:1,16

27:19 28:11

42:20

follow 11:25

22:13 23:22

24:8 29:7

foregoing 51:7

form 36:1

formal 29:6

formalized

6:13

formally 7:5

format 2:19

former 14:4

46:10

forward 9:8

39:24 46:25

49:1,2

found 16:18

20:20 21:22

24:4

four 14:22 15:3

35:17 39:13

39:16 41:17

47:12

freight 7:16

freight/rail

8:14

front 3:10,11

27:22,23

28:1,24,25

43:13

frontage 19:9

Fry 29:11,17,18

29:18 32:3

32:22 33:2,4

33:16

fully 38:10

funding 2:9

4:13

funds 50:14,18

further 9:12

39:5,22 48:5

48:23 50:18

Furthermore

49:6

future 14:13

31:17 47:19

49:9,22

50:14,19

G

G 1:25 51:3

gates 13:7

general 2:21

23:4 37:11

getting 4:12

19:18 38:9

47:2

give 2:5,22

3:14,15

26:25 27:7

27:19,25

29:21 34:4

36:3 42:22

49:11

given 7:6 36:6

giving 41:4

50:17

go 2:7,16,18

6:14 8:6,9,11

9:25 14:5

28:14 29:15

30:10 31:4

34:22 35:3

39:6,7 40:10

41:12 43:25

goals 30:19

goes 42:10

45:10

going 2:5,9,13

5:3,5,8,9,25

7:4,11 8:13

9:25 11:1

15:6 17:23

18:9 21:9,16

23:5,14,16

30:17,18

31:4,15,16

32:19 34:15

34:23,24,25

36:3,8,12

43:12,13,16

43:19 44:7,8

45:3,4,6,7,12

46:3 47:2

49:1,2,15

good 2:1 16:2

16:3 29:17

31:20 35:9

44:17

grab 3:9 40:3

42:22

grabbing 3:1

grade 17:11

31:16 42:5

graded 31:18

grader 44:2,3

grade-separ...

11:13

grading 22:12

grain 37:24

Granite 41:19

grants 30:12

grasses 16:23

grew 30:1

group 3:10,12

3:15 27:23

28:1,4,24,25

43:4

groups 4:16,17

growth 14:13

17:1

guaranteed

49:10

guess 36:2

40:9 45:15

guys 32:10

H

habitat 16:11

16:16,19

half 20:7,9

HAND 51:10

hangar 25:19

happen 25:21

40:17

happy 28:20

33:25

hard 50:7

hard-surfaced

14:18

haul 37:24

Hawk 15:15

head 37:21

hear 31:15

45:18

hearing 1:2

2:16 4:23

5:24 26:24

28:15,15,17

29:3 42:25

50:21 51:4

hearts 50:7

height 14:1

39:18,19

heights 26:8

held 4:16

help 8:13,23

16:25 25:8

43:25

Hennepin 51:2

51:6

high 12:25

48:11,14

higher 15:1

39:19

highering

17:14

highest 48:12

highway 2:4

4:5 9:13 10:7

10:8,10,13,15

10:16,20,20

10:24 11:2,5

11:22,24

12:2,4,4,19

12:20,21,22

12:24 15:9

15:18 17:20

17:21,23

18:6,7,11,15

18:20 19:2

20:2,17

21:14,14,23

22:20,22

23:4,12

24:20,21

26:2 31:8

38:3,9,24

39:4,6 41:14

41:16 43:9

43:16,17

48:6,9,19,22

50:13,16

highways

15:25

hill 43:11

historic 17:3,6

17:8,15

25:18

hold 46:19

homes 21:13

21:15,16

24:5

hope 35:13

horn 21:25

44:9

horns 22:2

hot 23:2

hour 37:23

38:8

hourly 43:20

hours 37:23

38:8

house 2:15,19

4:14 28:3,21

huge 45:7

Huseby 33:13

33:15,16

I

idea 8:10 25:6

identified

23:20

identify 6:21

immediate

13:24 16:14

immediately

11:18 31:14

impact 7:1

16:17 17:24

22:24 24:14

45:3,7,19,22

46:2 48:14

impacted 11:14

14:20 15:6

15:19

impacts 2:12

6:19,21

13:17 15:14

19:17 20:21

20:23,24

23:10 24:23

24:25 25:16

26:5 46:4

impervious

14:16

important

45:24

improve 7:14

7:21 8:18

24:21 50:19

improved

18:21

improvement

50:15

improvements

17:9

inception 39:1

include 12:10

13:2 38:13

48:4

included 10:4

13:20 37:5

48:7 49:7

income 24:12

increase 22:5

23:9

indicate 24:17

indicated 17:15

Indirect 24:25

individuals

24:15

industrial 1:1

3:19,23 7:20

8:24 14:14

25:5,8 47:14

47:20

industry 47:5

information

33:21 36:22

infrastructure

48:17

ingredients

37:24

input 50:6

install 49:21

installed 47:1

instructions

2:23

interchange

12:18,18

interest 11:7

interesting

2:10

intersection

11:8 17:22

20:15 21:13

21:16 22:22

23:2 43:18

44:19 48:6

intersections

18:24 45:21

interviews

4:19

investment

46:18

invite 27:23

involved 4:6

38:21

issue 42:18

49:1

issues 19:19

Page B-91
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 55

J

Jack 2:1 29:11

29:15 32:20

32:24 33:3

34:3 35:17

40:2 42:19

John 33:12

joining 2:2

jurisdictional

14:24 19:19

justice 24:11

24:17 35:23

K

KALLEVIG

45:16

Kandiyohi 4:2

4:3 26:16

keeping 30:19

kept 10:8

48:10

Kerkhoven

30:23

key 5:2

killed 44:19

kind 5:2 12:1

25:3 36:15

43:11

kinds 44:9

know 29:5,12

30:13,22

31:22 33:20

35:24 36:13

36:24 41:23

42:14,16

43:20,22

47:4

known 15:16

23:19 37:13

Kurt 37:9,9

L

lack 8:1

land 13:20,22

14:3,5,7,17

20:25 21:8

36:21 37:4

45:12 50:13

landing 13:24

landowners

36:21

lands 16:13

lanes 41:15,17

41:21

large 38:15

45:5

Larry 34:9,10

Larson 46:8,8

LAUMER 46:24

lay 45:12

lead 24:3

leave 28:10

37:21 38:4

left 12:16

16:11

legitimacy

39:20

letting 6:5

let's 25:20 32:9

life 7:21 9:2

lighting 48:19

48:20

limited 22:15

line 8:4,5 17:11

17:18 34:15

49:16

lines 46:13

listing 17:7

little 2:22 15:1

25:5 29:21

39:24

live 29:19 34:9

35:20 37:10

40:7

lived 30:2

living 22:21

loaded 38:11

local 18:17

22:13 40:15

location 12:3

48:10

locations 19:18

Logistics 37:17

long 36:14 44:4

46:15

longer 12:3

45:23

long-term

47:17 50:9

50:15

look 9:4 11:12

41:16 44:21

looked 9:4,6,11

9:20 10:7,15

10:19,22

11:4,7,10,11

19:15,15,16

19:21 21:19

41:24 47:7

looking 26:7

36:10 44:21

loop 9:20

loss 45:5

lot 16:10 34:17

34:19 35:1,9

35:13

low 24:12

lowering 17:14

M

mail 28:12,12

mailing 27:6

43:3

main 41:8

maintain 48:16

48:21 50:19

maintenance

50:15

major 5:14

22:24

majority 16:7

making 14:1

31:25

manager 37:11

map 37:14 39:9

maps 10:18

36:10

March 5:18,22

7:7 28:8

Market 4:18

Marshall 3:22

materials 24:7

matter 50:8

51:8

mean 30:16

35:3 40:11

41:9,15

meaning 15:1

means 6:1

measures 13:8

meet 15:22

30:21 34:14

meeting 28:3

28:22 33:11

meetings 4:14

4:20 30:15

meets 31:2

member 46:9

46:10

members

33:12

mention 45:17

45:25

mentioned

13:2 42:6

mercury 24:4

mic 29:16

microphone

3:12

middle 41:8

mile 20:8,12

miles 10:6,17

12:8,24 13:3

18:6 30:22

30:24

milestones

5:15

mill 37:15

million 31:6

mind 35:14

36:5

minimal 35:7

Minnesota 1:10

15:22 26:11

51:1,4,6

minority 24:12

minute 20:8

32:13

minutes 20:13

27:15,15,20

35:5,5

missed 7:1

mitigate 23:23

mitigated 15:7

mitigating 22:6

mitigation 6:21

16:22

MN 1:8

MnDOT 4:2

9:13 22:12

24:5 26:20

46:12

mobility 12:20

money 32:9,10

34:24 42:15

42:17

monitor 34:25

35:14

Morris 3:21 8:3

17:4 42:11

moved 8:7

29:24 41:19

movement

7:15

movements

40:15

moves 46:25

moving 35:6

39:24

municipal 6:1

N

name 27:8

29:18 33:9

33:13 35:19

37:9 40:6

43:3

names 3:5 27:5

national 8:17

17:7

native 16:12,23

natural 16:10

26:12

NE 29:20

near 15:9

18:22 22:22

25:5

need 2:17 6:15

7:2 21:9

23:22 25:15

26:1,14,15

31:10,13

32:11 36:20

38:23 39:10

50:1

needed 11:9

13:19 20:25

25:25 47:14

needs 7:23

30:10 39:24

43:22 46:15

47:6

neighbor 5:20

neighboring

38:14

neighbor's

45:10

network 8:18

never 31:19

43:24

new 8:10 9:16

10:6,15,16,17

10:23 12:8

12:12,24

13:3,14

14:14,16

15:21 17:12

17:22 18:7,8

18:12,15

19:4,9 20:1

20:18 22:1

23:13,14

27:1 38:24

newly 50:12

nice 32:4

night 22:15

33:11 44:9

nine 42:19

noise 21:19,21

21:21 22:1,5

22:5,6,9,13

22:19,20

24:21 44:9

49:9

north 18:19

22:21 24:19

43:8

northern 4:7

8:3 12:13,19

17:5,5 21:6

26:18 47:18

49:21

north-south

7:16 8:1

notary 51:5,13

note 19:7

22:18

noted 19:1

notes 51:8

noticed 23:16

41:17

number 3:8,24

4:9,13 6:18

7:17 9:4

13:19 23:9

25:24 27:4

29:9 34:4,6,8

35:17,18

36:9 39:14

39:14 40:2,3

40:3,4,14

42:19,20,22

47:4,8,9,12

47:25

numbers 3:2

38:13

numerous

38:23

NW 34:10

O

objects 9:17

Obviously

36:10

occur 22:10

23:15 25:2

25:23

occurred 25:23

occurring 5:12

Office 17:15

official 3:3

4:22 42:25

officially 3:5

27:6

Okay 29:5 34:8

42:21,24

43:4

old 9:13 25:19

older 24:5

once 28:20,23

one-on-one

4:20

one-way 31:7

open 2:15,19

4:14 16:1

18:2 28:3,21

operation 7:14

operations 8:1

8:18 18:22

30:5,8 31:23

opinion 38:2

opportunity

7:1

option 12:20

39:23 41:24

options 3:16

11:5 41:25

order 10:11

20:3 21:10

23:22 25:25

26:13

ordinances

22:14

original 40:25

originally

30:11 32:6

40:5 46:20

outlined 48:3

outside 3:15

16:14

Overall 4:24

overlap 5:7

overview 2:22

48:8

owned 21:5,8

owners 4:21

ownership

21:1

owns 42:16

P

packages 5:10

paid 37:7

Pals 37:16,16

Page B-92
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 56

park 1:2 3:23

7:20 8:25

14:14 25:5,8

31:2 40:20

47:14,20

parking 31:6

34:17,19

35:1,9,13

parks 17:3

part 2:6 5:2,5,6

9:3 13:22

15:25 16:21

16:23 21:19

24:24 26:22

28:17 38:15

41:11 49:11

particular 6:22

48:24

parties 38:20

partner 21:5

partners 6:4

path 9:17

13:24

Paul 28:10

pay 35:6

pedestrians

8:21

people 2:24

18:1 19:18

27:13 30:13

33:1,23 44:1

45:20 47:5

50:3

percent 32:15

32:16,17,18

period 5:17

permanent

21:2

permits 25:24

26:14

person 29:8

44:19

Peterson 40:6

40:7

phenomenal

31:12

pile 22:11

place 47:2 50:8

placed 39:1,4

places 17:8

30:21 31:17

plaintiffs 30:7

plan 35:14

39:10,13

43:7

planned 42:9

planning 46:11

47:17

plans 14:12

please 27:7

plowed 43:19

43:22,23

podium 3:12

point 23:5

48:12

police 35:15

politically

35:22

Pollution 15:22

26:9

ponds 15:24

16:5

populations

24:12,18,19

24:24 35:23

popup 4:17

portion 6:9,11

17:5 28:21

42:25

position 50:17

possible 22:17

48:2

potentially

16:19

Poultry 37:18

prairie 16:12

16:23 17:1

preceding 51:3

prefer 49:2

preferred

41:24

preliminary

4:25

presentation

2:5 45:17

presentations

4:15,20

presented

19:25 27:11

Preservation

17:15

pretty 40:8

45:14

prevent 8:11

previous 41:25

49:23

previously

16:8

primary 13:13

48:25 49:1

prior 4:12,12

private 12:11

13:4 22:2

36:21 37:4

privately 21:8

probably 11:7

32:17 42:8

procedures

23:21 24:9

process 2:7 5:3

6:6,6,13,13

7:12 9:3

14:10 19:13

29:6 34:24

34:25

project 1:2 2:3

2:4,8,11,13

3:20,21 4:1

4:11,12 5:6,8

5:13 6:2,10

6:11,15 7:12

7:13,24 9:7

13:21 14:6,9

15:23 16:14

16:17,21

17:17 18:1

21:1 22:23

24:18,24

25:2,6,22

26:1,22

28:19 29:4

30:10 31:11

31:12,20

34:5 39:1,24

45:19 46:5

46:13,14,18

46:21,25

47:9 49:3,11

49:13

projected 37:4

projects 21:11

project's 4:24

promote 8:23

25:8

pronounce

33:14

propane 37:17

37:25

properly 45:13

properties

11:15,17

15:9 24:6

26:20

property 4:21

46:1,2,5

proposal 32:6

38:7 40:25

44:24

proposals 37:5

proposed 9:13

14:9 19:7

30:13 32:6

46:21

proposing 6:17

44:7,11

protection

13:23

provide 5:21

7:19 11:21

22:20 27:21

28:5 39:13

provided 12:20

13:14 18:18

36:22

provides 3:22

20:19

proximity 16:1

public 1:2 2:16

4:9,23 5:11

5:17,24 6:24

12:11 13:5,5

15:2 22:3

26:24 28:14

28:15,17

29:3 34:7

42:22,25

46:18 50:21

51:3,6,13

publicly 3:8

pulling 38:3

42:1

purchase 36:20

purpose 6:14

7:12,13,24

29:3

put 10:10 11:1

11:12 17:22

29:12 33:9

34:12 36:4

41:6,6 48:18

49:16

putting 8:10

31:7 35:8

42:9 44:12

p.m 1:6 28:9

50:22

Q

quadrant 12:17

12:18

quality 7:21

9:1 22:23,25

23:6

question 31:22

32:12 36:2,4

36:4 37:3

questions 2:20

28:18 29:2

31:21 32:23

33:5,7,24

quick 11:12

26:25

quickly 2:14

quiet 46:25

R

RAASCH 43:7

radio 4:19

rail 1:1 7:14,16

7:20 8:4,5

9:21,22

17:17 46:13

46:16 49:6

railroad 4:6

7:25 8:18

10:11 12:11

18:13 19:3,5

20:18 26:3

29:22 30:3,4

30:6,7 31:23

32:7 33:23

34:19 38:6

39:16 40:13

41:2,9 42:4,9

42:17 48:1

49:25

railway 3:21

4:8 6:11 8:10

8:16 9:5,10

10:12,24

11:2,16 12:4

12:8 13:4,4

14:8,10 17:5

17:13 23:14

25:9

Rasmussen

28:10

realigned

21:25

realigning 18:6

realignment

12:6 13:2

21:23 22:19

24:20

really 3:20

7:25 11:14

24:23 28:18

34:13 35:15

42:17

reason 5:6

15:25

reasonable

20:19 21:22

reasons 19:5

recognize

30:14

recommend

39:22

recommended

9:7 11:20

13:11,18

19:8

record 27:8

29:4 34:7

recorded 27:6

recreational

17:19,24

reduce 7:17

8:13,19,25

reestablishm...

16:24

regard 14:12

regarding 47:6

regional 7:25

Register 17:7

registration

27:4

regular 15:2

28:12

regulated

23:19 24:2

regulations

24:9

rejected 9:15

10:2,25

related 27:9

relocated

21:17

relocation

23:24 47:25

remain 11:9

remaining 21:7

remnants

16:13

removal 21:12

23:24 24:2

25:19

remove 23:23

removed 25:11

removing 41:4

repeat 49:7

replacements

15:14

reported 51:3

reporter 3:3,14

27:24 43:1

require 12:5

24:2 36:19

required 2:7

19:6 22:13

26:18

requirements

15:23

requiring 11:16

21:12

rerouting

36:19 48:22

research 39:23

39:25

residential

24:1

residents

22:21 24:22

47:18 49:9

resistance 41:4

41:10

resource 15:13

17:25

resources

14:15,19

16:7 17:2,3,3

25:17 26:12

respond 7:5

rest 28:3 43:4

44:10

result 6:22

8:15 14:6

18:21 25:21

resulted 12:24

retaining 12:5

13:1 36:15

48:11,13

retired 29:23

29:23

revert 28:2,20

28:25

review 5:1,3

6:12,25

rid 10:12 12:25

24:10

right 5:15 8:2

8:20 11:15

16:16 22:1

31:17 32:9

Page B-93
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 57

40:21,23

41:7 45:1

46:7 49:19

50:5,8,9

right-of-way

9:14 20:23

20:24 21:3

26:21 36:20

road 1:9 15:10

18:12 19:9

20:18 37:13

37:19 43:19

43:22 44:2,3

48:1,6

roads 44:4

45:6

roadway 2:4

3:20 6:9 9:5

10:18 14:8

18:4 21:20

road's 44:12,16

room 27:2

route 36:17

41:12

ruin 43:11,12

rules 23:21

rumor 31:15

run 34:21

runoff 15:22

26:11

runs 10:20

runway 13:23

13:24

S

safety 13:8

18:22 19:5

19:15,20

20:21 38:2

38:21,22

39:14

Santa 4:8

saw 40:3

saying 36:13

says 42:4

schedule 4:25

Schimek 37:9

37:10

scrapped 47:10

SE 35:20 37:10

46:9

SEAL 51:10

sealed 15:8,12

second 34:12

49:6,16,22

Section 17:2,2

see 10:3 15:24

16:4 25:20

32:14 35:4

44:14,17

46:4 47:9

49:19

seen 43:14

sees 34:20

selling 43:12

semis 38:15,23

send 28:9

sense 39:12

service 37:12

45:20,23

seven 40:2

severe 48:15

shed 23:11

sheet 2:24 43:2

shifted 18:17

short 2:5 29:19

38:9,10

40:18,22

shown 10:18

14:10

shows 44:24

side 29:1 39:2

43:8

siding 41:8

sign 29:16 43:3

43:13

signal 42:10

signed 27:14

42:21

significant

19:10,10

20:5 23:9

36:14,19

46:17

signoff 7:10

signup 43:2

sign-in 2:24

similar 7:24

13:12 19:20

simpler 12:25

sit 34:18 40:21

site 14:4 16:18

24:8 38:4,5

sites 23:19

sitting 35:12

situation 50:5

skip 34:5

slide 28:11

29:13

slowing 42:2

small 38:16

soils 23:23

somebody 5:20

35:13 40:3

42:6

Something's

35:11

somewhat 50:1

sort 2:21

sound 22:3

Sounds 35:23

south 18:21

20:11 30:2

30:23 37:22

39:8 48:5,23

50:13

southeast

44:22

southern 8:5

speak 27:7,15

27:17 28:1

28:25 29:9

speaker 31:24

33:15 34:3,6

41:25

speaking 3:10

3:11 28:24

29:14

species 16:25

spend 32:8,9

42:15,18

spent 31:6

spoke 33:20

47:6

spot 23:2 31:7

spreading

16:25

spring 6:3,8

41:19

stacking 8:15

standoff 31:1

start 2:16 6:5

starting 5:4

6:8

state 17:14

30:6 33:7

40:16 48:5

48:18 51:1,6

statement

32:25 33:1

46:22

States 15:3

statute 22:13

stays 12:2

stenographic

51:8

STEVE 47:15

stop 33:18

stopped 33:22

storm 15:21

26:10

stranded 44:1

street 12:6,12

13:3 18:19

20:15 22:1

34:10 37:10

46:9 48:19

strong 38:2

41:10

strongly 38:20

46:11

structures 24:1

26:8

studied 21:20

study 21:20

24:16

stuff 2:10

36:16

Sub 17:4

Subdivision

8:3 17:4

42:11,12

subdivisions

3:22 8:16

submit 3:16

28:9

submitted 28:7

28:8

sub-options

19:21

successful

46:14

summer 6:5

support 16:20

19:4 46:12

47:16 49:13

supposed

32:21

sure 3:4 14:1

16:24 24:13

27:5,17 34:1

35:1,12

surface 14:17

Svea 40:8

synopsis 27:1

T

table 29:1

take 7:2 43:15

43:24 44:4

Taken 1:4,8,25

takes 44:4

talk 2:9,12,24

2:25 3:7,13

5:19 27:20

27:24 28:20

43:1

talked 23:25

26:5 44:23

talking 34:11

35:25 41:13

targeted 4:17

tax 46:3

taxpayer 50:18

taxpayers 37:7

39:12,15

47:24 49:12

49:14

taxpaying

47:10

tearing 48:21

tell 31:17 44:15

temporarily

25:12

temporary

17:24 21:10

ten 37:22 38:2

38:8

term 35:22

46:15

terminal 7:15

8:6,19 18:23

terms 4:24

7:23 8:24

9:10 13:17

13:25 14:3

14:15 16:6

16:22 18:4

19:17 20:20

20:23 22:18

22:24 23:1,6

23:10,18

26:8,10,19,20

27:13

testified 30:5

thank 2:2 3:17

3:18 29:8,10

35:16 37:8

40:1 43:6

46:23 50:20

Thanks 34:2

they'd 27:20

thing 22:9,18

30:16 45:25

50:9

things 24:3

25:1,21

think 11:6 23:7

26:24 27:13

27:14 42:12

42:16,17

48:14

three 15:5

21:15 32:2,3

34:8 36:7

39:15 47:8

THURSDAY 1:4

time 19:16

20:4,4,9,13

20:20 25:3

27:18 36:7

38:10 40:18

40:22 44:5

47:1 48:24

timing 25:4

today 10:9

11:23 13:16

23:12

told 36:2

ton 22:25

tonight 2:2,25

2:25 3:7,17

3:18 4:22 5:1

5:19,25 10:4

11:7 19:25

28:7,11,15

top 39:2

tore 45:6

torn 21:17

total 32:2

town 8:9 35:3

41:19

township 43:19

43:24

toy 42:16

track 9:20 10:6

30:17,20

31:3 32:14

33:19,22

34:12,12

40:24 41:8

43:9 49:22

tracks 17:13

18:14 30:12

30:16 31:10

31:13,14,18

31:25 32:1,2

32:4,5,7,10

32:17 35:4

46:15,20

47:6

traffic 7:18

8:14 12:21

18:16,22

21:21 34:21

42:2,14 49:4

49:9,10,17

trail 17:19 18:2

train 7:17 8:2,8

8:17 21:21

21:25 31:1,3

31:4 34:17

34:20 35:2,6

35:8,9,12

39:6,19

40:19

trains 8:11,25

9:21,23

18:23 30:19

32:15,18

33:18,21

34:14 35:4

39:7 40:15

40:23 42:7

47:9

transcribed

51:9

transcript 51:7

51:8

transition

26:23

translates

37:22

Transportation

1:8,9

travel 19:16

20:4,9,13,20

traveling 29:25

30:3

treat 26:10

tributary 15:18

tried 44:14

trips 7:18

trucks 37:20,22

37:23 38:2,8

38:17 42:1

true 51:8

Trunk 21:13

trust 32:4

try 2:13 22:14

27:19

trying 31:8

Tuesday 33:11

turf 16:23

Page B-94
Willmar Wye Rail Connector and Industrial Park Access Project Public Hearing - 2/23/2017

612.338.3376

Benchmark Reporting Agency

Page 58

turn 8:6 9:23

31:9 43:18

turning 39:8

41:15,21

turns 11:6

twice 33:18

two 10:15

21:13,17

23:25 24:1

30:12,16

31:10,13,14

31:25,25

32:5,7,10,16

34:4,6,14

39:14 46:13

46:15,20

47:4,6

types 17:9

22:16

U

uncomfortable

3:9 27:22

underneath

39:6

understand

34:11 49:23

understanding

24:13

UNIDENTIFI...

31:24 33:15

unintelligible

35:24

United 15:3

unnamed

15:17

unsafe 44:20

Upcoming 5:14

use 13:20 16:9

16:9 18:1

20:2 21:25

25:11,13

32:18 35:21

usually 44:2

utility 48:18

V

value 15:1

values 46:2,5

vehicles 23:3

38:17

versus 13:15

35:6 38:22

48:21

viability 25:7

viable 9:19

vibrations

21:21

view 23:11

visual 23:10

W

wait 8:21,21

wall 36:15

48:11

walls 10:10

12:5 13:1

want 2:25 3:7

5:18,19,21

8:4 27:16

30:4,9 32:8

33:14,19

36:4 39:8

40:4 41:13

42:18 45:25

47:15,22

wanted 2:24

34:4 42:15

45:16

wants 28:24

42:22

waste 23:19

24:3 34:23

water 14:15,19

15:3,13,21

16:2 26:10

waterfowl 16:2

16:3

Watertown

42:11

way 30:11

31:19 34:22

44:25 45:2

47:13 49:3

weigh 38:21

wells 15:8,11

went 12:1

19:13 26:24

west 9:12

18:11 30:24

34:15 37:21

39:2,5 44:14

44:18,21

wet 15:24

wetland 14:25

15:2 26:5

wetlands 14:20

14:24 25:14

we'll 2:16

18:23 26:14

27:19 31:6

31:16 32:14

42:5

we're 2:7 8:4

11:1 13:10

13:23 14:1,1

14:3 17:10

17:10,12

21:8 31:15

42:20 47:2

50:5

we've 2:15 3:4

4:20 5:24

19:1

wildlife 16:6,13

William 29:11

29:17,18

32:3,22 33:2

33:4,16

Williamson

1:25 51:3

willing 29:9

31:22

Willmar 1:1,10

2:3 3:19 4:2

4:3 6:1 7:15

7:17,19,20,22

8:19 18:23

21:7 23:8

26:16 29:19

29:24 30:19

31:5 32:16

32:19 34:22

35:21 37:17

37:17 39:16

40:23 46:9

46:11 47:19

48:5 49:8,13

49:15,20

51:4

Willmar's 3:23

win 39:14,15

wins 39:13

wish 50:4

WITNESS

51:10

words 6:16

work 10:11

22:12 26:12

31:10,11

38:15 40:20

45:5 47:2

50:7

worked 29:22

37:11 40:13

working 3:25

24:5 26:16

26:21

would've 11:16

written 28:6

30:11

wrong 33:14

33:20

Wye 1:1 2:3

3:19 39:1

Y

yard 9:21,22

23:8

yardmaster

40:14

year 4:11 6:7

37:20

years 29:23

37:12 40:14

41:7,18 44:1

49:24

Yup 34:8

Z

zone 9:17

45:22 46:25

48:4

zones 13:23

$

$40 31:6

1

1 12:1

1st 11:5,21,23

11:25 12:16

13:13 18:7,8

18:10,12

19:1,14 20:1

20:10,15,22

37:13,19

38:14

1.6 20:13

10 15:16 42:20

11 14:19,22

15:4

118 21:4

12 10:7,9,10,13

10:16,16

11:22,24

12:2,4,20,21

12:24 15:17

17:23 18:6

18:15,20

20:2 21:24

22:20,22

23:4,13

24:20,21

31:8 38:3,9

38:24 39:4,6

41:14 43:10

43:15,17

48:9,19,22

50:13,16

120 21:4

127th 40:7

13 30:2

140 13:21

15 35:5

15th 35:20

1504 29:19

1660 37:10

175 21:8 36:23

37:1

18 44:1

1800 40:7

19 21:9

19th 20:11

1973 30:1

2

2A 12:15 13:13

19:22 36:18

37:6

2B 13:10 19:23

36:19 37:6

2C 19:24

2.5 10:17 12:23

18:6

2.8 10:6 12:8

13:3

2/23/17 1:25

20 30:22,24

35:5 37:12

20,000 37:20

2006 29:24

2017 1:4 51:4

51:11

2018 5:5 6:8

2019 5:4

2020 5:5 6:9

219 46:9

23 1:4 41:16,20

41:20 48:6

23rd 51:4

24-hour 43:21

25 32:14

2505 1:9

2510 34:9

290 21:3

3

30 10:14 14:16

30th 34:10

30-foot 12:5

48:11

3201 35:20

36th 37:10

3939 37:13

4

4F 17:2,2

4:00 28:9

40 10:20,20,25

11:2 15:9

21:14

41-plus 29:23

45th 12:6,12

13:3 18:18

20:15 21:25

43:8,17,25

44:1

46 15:17

5

5 17:21 22:22

5:30 1:6 2:16

55 11:6 12:19

12:22 15:10

15:18 17:20

18:11,20

20:11 21:14

37:13,19,22

38:14 39:2,3

39:7 48:1,6

56201 1:10

6

6:00 2:17

6:55 50:22

60 23:2

7

75 32:15

8

8th 5:18,22 7:7

28:8

80,000 23:3

9

90 14:7

911 45:18,23

95 32:17

Page B-95
Appendix C

APPENDIX C – Updated EA/EAW Figures

Figure 22 – Recommended Alternative

Figure 26 – Other Nearby Projects

Figure 31 – Proposed Floodplain Impacts and Crossings

Figure 32 – Soil Survey of Kandiyohi County

Figure 34 – Project Area Wells

Figure 35 – Stormwater Treatment

Figure 36 – Wetland Delineation Map

Figure 38 – Wildlife Habitat

Figure 39 – Census Blocks with Minority Populations

Figure 40 – Census Block Groups with Low-Income Populations

Figure 41 – Total Parcel Acquisitions

Figure 42 – Right of Way Impacts

Figure 43 – Highway Traffic Sound Receptors

Figure 46 – Section 4(f) Resources
1:20

1:20

SCALE IN FEET

0 1000 2000

FIGURE 22d

SEE FIGURE 22e

SEE 

FIGURE 22f

SEE 

FIGURE 22b

SEE 

FIGURE 22a

SEE 

12

 

40 

 MINNESOTA

12

 

40 

 MINNESOTA

FIGURE 22c

SEE

Willmar, MN

Figure 22 : Recommended Alternative Overview

S.P. 3403-74

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

45TH ST NW

45TH ST

1ST AVE

BNSF MORRIS SUBDIVISION

CSAH 55 / 1ST AVE

COUNTY

 55

COUNTY

 55

COUNTY

 5

COUNTY

 5
BNSF M ARSHALL SUBDIVISION

COUNTY

 55

MAINLINE CONNECTION

FUTURE SIDING

CULVERT

DITCH 46

RAILWAY

DITCH 46

COUNTY

 15

SCALE IN FEET

0 250 500

Willmar, MN

Figure 22a : Recommended Alternative

S.P. 3403-74

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

SEEFIGURE22b

LEGEND

 

ROADWAY

ROADWAY BRIDGE

REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT

AGGREGATE ROAD

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE

RAILWAY FILTRATION PONDS

INFILTRATION BASIN

ROADWAY DRY POND / 

PAVED SHOULDER / DRIVEWAY

AT GRADE RAILROAD INTERSECTION

MILL & OVERLAY
COUNTY

 55

HAW K

CREEK

INDUSTRIAL SPUR TURNOUT

MAINLINE CONNECTION

FUTURE SIDING

 

40 

 MINNESOTA

REPLACEMENT

BOX CULVERT

 

40 

 MINNESOTA

SCALE IN FEET

0 250 500

Willmar, MN

Figure 22b : Recommended Alternative

S.P. 3403-74

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

SEE FIGURE 22a

SEE FIGURE 22d

COUNTY

 55

LEGEND

 

ROADWAY

ROADWAY BRIDGE

REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT

AGGREGATE ROAD

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE

RAILWAY FILTRATION PONDS

INFILTRATION BASIN

ROADWAY DRY POND / 

PAVED SHOULDER / DRIVEWAY

AT GRADE RAILROAD INTERSECTION

MILL & OVERLAY
1:20

1:20

7TH AVE NW

12

2 EXTENSION

END MORRIS MAIN 

OFF MORRIS MAIN 2

MAIN LINE TURNOUT 

BNSFMORRIS SUBDIVISION

12

45TH ST.NW (TOWNSHIP)

45TH

ST

N

W

1STAVEW

1STAVEW

45TH

S

T

N

W

CULVERT

ROADWAY

CULVERT

ROADWAY

RR CROSSING

AT GRADE 

SCALE IN FEET

0 250 500

Willmar, MN

Figure 22c : Recommended Alternative

S.P. 3403-74

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

SEE

FIG

U

RE

22d

LEGEND

 

ROADWAY

ROADWAY BRIDGE

REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT

AGGREGATE ROAD

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE

RAILWAY FILTRATION PONDS

INFILTRATION BASIN

ROADWAY DRY POND / 

PAVED SHOULDER / DRIVEWAY

AT GRADE RAILROAD INTERSECTION

MILL & OVERLAY
1:20

TH 12(EXISTING)

BNSFMORRIS SUBDIVISION

HAWK CREEK

2 EXTENSION

BEGIN MORRIS MAIN 

OFF MORRIS MAIN 2

MAIN LINE TURNOUT 

MAINLINE CONNECTION

FUTURE SIDING

12 12

45TH

ST

N

W

1STAVEW

CULVERT

ROADWAY

CULVERT

RAILWAY

ROAD

BNSF ACCESS

CULVERT

RAILWAY

SCALE IN FEET

0 250 500

Willmar, MN

Figure 22d : Recommended Alternative

S.P. 3403-74

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

SEE

FIG

U

RE

22c

SEE

FIG

U

RE

22e

SEE FIGURE 22b

COUNTY

 55

 

LEGEND

 

ROADWAY

ROADWAY BRIDGE

REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT

AGGREGATE ROAD

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE

RAILWAY FILTRATION PONDS

INFILTRATION BASIN

ROADWAY DRY POND / 

PAVED SHOULDER / DRIVEWAY

AT GRADE RAILROAD INTERSECTION

MILL & OVERLAY
TH 12(EXISTING)

HAWK CREEK

BNSFMORRIS SUBDIVISION

1STAVEW

HAWK CREEK

2 EXTENSION

BEGIN MORRIS MAIN 

MAINLINE CONNECTION

FUTURE SIDING

12

12

CULVERT

RAILWAY

ROAD

BNSF ACCESS

SCALE IN FEET

0 250 500

Willmar, MN

Figure 22e : Recommended Alternative

S.P. 3403-74

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

SEE

FIG

U

RE

22d

SEE

FIG

U

RE

22f

LEGEND

 

ROADWAY

ROADWAY BRIDGE

REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT

AGGREGATE ROAD

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE

RAILWAY FILTRATION PONDS

INFILTRATION BASIN

ROADWAY DRY POND / 

PAVED SHOULDER / DRIVEWAY

AT GRADE RAILROAD INTERSECTION

MILL & OVERLAY
COUNTY

 5

HAWK CREEK

1STAVEW

TH 12(EXISTING)

12

BNSFMORRIS SUBDIVISION

CULVERT

HIGHWAY

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

REMOVE EXISITNG

12

SIGNAL

TRAFFIC

SCALE IN FEET

0 250 500

Willmar, MN

Figure 22f : Recommended Alternative

S.P. 3403-74

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

SEE

FIG

U

RE

22e

LEGEND

 

ROADWAY

ROADWAY BRIDGE

REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT

AGGREGATE ROAD

RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE

RAILWAY FILTRATION PONDS

INFILTRATION BASIN

ROADWAY DRY POND / 

PAVED SHOULDER / DRIVEWAY

AT GRADE RAILROAD INTERSECTION

MILL & OVERLAY
GÁWX

?ËA@

?1⁄4A@

GÁWX

)n

)n

?ËA@

Willmar Municipal Airport

John L Rice Field

City of Willmar

Willmar Township

Foot

Lake

Hawk Creek

Z

GoWX

BNSF Marshall Subdivision

BNSF Morris Subdivision

GdWX Airport Dr SW

Gorton Ave NW

1st Ave W

4th Ave SW

Willmar Ave SW

4th Ave SW

45th St NW

Industrial Dr SW

30th St SW 30th St SW CSAH 5

60th St SW

30th Ave SW

30th St NW

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure26_OtherNearbyProjects.mxd

2018-2020 Willmar Wye Project

Railway Connection

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

2016-2017 Kandiyohi Co. Project

Road Improvement

New Bridge

Potential Kandiyohi Co. Project

Road Improvement

New Bridge

Existing Railroad Lines

City Boundary

0

Ü

2,500

Feet

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Park Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 26: Other Nearby Projects

Willmar, MN
GÁWX

?ËA@

?1⁄4A@

GÁWX

)n

City of Willmar

Willmar Township

Foot

Lake

Hawk Creek

Hawk Creek

Z

GoWX

BNSF Marshall Subdivision

BNSF Morris Subdivision

GdWX Airport Dr SW

19th Ave SW

Gorton Ave NW

21st St SW

8th Ave NW

22nd Ave SW 25th St SW

23rd St SW

9th Ave NW

33rd St NW

1st Ave W

4th Ave SW

20th Ave SW

21st Ave SW

1st Ave SW

2nd Ave NW

36th

St NW

34th St NW

Willmar Ave SW

15th Ave

28th

St SW

Trott Ave SW

4th Ave SW

22nd St SW

45th St NW

7th Ave NW

30th St SW

7th Ave NW

County Hwy 47

30th Ave SW

30th St NW

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure28_FarmlandMap.mxd

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 28: Farmland Soils

Willmar, MN

Farmland Soil Types

All areas are prime farmland

Farmland of statewide importance

Prime farmland if drained

Not prime farmland

City of Willmar

Railway Connection

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

Townships

Railroad

0

Ü

2,000

Feet
)n

?ËA@

GÁWX

Legend

Construction Limits

Railway

FEMA Zone A 100-Year Floodplain

in Project Area

0 400 800 1,600

Feet

B

N

S

F

R

ailro

ad

TH 12 (PROPOSED)

No Project Impacts

Existing Bridge # 34323

Proposed CMP 60" Round Culvert

BNSF Railway

No Project Impacts

Existing Bridge #34J28

(CSAH 55) 12'x8' Box Culvert

Replacement of

Bridge # 91329 (TH 40)

Proposed CMP 15' Round Culvert

BNSF Railway

County Ditch 46

Hawk Creek

No Project Impacts

Floodplain Adjacent to Roadway

No Project Impacts

Floodplain Adjacent to Roadway

Proposed 48" Round Culvert

TH 12

Proposed 2-42" Round Culvert

TH 12

Proposed 48" Round Culvert

Proposed 3'x5' Box Culvert

E

H

G

A

C

D

F

Proposed CMP 15' Round Culvert

BNSF Railway

Unnamed Tributary

County Ditch 12

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 31: Proposed Floodplain Impacts and Crossings

Willmar, MN

Ü

GdWX

I

B

X Floodplain Crossing ID

X Non-Floodplain Crossing ID

No Project Impacts

Existing Bridge #8468

(TH 12) 

12'x8' Box Culvert 15'4"x9'3" Steel Pipe Arch
GÁWX

GÁWX

?ËA@

?1⁄4A@

Foot

Lake

)n

810 981

W

446B 842 954B 94 805B

981

954B

805B

423

423

423

805B

805B

805D 805C 613 805B 1016

805C

954B

35

805C

954B 613

927

809

805C 613

981

954B

446B

954B 446A

613

981

927

336

927

954B

981 413

810 423 114 41A 114

1016

981

446B

954B

805B

999B

1055

842

446B

413

423

817 94 423

981

981 446B 423 809

954B

L13A 1016

981

981 423 41A

114 981 954C 875B

423

999B

L13A

L201A

114

981 1016 981

423

954B

446B

446B

1900

981

954B

1016

954B

1016

927

981

817

423 446B

981 423

112 L163A 423

927

L163A

981

897B 446B

1900

446B

423 446B 423

954B

927

446B

423

446B 113

927 927

981

927

423 423 423

817

954B

423

927

1900 927

423

981

981

446B

897B

981

981 423

112

927

981

336

999B

897B 423

899

897B

423

L163A

1900

423

423

447

L201A 423

1900

1016

423

112 954B

L163A 112 1016

1900

897B

423

897B L163A

981

L201A

897B

446B

897B

981

897B

423

423

423

L201A 1900

897B

954B

447

899 112

L163A

897B 927

927

L163A

423

112 L163A

1900 423 L201A

899

999C

447

112

423

981

981 1016

999B

423

927 899

999B

954C 423

112

999B

899 999C

1900 447 897B L201A

336 981

447

1900 897B

927 899

899 899 L163A

423

447

897B

897B

899

981

423 L163A

423

927 1900 1900 423 981 1900 112 981

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure32_Soils.mxd

0

Ü

2,000

Feet

Railway Connection

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

Kandiyohi County Soil Survey

Railroad

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 32: Soil Survey of Kandiyohi County

Willmar, MN
GÁWX

?ËA@

?1⁄4A@

GÁWX

)n

)n

?ËA@

Willmar Municipal Airport

John L Rice Field

City of Willmar

Willmar Township

Foot

Lake

Hawk Creek

Hawk Creek

Z

GoWX

GdWX

00755798

00664260

00210694

00130237

00137046

00764040

00401827

00778923

00651134

00588831

00511576

00511591

00689886

00505709

00210698

00194601 00424373

00407471

00455090

00194384

00194381 00194383

00489971

00194382

00771198 00752252 00752254

00752253

Rau Prairie

Pothole WMA

Willmar SW

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure34_ProjectAreaWells.mxd

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 34: Project Area Wells

Willmar, MN

Project Area

Well Use

Abandoned

Domestic

Industrial

Wellhead Protection Area

Drinking Water Supply Management Areas

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

Railway Connection

Railroad

City Boundary

Townships

Ü

BNSF Marshall Subdivision

BNSF Morris Subdivision

0 2,500

Feet
BNSF Railroad

T

H 12 P( R

OPO

SED)

TH 12 (PROPOSED)

BMP 5700

BMP 5431

BMP 5721

BMP 5955

BMP 5023

)n

?ËA@

GÁWX

BNSF Marshall Subdivision

BNSF Morris Subdivision

BMP 5500

BMP 5413

45th St NW

45th St NW

GdWX

1st Ave W

Legend

Proposed Dry Pond

Proposed Filtration Basin

BNSF Railway Filtration Basins

Construction Limits

Railway

± Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 35: Stormwater Treatment

Willmar, MN

0 600 1,200

Feet
0 1,000 Ü

Feet

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure36overview_WetlandDelineation.mxd Date Saved: 3/7/2017 8:19:28 AM

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 36 Overview: Wetland Delineation

Willmar, MN

SEE FIGURE 36a

SEE FIGURE 36b

SEE FIGURE 36c

SEE FIGURE 36d

)n

GÁWX

GdWX

?ËA@
GÁWX GoWX

35 40

50

41

42

42

39

54

50

43

37

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure36a_WetlandDelineation.mxd Date Saved: 3/7/2017 8:21:40 AM

Tributary

Wet Ditch

Approved Wetland Boundary

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

Railway Connection

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 36a: Wetland Delineation

Willmar, MN 0 1,000

Feet

Ü

County Ditch 46
?ËA@

GÁWX

29

52

52

27

25

26

38 38

53

58

36

52

34

28

36

33

52

52 52

43

53 52

30

38

31

37

35

35

53

32

35

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure36b_WetlandDelineation.mxd Date Saved: 3/7/2017 8:23:12 AM

Tributary

Wet Ditch

Approved Wetland Boundary

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

Railway Connection

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 36b: Wetland Delineation

Willmar, MN 0 1,000

Feet

Ü

Hawk

Creek

(County

Ditch

10)
GÁWX

)n

53

16

45

46

23

24

17

53

3

47

5

2

22

57

9

10

8

1

3

12

56

21

7

49

15

4

14

48

46

5

51

51

18

51

6

49

13

55

52

19

20

52

3

11

15

16

52

55

52

15

5

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure36c_WetlandDelineation.mxd Date Saved: 3/7/2017 8:24:38 AM

Tributary

Wet Ditch

Approved Wetland Boundary

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

Railway Connection

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 36c: Wetland Delineation

Willmar, MN 0 1,000

Feet

Ü

1st Ave

Hawk Creek

(County Ditch 10)
GÁWX

Foot

Lake

)n

GdWX

52

15

29

53

49

27

26

44

52

15

32

20

14

28

18

49

15

52

53

30

31

52

32

15

52

53

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure36d_WetlandDelineation.mxd Date Saved: 3/7/2017 8:26:01 AM

Approved Wetland Boundary

Tributary

Wet Ditch

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

Railway Connection

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 36d: Wetland Delineation

Willmar, MN 0 1,000

Feet

Ü

Hawk Creek

(County Ditch 10)

Foot Lake
GÁWX

?ËA@

?1⁄4A@

?1⁄4A@

GÁWX )n

)n

?ËA@ Willmar Municipal

John L Rice Field

City of Willmar

Willmar Township

Foot

Lake

Hawk Creek

Hawk Creek

Z

GoWX

BNSF Marshall Subdivision

BNSF Morris Subdivision

GdWX

Gopher

Ridge

WMA

Kandiyohi

WIA #261

Priam

WPA

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure38_WildlifeHabitatMap.mxd

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 38: Wildlife Habitats

Willmar, MN

Project Area

Waterfowl

Production Area

Wildlife

Management Area

Walk In Access

Site

City Boundary

Townships

Railroad ROW

Prairie

Road

Improvement

New Roadway

Bridge

Road Removal

Railway

Connection

Railroad

0

Ü

2,500

Feet

Rau

Prairie

Pothole

WMA
GÁWX

?1⁄4A@

GÁWX )n

?ËA@

City of Willmar

Willmar Township

Foot

Lake

Hawk Creek

Hawk Creek

GoWX

Willmar

Lake

1st Ave W

45th St NW

30th St SW 30th St NW

7th St SW

Litchfield Ave

Willmar Ave SW

Mongolia Ave SW

BNSF Morris Subdivision

BNSF Railroad

BNSF Railroad

BNSF Marshall Subdivision

2028

2032

2033

2041

1070

1104

1045

3015

1069

1026

2162

2015

2017

2025

2168

1127

1015

2031

2044

1017

1071 1066 1021

1063

2048

1018

1128

2030

1078

1067

1064

2018

1024

2027

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure39_EnvironmentalJusticeA.mxd

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 39: Census Blocks with Minority Populations

Willmar, MN

Census Blocks in Project Study Area

Census Blocks with Minority Populations

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

Railway Connection

Existing Railroad

0 Ü2,500

Feet
GÁWX

?ËA@

?1⁄4A@

?1⁄4A@

)n

)n

City of Willmar

Willmar Township

GdWX

BNSF Morris Subdivision

BNSF Marshall Subdivision

7806 (2)

7806 (1)

7805 (2)

7805 (3)

7807 (1)

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure40_EnvironmentalJusticeB.mxd

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 40: Census Block Groups with Low-Income Populations

Willmar, MN

Block Groups in Project Study Area

Block Groups with Low-Income Populations

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

Railway Connection

Existing Railroad

0

Ü

9,600

Feet
GÁWX

)n

?ËA@

City of Willmar

Willmar Township

Foot

Lake

Hawk Creek

Z

GoWX

GdWX

BNSF Morris Subdivision

BNSF Marshall Subdivision

Willmar Municipal

John L Rice Field

25th St

Airport Dr SW

8th Ave NW

19th Ave SW

Trott Ave SW

22nd Ave SW 25th St SW

23rd St SW

9th Ave NW

33rd St NW

Vos Park Dr

24th St SW

1st Ave W

4th Ave SW

20th Ave SW

21st Ave SW

1st Ave SW

2nd Ave NW

Willmar Ave SW

36th

St NW

15th Ave

34th St NW

28th St SW

4th Ave SW

22nd St SW

45th St NW

7th Ave NW

7th Ave NW

30th St SW CSAH 5

30th Ave SW

Gorton Ave NW

30th St NW

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure41_TotalParcelAcquisitionsA-revised.mxd

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 41: Total Parcel Acquisitions

Willmar, MN

Parcels - Total Acquisition Anticipated

Preliminary Right of Way

Parcels

Railroad

0

Ü

2,000

Feet
GÁWX

)n

?ËA@

City of Willmar

Willmar Township

Foot

Lake

Hawk Creek

Z

GoWX

GdWX

BNSF Morris Subdivision

BNSF Marshall Subdivision

Willmar Municipal

John L Rice Field

25th St

Airport Dr SW

8th Ave NW

19th Ave SW

Trott Ave SW

22nd Ave SW 25th St SW

23rd St SW

9th Ave NW

33rd St NW

Vos Park Dr

24th St SW

1st Ave W

4th Ave SW

20th Ave SW

21st Ave SW

1st Ave SW

2nd Ave NW

Willmar Ave SW

36th

St NW

15th Ave

34th St NW

28th St SW

4th Ave SW

22nd St SW

45th St NW

7th Ave NW

7th Ave NW

30th St SW CSAH 5

30th Ave SW

Gorton Ave NW

30th St NW

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure42_ParcelOwnership-revised.mxd

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 42: Right of Way Impacts

Willmar, MN

Ownership

BNSF Owned Parcel

Privately Owned Parcel

Publicly Owned Parcel

Parcels

Railroad

0

Ü

2,000

Feet
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

^_ !(

^_

^_

?ËA@

GÁWX

)n

)n

?ËA@

Willmar Municipal

John L Rice Field

City of Willmar

Hawk Creek

Hawk Creek

Z

GoWX

BNSF Marshall Subdivision

BNSF Morris Subdivision

GdWX

Not Proposed Noise Barrier H

Not Proposed Noise Barrier I

Not Proposed Noise Barrier G

Not Proposed Noise Barrier F

31

32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 20

21

22

23 24

25 26

27

28

29

30

A

C

B

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure43_HwyTrafficSoundReceptors.mxd

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 43: Highway Traffic Sound Receptors

Willmar, MN

!( Traffic Noise Receptors

^_ Validation Locations

Not Proposed Noise Barrier

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

Existing Railroad Lines

City Boundary

0

Ü

1,500

Feet

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

10

11

12 13

14

15 16

17

1819

20 21

22

23

24

25

26 27

28

29

30
GÁWX

?ËA@

?1⁄4A@

GÁWX

)n

)n

?ËA@

Willmar Municipal Airport

John L Rice Field

City of Willmar

Willmar Township

Foot

Lake

Hawk Creek

Hawk Creek

Z

GoWX

GdWX

Airport Dr SW

19th Ave SW

8th Ave NW

Gorton Ave NW

20th St NW

15th Ave NW

33rd St NW

2

22nd Ave SW 5th St SW

23rd St SW

9th Ave NW

33rd St NW

1st Ave W

26th St NW

4th Ave SW

45th St NW

20th Ave SW

21st Ave SW

14th Ave NW

1st Ave SW

2nd Ave NW

28th St NW

39th St NW

36th

St NW

34th St NW

29th St NW

60th St NW

28th

St SW

Willmar Ave SW

15th Ave

Trott Ave SW

4th Ave SW

24th St NW

22nd St SW

7th Ave NW

30th St SW

7th Ave NW

CSAH 5

60th St SW

30th Ave SW

30th St NW

Rau Prairie

Pothole WMA

Gopher

Ridge WMA Kandiyohi

WIA

#261

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Figure46_Section4fResources.mxd

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure 46: Section 4(f) Resources

Willmar, MN

Ü

BNSF Marshall Subdivision

BNSF Morris Subdivision

Section 4(f) Temporary

Occupancy During New

Intersection Construction

0 2,500

Feet

Section 4(f)

DeMinimis

St. Paul and Pacific Railroad (HE-MPC-16387)

CSAH 5 Trail

Wildlife Management Area

Walk In Access Site

Railway Connection

Road Improvement

New Roadway Bridge

Road Removal

Railroad

Section 4(f) Resources Infrastructure
Appendix D

APPENDIX D – Recent Project Correspondence

USACE Correspondence Dated January 6, 2017 – Page D-1
1

Roxy Franta

From: Orne, Benjamin G CIV USARMY CEMVP (US) <Benjamin.G.Orne@usace.army.mil>

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 2:33 PM

To: Roxy Franta

Cc: Alison Harwood

Subject: RE: Willmar Rail Wetlands

Thanks Roxy. Here are my thoughts on jurisdiction for the remaining wetland and tributary sites that would be impacted 

by the proposed project. The ones labeled “(WOUS)” are jurisdictional. Only Wetlands 10 and 21 appear to be isolated 

and, therefore, may not be jurisdictional. 

Wetland 1 (WOUS) – Wetland 1 is directly abutting Tributary 51, which is a seasonal RPW. 

Wetland 6 (WOUS) – Wetland 6 is directly abutting Tributary 51, which is a seasonal RPW. 

Wetland 7 (WOUS) – Wetland 7 is directly abutting Tributary 51, which is a seasonal RPW. 

Wetland 10 – Isolated wetland. 

Wetland 21 – Isolated wetland. 

Wetland 45 (WOUS) – Wetland 45 is directly abutting Tributary 51, which is a seasonal RPW. 

Wetland 47 (WOUS) – Wetland 47 is directly abutting Tributary 51, which is a seasonal RPW. 

Wetland 48 (WOUS) – Wetland 48 is directly abutting Tributary 51, which is a seasonal RPW. 

Tributary 51 (WOUS) – Tributary 51 is an unnamed tributary to Hawk Creek and is a seasonal RPW. 

Tributary 54 (WOUS) – Tributary 54 is an unnamed tributary to Hawk Creek and is a seasonal RPW. 

Wetland 58 (WOUS) – Wetland 58 is directly abutting Hawk Creek, which is a perennial RPW. 

I will update the AJD to include the additional isolated wetlands. Please let me know if you have any questions or need 

me to look into any of the other wetland areas that were delineated. 

Thanks, Ben 

Page D-1
Appendix E

APPENDIX E – Updated Studies/Memoranda

Floodplain and Risk Assessments - Page E-1

Wetland Assessment and Two-Part Finding – Page E-39
S.P. 3403-74 Page 1 of 3

Floodplain Assessment

February 2017

FLOODPLAIN ASSESSMENT 

FLOODPLAIN ENCROACHMENT

Floodplain Crossing 

ID* Type of Encroachment Length, ft

Hawk Creek: 100-Year B

Transverse

(North RR Crossing) 150/190

Hawk Creek: 100-Year D

Transverse

(TH 40 Existing Bridge 

#91329)

175

County Ditch 46: 100-Year F

Transverse

(South RR Crossing) 150

Unnamed Creek: 100-Year A

Transverse (TH12, west of 

30th Avenue NW) 150

Unnamed Creek: 100-Year E

Transverse (TH12, 

between 1st Avenue and 

CSAH 55)

150

Hawk Creek: 100-year C

Transverse

(CSAH 55 Existing Bridge 

34J28) NO PROJECT 

IMPACTS

150

Hawk Creek: 100-year I

Transverse (Existing Bridge 

#8468, TH12) NO PROJECT 

IMPACTS

150

*See figure for location

TRANSVERSE or LONGITUDINAL ENCROACHMENT

1. There is no significant potential for interruption of a transportation facility which 

is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation 

route.

a. Is the roadway grade above the 100 year flood elevation? YES

Location of Crossing Roadway Elevation 100 year flood elevation

BNSF Railroad North 

sta 104+95

1118.72 1113.9

TH 40 (bridge #91329) 1118.9 1110.28

BNSF Railroad South

Sta 18+54

1118.72 1111.2

Proposed TH12, west of 

30th Avenue NW

1122.0 1115.72

Proposed TH12, between 

1

st Avenue and CSAH 55

1121.5 1114.98

CSAH 55 (bridge #94149) 1120.0 1111.67

TH 12 (bridge #8468) 1124.3 1119.93

Page E-1
S.P. 3403-74 Page 2 of 3

Floodplain Assessment

February 2017

NO Frequency of overtopping N/A

Reason(s) why roadway grade will not be raised: No overtopping for 

the design event

Are there reasonable alternative routes available that are above the 100 

year flood elevations? YES

b. If the 100 year flood elevation is not known, does roadway have a history of 

overtopping?

NO Reference and length of record n/a

YES Discuss correcting deficiency n/a

c. Describe how emergency services will be maintained during construction: 

Emergency vehicles will continue to have access via the existing roadways

2. There is no significant impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values.

a. Impacts:

Beneficial Impacts Adverse Impacts

Fisheries None N

Wetlands N N

Plants N N

Open 

Space/Aesthetics N N

Public Access 

(boat/canoe) N N

Channel Changes N N

Boat Passage N N

Threatened/Endang

ered Species

N N

Water Quality N N

Other N N

b. Minimization/Mitigation Measures: Wetland impacts due to the project will be 

mitigated. Water quality best management practices will be provided for the 

project impervious.

Project will be in compliance with all permit requirements, including NPDES, 

SWPPP, Minnesota DNR, Wetland Conservation Act, and US Army Corps of 

Engineers.

3. There is no significant increased risk of flooding.

a. Does the project result in any headwater or tailwater elevations that would 

endanger life or property? NO

Page E-2
S.P. 3403-74 Page 3 of 3

Floodplain Assessment

February 2017

Stage Increase 0.0

b. Are there any special hydraulic features? What is their purpose? N/A

4. The project will not support and/or result in incompatible floodplain 

development.

Reason(s) why project will not cause incompatible floodplain development:

The two proposed culverts are needed for safe access of the railroad. Two new 

culverts are needed under proposed Trunk Highway 12. The project includes 

replacement in-kind of the existing bridge under Trunk Highway 40.

COORDINATION

Multiple permits will be required for the project, below is a list of the anticipated 

permits necessary:

 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Phase II NPDES CSW permit

 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Section 401 Certification

 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources License to Cross

 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Construction Dewatering (if 

necessary)

 US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit (Letter of Permission)

 Wetland Conservation Act Replacement Plan

 Kandiyohi County Ditch Drainage and Hydraulic Capacity Design Approval

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Based on the above assessment, no significant floodplain impacts are expected.

ATTACHMENTS

Effective FEMA FIRMette for project area (September 30, 2015)

Proposed Floodplain Impacts and Crossings Figure

Hydraulic Analysis and Risk Assessments

Page E-3
PROJECT

LOCATION Existing Bridge 

#91329 TH40

Proposed Culvert at 

BNSF Railway

Proposed Culvert at

BNSF Railway

FIGURE:

FEMA Floodplain Area

Willmar Wye Project

City of Willmar 

SP 3403-74 September 2016 Existing Bridge

#8468 TH 12

Proposed

Culvert

Proposed

Culvert

Existing Bridge 

#34J28 CSAH 55

Page E-4
)n

?ËA@

GÁWX

Legend

Construction Limits

Railway

FEMA Zone A 100-Year Floodplain

in Project Area

0 400 800 1,600

Feet

B

N

S

F

R

ailro

ad

TH 12 (PROPOSED)

No Project Impacts

Existing Bridge # 34323

Proposed CMP 60" Round Culvert

BNSF Railway

No Project Impacts

Existing Bridge #34J28

(CSAH 55) 12'x8' Box Culvert

Replacement of

Bridge # 91329 (TH 40)

Proposed CMP 15' Round Culvert

BNSF Railway

County Ditch 46

Hawk Creek

No Project Impacts

Floodplain Adjacent to Roadway

No Project Impacts

Floodplain Adjacent to Roadway

Proposed 48" Round Culvert

TH 12

Proposed 2-42" Round Culvert

TH 12

Proposed 48" Round Culvert

Proposed 3'x5' Box Culvert

E

H

G

A

C

D

F

Proposed CMP 15' Round Culvert

BNSF Railway

Unnamed Tributary

County Ditch 12

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

 Proposed Floodplain Impacts and Crossings

Willmar, MN

Ü

GdWX

I

B

X Floodplain Crossing ID

X Non-Floodplain Crossing ID

No Project Impacts

Existing Bridge #8468

(TH 12) 

12'x8' Box Culvert 15'4"x9'3" Steel Pipe Arch

Page E-5
 STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION Feb 2011

 HYDRAULIC FLOOD ANALYSIS Page 1 of 1

Bridge Number _____________ Date______________

* Stream name ____________________

Drainage area ____________________

Flood of record ____________________

Maximum observed highwater elevation ____________________

* Design flood ( - year frequency) ____________________

Road sag point elevation ____________________

Design stage ____________________

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Min. waterway opening below elevation ____________________

Low member at or above elevation ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

Main channel velocity ____________________

Overtopping flood or Greatest flood (500 -year

frequency) ____________________

Road sag point elevation ____________________

Stage ____________________

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

* Basic flood (100-year frequency) ____________________

Stage

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Min. overflow area above sag point elev. ____________________

Mean overflow velocity ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

Approximate flowline elevation ____________________

Estimated pier scour elevation ____________________

Year frequency scour was calculated for ____________________

Skew ____________________

Scour Code ____________________

*Items to be shown on Grading Plan

*Elevation datum NAVD88 [adjusted]

1 of 9

Page E-6
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ENCROACHMENT DESIGN 

Date: 2/26/2017

District: 8 County: Kandiyohi Vicinity of: TH12, County Ditch 12

DATA REQUIREMENTS

1. Location of Crossing: Proposed 

TH12

C.S. 3403 M.P. 72

Sec. 17 T 119N R 35W

2. Name of Stream: County Ditch 12 Bridge No. Old: N/A New:

3. Current ADT: N/A Projected ADT: 6400

4. Practicable detour available

Yes No

If no is checked, please explain:

If there is no practicable detour available, then the use of the road must be analyzed. Considerations such as 

emergency vehicle access, emergency supply and evacuation route, and the need for school bus, milk and mail 

routes should be studied. Factors to consider for this analysis include design frequency, depth, duration, and 

frequency of inundation if appropriate, and available funding. 

5. Hydraulic Data: (Fill in as appropriate) 

Elevation Datum: NAVD88

Q2 = cfs HW2 Elevation ft

Q5 = cfs HW5 Elevation ft

Q10 = 25 cfs HW10 Elevation 1115.27 ft

Q25 = cfs HW25 Elevation ft

Q50 = 32 cfs HW50 Elevation 1115.37 ft

Q100 = 52 cfs HW100 Elevation 1115.72 ft

Q500 = cfs HW500 Elevation ft

Approximate Flowline Elevation: 1113.5 Ft

Design Frequency Event:

100-yr 50-yr 25-yr 10-yr

Reasons for selecting Design Frequency: Minnesota State Statute 6115.0231

6. Magnitude and Frequency of the smaller of "Overtopping" or "500 yr." (Greatest) flood: 100-year

7. Low member elevation: 1117.0 (top of culvert)

8. Minimum roadway overflow elevation if appropriate: 1122

9. Elevation of high risk property, i.e. residences: N/A

Other buildings

10. Horizontal location of overflow:

At Structure (See 12) Not At Structure:

11. Type of proposed structure:

Bridge (See 12) Culvert(s)

Page E-7
12 If the proposed structure is a bridge with the sag point located on the bridge and there is ice and debris potential, 

strong consideration should be given to using Q50 as design discharge with 3’ of clearance between the 50 year 

tailwater stage and low member.

1. BACKWATER DAMAGE - Major flood damage in this context refers to shopping 

centers, hospitals, chemical plants, power plants, housing developments, etc.

LTEC Design

1a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the 100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1b) No (Go to 1e)

1b. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. Frequency)?

Yes (Go to 1d) No (Go to 1c)

1c. Is there major flood damage potential for the overtopping flood?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1d. Is there major flood damage potential for the greatest flood (500 year frequency)?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1e. Will there be flood damage potential to residence(s) or other buildings during a 

100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1f) No (Go to 2)

1f. Could this flood damage occur even if the roadway crossing wasn't there?

Yes (Go to 1g) No (Go to 1h)

1g. Could this flood damage be significantly increased by the backwater caused by 

the proposed crossing?

Yes (Go to 1h) No (Go to 2)

1h. Could the stream crossing be designed in such a manner so as to minimize this 

potential flood damage?

Yes (Go to 1i) No (Go to 2)

1i. Does the value of the building(s) and/or its contents have sufficient value to justify 

further evaluation of risk and potential flood damage?

No (Go to 2) Yes (Go to 2)

2. TRAFFIC RELATED LOSSES

2a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. frequency)?

Yes (Go to 3) No (Go to 2b)

2b. Does the ADT exceed 50 vehicles per day?

Yes (Go to 2c) No (Go to 3)

2c. Would the (duration of road closure in days) multiplied by the (length of detour 

minus the length of normal route in miles) exceed 20?

Yes (Go to 2d) No (Go to 3)

2d. Does the annual risk cost for traffic related costs exceed 10% of the annual capital 

costs?

No (Go to 3) (See figures A and B – Appendix A(2) - for Assistance) Yes (Go to 3)

Page E-8
3. ROADWAY AND/OR STRUCTURE REPAIR COSTS 

3a. Is the overtopping flood less than a 100 year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3b) No (Go to 3i)

3b. Compare the Tailwater (TW) elevation with the roadway sag point elevation for 

the overtopping flood. Check the appropriate category.

When TW is above the sag point (Go to 4) TW is between 0 and 0.5' below sag point (Go to 3c) TW is between 0.5' and 1.0' below sag point (Go to 3d) When TW is 1.0' and 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3e) When TW is more than 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3g)

3c. Does the embankment have a good erosion resistant vegetative cover?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3d)

3d. Is the shoulder constructed from erosion resistant material such as paved, coarse 

gravel, or clay type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3e)

3e. Will the duration of overtopping for the 25-year flood exceed 1 hour?

Yes (Go to 3f) No (Go to 3i)

3f. Is the embankment constructed from erosion resistant material such as a clay 

type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3g)

3g. Is the overtopping flood less than a 25-year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3h) No (Go to 3i)

3h. Will the cost of protecting the roadway and/or embankment from severe damage 

caused by overtopping exceed the cost of providing additional culvert or bridge 

capacity?

No (Go to 3i); Yes (Go to 3i)

3i. Is there damage potential to the structure caused by scour, ice, debris or other 

means during the lesser of the overtopping flood or the 100 year flood?

Yes (Go to 3j) No (Go to 4)

3j. Will the cost of protecting the structure from damage exceed the cost of providing 

additional culvert or bridge water capacity?

No (Go to 4); protecting abutments from scour by riprap. Yes (Go to 4)

4. Will the capital cost of the structure exceed $1,000,000?

No (Go to 5); Yes (Go to 5)

5. In your opinion, are there any other factors that you feel should require further study 

through a risk analysis?

No (Go to 6); Yes (Indicate)

Page E-9
6. If there are no √'s in the LTEC Design column on the right, proceed with the design, 

selecting the lowest acceptable grade line and the smallest waterway opening consistent 

with the constraints imposed on the project. The risk assessment has demonstrated 

that potential flood damage costs, traffic related costs, roadway and/or structure repair 

costs are minor and therefore disregarded for this project. 

One or more √’s in the LTEC Design column indicates further analysis in the category 

checked may be required utilizing the LTEC design process or justification (below) why 

it is not required.

JUSTIFICATION: 

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my 

direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws 

of the State of Minnesota:

Signature:

License Number: Date:

Page E-10
 STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION Feb 2011

 HYDRAULIC FLOOD ANALYSIS Page 1 of 1

Bridge Number _____________ Date______________

* Stream name ____________________

Drainage area ____________________

Flood of record ____________________

Maximum observed highwater elevation ____________________

* Design flood ( - year frequency) ____________________

Road sag point elevation ____________________

Design stage ____________________

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Min. waterway opening below elevation ____________________

Low member at or above elevation ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

Main channel velocity ____________________

Overtopping flood or Greatest flood (500 -year

frequency) ____________________

Road sag point elevation ____________________

Stage ____________________

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

* Basic flood (100-year frequency) ____________________

Stage

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Min. overflow area above sag point elev. ____________________

Mean overflow velocity ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

Approximate flowline elevation ____________________

Estimated pier scour elevation ____________________

Year frequency scour was calculated for ____________________

Skew ____________________

Scour Code ____________________

*Items to be shown on Grading Plan

*Elevation datum NAVD88 [adjusted]

1 of 9

Page E-11
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ENCROACHMENT DESIGN 

Date: 3/10/2011

District: 8 County: Kandiyohi Vicinity of: Approx. 0.3 miles west of CSAH55 in Willmar, 

MN

DATA REQUIREMENTS

1. Location of Crossing: TH 40 C.S. M.P.

Sec. 17 T 119N R 35W

2. Name of Stream: Hawk Creek Bridge No. Old: 91329 New:

3. Current ADT: 1400 Projected ADT:

4. Practicable detour available

Yes No

If no is checked, please explain:

If there is no practicable detour available, then the use of the road must be analyzed. Considerations such as 

emergency vehicle access, emergency supply and evacuation route, and the need for school bus, milk and mail 

routes should be studied. Factors to consider for this analysis include design frequency, depth, duration, and 

frequency of inundation if appropriate, and available funding. 

5. Hydraulic Data: (Fill in as appropriate) 

Elevation Datum: NAVD88

Q2 = cfs HW2 Elevation ft

Q5 = cfs HW5 Elevation ft

Q10 = cfs HW10 Elevation ft

Q25 = cfs HW25 Elevation ft

Q50 = 496 cfs HW50 Elevation 1109.78 ft

Q100 = 616 cfs HW100 Elevation 1110.62 ft

Q500 = 931 cfs HW500 Elevation 1112.67 ft

Approximate Flowline Elevation: 1103.4 Ft

Design Frequency Event:

100-yr 50-yr 25-yr 10-yr

Reasons for selecting Design Frequency: Minnesota State Statute 6115.0231

6. Magnitude and Frequency of the smaller of "Overtopping" or "500 yr." (Greatest) flood: 500-year

7. Low member elevation: 1113.4

8. Minimum roadway overflow elevation if appropriate: 1118.9 at station 406+00

9. Elevation of high risk property, i.e. residences: N/A

Other buildings

10. Horizontal location of overflow:

At Structure (See 12) Not At Structure:

11. Type of proposed structure:

Bridge (See 12) Culvert(s)

4/12/2017

Page E-12
12 If the proposed structure is a bridge with the sag point located on the bridge and there is ice and debris potential, 

strong consideration should be given to using Q50 as design discharge with 3’ of clearance between the 50 year 

tailwater stage and low member.

1. BACKWATER DAMAGE - Major flood damage in this context refers to shopping 

centers, hospitals, chemical plants, power plants, housing developments, etc.

LTEC Design

1a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the 100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1b) No (Go to 1e)

1b. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. Frequency)?

Yes (Go to 1d) No (Go to 1c)

1c. Is there major flood damage potential for the overtopping flood?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1d. Is there major flood damage potential for the greatest flood (500 year frequency)?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1e. Will there be flood damage potential to residence(s) or other buildings during a 

100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1f) No (Go to 2)

1f. Could this flood damage occur even if the roadway crossing wasn't there?

Yes (Go to 1g) No (Go to 1h)

1g. Could this flood damage be significantly increased by the backwater caused by 

the proposed crossing?

Yes (Go to 1h) No (Go to 2)

1h. Could the stream crossing be designed in such a manner so as to minimize this 

potential flood damage?

Yes (Go to 1i) No (Go to 2)

1i. Does the value of the building(s) and/or its contents have sufficient value to justify 

further evaluation of risk and potential flood damage?

No (Go to 2) Yes (Go to 2)

2. TRAFFIC RELATED LOSSES

2a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. frequency)?

Yes (Go to 3) No (Go to 2b)

2b. Does the ADT exceed 50 vehicles per day?

Yes (Go to 2c) No (Go to 3)

2c. Would the (duration of road closure in days) multiplied by the (length of detour 

minus the length of normal route in miles) exceed 20?

Yes (Go to 2d) No (Go to 3)

2d. Does the annual risk cost for traffic related costs exceed 10% of the annual capital 

costs?

No (Go to 3) (See figures A and B – Appendix A(2) - for Assistance) Yes (Go to 3)

Page E-13
3. ROADWAY AND/OR STRUCTURE REPAIR COSTS 

3a. Is the overtopping flood less than a 100 year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3b) No (Go to 3i)

3b. Compare the Tailwater (TW) elevation with the roadway sag point elevation for 

the overtopping flood. Check the appropriate category.

When TW is above the sag point (Go to 4) TW is between 0 and 0.5' below sag point (Go to 3c) TW is between 0.5' and 1.0' below sag point (Go to 3d) When TW is 1.0' and 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3e) When TW is more than 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3g)

3c. Does the embankment have a good erosion resistant vegetative cover?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3d)

3d. Is the shoulder constructed from erosion resistant material such as paved, coarse 

gravel, or clay type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3e)

3e. Will the duration of overtopping for the 25-year flood exceed 1 hour?

Yes (Go to 3f) No (Go to 3i)

3f. Is the embankment constructed from erosion resistant material such as a clay 

type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3g)

3g. Is the overtopping flood less than a 25-year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3h) No (Go to 3i)

3h. Will the cost of protecting the roadway and/or embankment from severe damage 

caused by overtopping exceed the cost of providing additional culvert or bridge 

capacity?

No (Go to 3i); Yes (Go to 3i)

3i. Is there damage potential to the structure caused by scour, ice, debris or other 

means during the lesser of the overtopping flood or the 100 year flood?

Yes (Go to 3j) No (Go to 4)

3j. Will the cost of protecting the structure from damage exceed the cost of providing 

additional culvert or bridge water capacity?

No (Go to 4); protecting abutments from scour by riprap. Yes (Go to 4)

4. Will the capital cost of the structure exceed $1,000,000?

No (Go to 5); Yes (Go to 5)

5. In your opinion, are there any other factors that you feel should require further study 

through a risk analysis?

No (Go to 6); Yes (Indicate)

Page E-14
6. If there are no √'s in the LTEC Design column on the right, proceed with the design, 

selecting the lowest acceptable grade line and the smallest waterway opening consistent 

with the constraints imposed on the project. The risk assessment has demonstrated 

that potential flood damage costs, traffic related costs, roadway and/or structure repair 

costs are minor and therefore disregarded for this project. 

One or more √’s in the LTEC Design column indicates further analysis in the category 

checked may be required utilizing the LTEC design process or justification (below) why 

it is not required.

JUSTIFICATION: 

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my 

direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws 

of the State of Minnesota:

Signature:

License Number: Date:

Page E-15
 STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION Feb 2011

 HYDRAULIC FLOOD ANALYSIS Page 1 of 1

Bridge Number _____________ Date______________

* Stream name ____________________

Drainage area ____________________

Flood of record ____________________

Maximum observed highwater elevation ____________________

* Design flood ( - year frequency) ____________________

Road sag point elevation ____________________

Design stage ____________________

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Min. waterway opening below elevation ____________________

Low member at or above elevation ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

Main channel velocity ____________________

Overtopping flood or Greatest flood (500 -year

frequency) ____________________

Road sag point elevation ____________________

Stage ____________________

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

* Basic flood (100-year frequency) ____________________

Stage

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Min. overflow area above sag point elev. ____________________

Mean overflow velocity ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

Approximate flowline elevation ____________________

Estimated pier scour elevation ____________________

Year frequency scour was calculated for ____________________

Skew ____________________

Scour Code ____________________

*Items to be shown on Grading Plan

*Elevation datum NAVD88 [adjusted]

1 of 9

Page E-16
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ENCROACHMENT DESIGN 

Date: 2/26/2017

District: 8 County: Kandiyohi Vicinity of: Approx 1000' west of CSAH 55 in WIllmar MN

DATA REQUIREMENTS

1. Location of Crossing: Proposed 

TH12

C.S. M.P.

Sec. 17 T 119N R 35W

2. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributary to HAwk 

Creek

Bridge No. Old: N/A New:

3. Current ADT: N/A Projected ADT: 6400

4. Practicable detour available

Yes No

If no is checked, please explain:

If there is no practicable detour available, then the use of the road must be analyzed. Considerations such as 

emergency vehicle access, emergency supply and evacuation route, and the need for school bus, milk and mail 

routes should be studied. Factors to consider for this analysis include design frequency, depth, duration, and 

frequency of inundation if appropriate, and available funding. 

5. Hydraulic Data: (Fill in as appropriate) 

Elevation Datum: NAVD88

Q2 = cfs HW2 Elevation ft

Q5 = cfs HW5 Elevation ft

Q10 = 39 cfs HW10 Elevation 1115.35 ft

Q25 = cfs HW25 Elevation ft

Q50 = 68 cfs HW50 Elevation 1116.82 ft

Q100 = 89 cfs HW100 Elevation 1118.14 ft

Q500 = cfs HW500 Elevation ft

Approximate Flowline Elevation: 1112.4 Ft

Design Frequency Event:

100-yr 50-yr 25-yr 10-yr

Reasons for selecting Design Frequency: Minnesota State Statute 6115.0231 -

6. Magnitude and Frequency of the smaller of "Overtopping" or "500 yr." (Greatest) flood: 100-year

7. Low member elevation: 1115.9 (top of culvert)

8. Minimum roadway overflow elevation if appropriate: 1121.5

9. Elevation of high risk property, i.e. residences: N/A

Other buildings

10. Horizontal location of overflow:

At Structure (See 12) Not At Structure:

11. Type of proposed structure:

Bridge (See 12) Culvert(s)

Page E-17
12 If the proposed structure is a bridge with the sag point located on the bridge and there is ice and debris potential, 

strong consideration should be given to using Q50 as design discharge with 3’ of clearance between the 50 year 

tailwater stage and low member.

1. BACKWATER DAMAGE - Major flood damage in this context refers to shopping 

centers, hospitals, chemical plants, power plants, housing developments, etc.

LTEC Design

1a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the 100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1b) No (Go to 1e)

1b. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. Frequency)?

Yes (Go to 1d) No (Go to 1c)

1c. Is there major flood damage potential for the overtopping flood?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1d. Is there major flood damage potential for the greatest flood (500 year frequency)?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1e. Will there be flood damage potential to residence(s) or other buildings during a 

100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1f) No (Go to 2)

1f. Could this flood damage occur even if the roadway crossing wasn't there?

Yes (Go to 1g) No (Go to 1h)

1g. Could this flood damage be significantly increased by the backwater caused by 

the proposed crossing?

Yes (Go to 1h) No (Go to 2)

1h. Could the stream crossing be designed in such a manner so as to minimize this 

potential flood damage?

Yes (Go to 1i) No (Go to 2)

1i. Does the value of the building(s) and/or its contents have sufficient value to justify 

further evaluation of risk and potential flood damage?

No (Go to 2) Yes (Go to 2)

2. TRAFFIC RELATED LOSSES

2a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. frequency)?

Yes (Go to 3) No (Go to 2b)

2b. Does the ADT exceed 50 vehicles per day?

Yes (Go to 2c) No (Go to 3)

2c. Would the (duration of road closure in days) multiplied by the (length of detour 

minus the length of normal route in miles) exceed 20?

Yes (Go to 2d) No (Go to 3)

2d. Does the annual risk cost for traffic related costs exceed 10% of the annual capital 

costs?

No (Go to 3) (See figures A and B – Appendix A(2) - for Assistance) Yes (Go to 3)

Page E-18
3. ROADWAY AND/OR STRUCTURE REPAIR COSTS 

3a. Is the overtopping flood less than a 100 year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3b) No (Go to 3i)

3b. Compare the Tailwater (TW) elevation with the roadway sag point elevation for 

the overtopping flood. Check the appropriate category.

When TW is above the sag point (Go to 4) TW is between 0 and 0.5' below sag point (Go to 3c) TW is between 0.5' and 1.0' below sag point (Go to 3d) When TW is 1.0' and 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3e) When TW is more than 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3g)

3c. Does the embankment have a good erosion resistant vegetative cover?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3d)

3d. Is the shoulder constructed from erosion resistant material such as paved, coarse 

gravel, or clay type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3e)

3e. Will the duration of overtopping for the 25-year flood exceed 1 hour?

Yes (Go to 3f) No (Go to 3i)

3f. Is the embankment constructed from erosion resistant material such as a clay 

type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3g)

3g. Is the overtopping flood less than a 25-year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3h) No (Go to 3i)

3h. Will the cost of protecting the roadway and/or embankment from severe damage 

caused by overtopping exceed the cost of providing additional culvert or bridge 

capacity?

No (Go to 3i); Yes (Go to 3i)

3i. Is there damage potential to the structure caused by scour, ice, debris or other 

means during the lesser of the overtopping flood or the 100 year flood?

Yes (Go to 3j) No (Go to 4)

3j. Will the cost of protecting the structure from damage exceed the cost of providing 

additional culvert or bridge water capacity?

No (Go to 4); protecting abutments from scour by riprap. Yes (Go to 4)

4. Will the capital cost of the structure exceed $1,000,000?

No (Go to 5); Yes (Go to 5)

5. In your opinion, are there any other factors that you feel should require further study 

through a risk analysis?

No (Go to 6); Yes (Indicate)

Page E-19
6. If there are no √'s in the LTEC Design column on the right, proceed with the design, 

selecting the lowest acceptable grade line and the smallest waterway opening consistent 

with the constraints imposed on the project. The risk assessment has demonstrated 

that potential flood damage costs, traffic related costs, roadway and/or structure repair 

costs are minor and therefore disregarded for this project. 

One or more √’s in the LTEC Design column indicates further analysis in the category 

checked may be required utilizing the LTEC design process or justification (below) why 

it is not required.

JUSTIFICATION: 

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my 

direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws 

of the State of Minnesota:

Signature:

License Number: Date:

Page E-20
 STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION Feb 2011

 HYDRAULIC FLOOD ANALYSIS Page 1 of 1

Bridge Number _____________ Date______________

* Stream name ____________________

Drainage area ____________________

Flood of record ____________________

Maximum observed highwater elevation ____________________

* Design flood ( - year frequency) ____________________

Road sag point elevation ____________________

Design stage ____________________

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Min. waterway opening below elevation ____________________

Low member at or above elevation ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

Main channel velocity ____________________

Overtopping flood or Greatest flood (500 -year

frequency) ____________________

Road sag point elevation ____________________

Stage ____________________

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

* Basic flood (100-year frequency) ____________________

Stage

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Min. overflow area above sag point elev. ____________________

Mean overflow velocity ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

Approximate flowline elevation ____________________

Estimated pier scour elevation ____________________

Year frequency scour was calculated for ____________________

Skew ____________________

Scour Code ____________________

*Items to be shown on Grading Plan

*Elevation datum NAVD88 [adjusted]

1 of 9

Page E-21
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ENCROACHMENT DESIGN 

Date: 9/9/2016

District: 8 County: Kandiyohi Vicinity of: Northeast of intersection of CSAH55 and TH40 in 

Willmar MN

DATA REQUIREMENTS

1. Location of Crossing: BNSF RR sta 

104+95

C.S. M.P.

Sec. 17 T 119N R 35W

2. Name of Stream: Hawk Creek Bridge No. Old: N/A New:

3. Current ADT: N/A Projected ADT: N/A

4. Practicable detour available

Yes No

If no is checked, please explain:

If there is no practicable detour available, then the use of the road must be analyzed. Considerations such as 

emergency vehicle access, emergency supply and evacuation route, and the need for school bus, milk and mail 

routes should be studied. Factors to consider for this analysis include design frequency, depth, duration, and 

frequency of inundation if appropriate, and available funding. 

5. Hydraulic Data: (Fill in as appropriate) 

Elevation Datum: NAVD88

Q2 = cfs HW2 Elevation ft

Q5 = cfs HW5 Elevation ft

Q10 = cfs HW10 Elevation ft

Q25 = cfs HW25 Elevation ft

Q50 = 496 cfs HW50 Elevation 1113.38 ft

Q100 = 616 cfs HW100 Elevation 1114.42 ft

Q500 = 931 cfs HW500 Elevation 1117.44 ft

Approximate Flowline Elevation: 1106.5 Ft

Design Frequency Event:

100-yr 50-yr 25-yr 10-yr

Reasons for selecting Design Frequency: Minnesota State Statute 6115.0231 - N/A to Railroad

6. Magnitude and Frequency of the smaller of "Overtopping" or "500 yr." (Greatest) flood: 500-year

7. Low member elevation: 1116.0 (top of culvert)

8. Minimum roadway overflow elevation if appropriate: Railroad sag point elevation is 1118.72 @ station 8+45

9. Elevation of high risk property, i.e. residences: N/A

Other buildings

10. Horizontal location of overflow:

At Structure (See 12) Not At Structure:

11. Type of proposed structure:

Bridge (See 12) Culvert(s)

Page E-22
12 If the proposed structure is a bridge with the sag point located on the bridge and there is ice and debris potential, 

strong consideration should be given to using Q50 as design discharge with 3’ of clearance between the 50 year 

tailwater stage and low member.

1. BACKWATER DAMAGE - Major flood damage in this context refers to shopping 

centers, hospitals, chemical plants, power plants, housing developments, etc.

LTEC Design

1a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the 100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1b) No (Go to 1e)

1b. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. Frequency)?

Yes (Go to 1d) No (Go to 1c)

1c. Is there major flood damage potential for the overtopping flood?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1d. Is there major flood damage potential for the greatest flood (500 year frequency)?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1e. Will there be flood damage potential to residence(s) or other buildings during a 

100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1f) No (Go to 2)

1f. Could this flood damage occur even if the roadway crossing wasn't there?

Yes (Go to 1g) No (Go to 1h)

1g. Could this flood damage be significantly increased by the backwater caused by 

the proposed crossing?

Yes (Go to 1h) No (Go to 2)

1h. Could the stream crossing be designed in such a manner so as to minimize this 

potential flood damage?

Yes (Go to 1i) No (Go to 2)

1i. Does the value of the building(s) and/or its contents have sufficient value to justify 

further evaluation of risk and potential flood damage?

No (Go to 2) Yes (Go to 2)

2. TRAFFIC RELATED LOSSES

2a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. frequency)?

Yes (Go to 3) No (Go to 2b)

2b. Does the ADT exceed 50 vehicles per day?

Yes (Go to 2c) No (Go to 3)

2c. Would the (duration of road closure in days) multiplied by the (length of detour 

minus the length of normal route in miles) exceed 20?

Yes (Go to 2d) No (Go to 3)

2d. Does the annual risk cost for traffic related costs exceed 10% of the annual capital 

costs?

No (Go to 3) (See figures A and B – Appendix A(2) - for Assistance) Yes (Go to 3)

Page E-23
3. ROADWAY AND/OR STRUCTURE REPAIR COSTS 

3a. Is the overtopping flood less than a 100 year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3b) No (Go to 3i)

3b. Compare the Tailwater (TW) elevation with the roadway sag point elevation for 

the overtopping flood. Check the appropriate category.

When TW is above the sag point (Go to 4) TW is between 0 and 0.5' below sag point (Go to 3c) TW is between 0.5' and 1.0' below sag point (Go to 3d) When TW is 1.0' and 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3e) When TW is more than 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3g)

3c. Does the embankment have a good erosion resistant vegetative cover?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3d)

3d. Is the shoulder constructed from erosion resistant material such as paved, coarse 

gravel, or clay type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3e)

3e. Will the duration of overtopping for the 25-year flood exceed 1 hour?

Yes (Go to 3f) No (Go to 3i)

3f. Is the embankment constructed from erosion resistant material such as a clay 

type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3g)

3g. Is the overtopping flood less than a 25-year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3h) No (Go to 3i)

3h. Will the cost of protecting the roadway and/or embankment from severe damage 

caused by overtopping exceed the cost of providing additional culvert or bridge 

capacity?

No (Go to 3i); Yes (Go to 3i)

3i. Is there damage potential to the structure caused by scour, ice, debris or other 

means during the lesser of the overtopping flood or the 100 year flood?

Yes (Go to 3j) No (Go to 4)

3j. Will the cost of protecting the structure from damage exceed the cost of providing 

additional culvert or bridge water capacity?

No (Go to 4); protecting abutments from scour by riprap. Yes (Go to 4)

4. Will the capital cost of the structure exceed $1,000,000?

No (Go to 5); Yes (Go to 5)

5. In your opinion, are there any other factors that you feel should require further study 

through a risk analysis?

No (Go to 6); Yes (Indicate)

Page E-24
6. If there are no √'s in the LTEC Design column on the right, proceed with the design, 

selecting the lowest acceptable grade line and the smallest waterway opening consistent 

with the constraints imposed on the project. The risk assessment has demonstrated 

that potential flood damage costs, traffic related costs, roadway and/or structure repair 

costs are minor and therefore disregarded for this project. 

One or more √’s in the LTEC Design column indicates further analysis in the category 

checked may be required utilizing the LTEC design process or justification (below) why 

it is not required.

JUSTIFICATION: 

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my 

direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws 

of the State of Minnesota:

Signature:

License Number: Date:

Page E-25
 STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION Feb 2011

 HYDRAULIC FLOOD ANALYSIS Page 1 of 1

Bridge Number _____________ Date______________

* Stream name ____________________

Drainage area ____________________

Flood of record ____________________

Maximum observed highwater elevation ____________________

* Design flood ( - year frequency) ____________________

Road sag point elevation ____________________

Design stage ____________________

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Min. waterway opening below elevation ____________________

Low member at or above elevation ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

Main channel velocity ____________________

Overtopping flood or Greatest flood (500 -year

frequency) ____________________

Road sag point elevation ____________________

Stage ____________________

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

* Basic flood (100-year frequency) ____________________

Stage

Total stage increase ____________________

* Headwater elevation ____________________

Stage increase of the inplace condition ____________________

Min. overflow area above sag point elev. ____________________

Mean overflow velocity ____________________

Mean velocity through structure ____________________

Approximate flowline elevation ____________________

Estimated pier scour elevation ____________________

Year frequency scour was calculated for ____________________

Skew ____________________

Scour Code ____________________

*Items to be shown on Grading Plan

*Elevation datum NAVD88 [adjusted]

1 of 9

Page E-26
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ENCROACHMENT DESIGN 

Date: 9/2/2016

District: 8 County: Kandiyohi Vicinity of: EAst of CSAH 55 in Willmar MN

DATA REQUIREMENTS

1. Location of Crossing: BNSF RR sta 

18+54

C.S. M.P.

Sec. 17 T 119N R 35W

2. Name of Stream: County Ditch 46 Bridge No. Old: N/A New:

3. Current ADT: N/A Projected ADT: N/A

4. Practicable detour available

Yes No

If no is checked, please explain:

If there is no practicable detour available, then the use of the road must be analyzed. Considerations such as 

emergency vehicle access, emergency supply and evacuation route, and the need for school bus, milk and mail 

routes should be studied. Factors to consider for this analysis include design frequency, depth, duration, and 

frequency of inundation if appropriate, and available funding. 

5. Hydraulic Data: (Fill in as appropriate) 

Elevation Datum: NAVD88

Q2 = cfs HW2 Elevation ft

Q5 = cfs HW5 Elevation ft

Q10 = cfs HW10 Elevation ft

Q25 = cfs HW25 Elevation ft

Q50 = 218 cfs HW50 Elevation 1110.53 ft

Q100 = 279 cfs HW100 Elevation 1111.37 ft

Q500 = 446 cfs HW500 Elevation 1113.3 ft

Approximate Flowline Elevation: 1104.3 Ft

Design Frequency Event:

100-yr 50-yr 25-yr 10-yr

Reasons for selecting Design Frequency: Minnesota State Statute 6115.0231 - N/A to Railroad

6. Magnitude and Frequency of the smaller of "Overtopping" or "500 yr." (Greatest) flood: 500-year

7. Low member elevation: 1114.3 (top of culvert)

8. Minimum roadway overflow elevation if appropriate: Railroad sag point is 1118.72 @ station 8+45

9. Elevation of high risk property, i.e. residences: N/A

Other buildings

10. Horizontal location of overflow:

At Structure (See 12) Not At Structure:

11. Type of proposed structure:

Bridge (See 12) Culvert(s)

Page E-27
12 If the proposed structure is a bridge with the sag point located on the bridge and there is ice and debris potential, 

strong consideration should be given to using Q50 as design discharge with 3’ of clearance between the 50 year 

tailwater stage and low member.

1. BACKWATER DAMAGE - Major flood damage in this context refers to shopping 

centers, hospitals, chemical plants, power plants, housing developments, etc.

LTEC Design

1a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the 100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1b) No (Go to 1e)

1b. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. Frequency)?

Yes (Go to 1d) No (Go to 1c)

1c. Is there major flood damage potential for the overtopping flood?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1d. Is there major flood damage potential for the greatest flood (500 year frequency)?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1e. Will there be flood damage potential to residence(s) or other buildings during a 

100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1f) No (Go to 2)

1f. Could this flood damage occur even if the roadway crossing wasn't there?

Yes (Go to 1g) No (Go to 1h)

1g. Could this flood damage be significantly increased by the backwater caused by 

the proposed crossing?

Yes (Go to 1h) No (Go to 2)

1h. Could the stream crossing be designed in such a manner so as to minimize this 

potential flood damage?

Yes (Go to 1i) No (Go to 2)

1i. Does the value of the building(s) and/or its contents have sufficient value to justify 

further evaluation of risk and potential flood damage?

No (Go to 2) Yes (Go to 2)

2. TRAFFIC RELATED LOSSES

2a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. frequency)?

Yes (Go to 3) No (Go to 2b)

2b. Does the ADT exceed 50 vehicles per day?

Yes (Go to 2c) No (Go to 3)

2c. Would the (duration of road closure in days) multiplied by the (length of detour 

minus the length of normal route in miles) exceed 20?

Yes (Go to 2d) No (Go to 3)

2d. Does the annual risk cost for traffic related costs exceed 10% of the annual capital 

costs?

No (Go to 3) (See figures A and B – Appendix A(2) - for Assistance) Yes (Go to 3)

Page E-28
3. ROADWAY AND/OR STRUCTURE REPAIR COSTS 

3a. Is the overtopping flood less than a 100 year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3b) No (Go to 3i)

3b. Compare the Tailwater (TW) elevation with the roadway sag point elevation for 

the overtopping flood. Check the appropriate category.

When TW is above the sag point (Go to 4) TW is between 0 and 0.5' below sag point (Go to 3c) TW is between 0.5' and 1.0' below sag point (Go to 3d) When TW is 1.0' and 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3e) When TW is more than 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3g)

3c. Does the embankment have a good erosion resistant vegetative cover?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3d)

3d. Is the shoulder constructed from erosion resistant material such as paved, coarse 

gravel, or clay type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3e)

3e. Will the duration of overtopping for the 25-year flood exceed 1 hour?

Yes (Go to 3f) No (Go to 3i)

3f. Is the embankment constructed from erosion resistant material such as a clay 

type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3g)

3g. Is the overtopping flood less than a 25-year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3h) No (Go to 3i)

3h. Will the cost of protecting the roadway and/or embankment from severe damage 

caused by overtopping exceed the cost of providing additional culvert or bridge 

capacity?

No (Go to 3i); Yes (Go to 3i)

3i. Is there damage potential to the structure caused by scour, ice, debris or other 

means during the lesser of the overtopping flood or the 100 year flood?

Yes (Go to 3j) No (Go to 4)

3j. Will the cost of protecting the structure from damage exceed the cost of providing 

additional culvert or bridge water capacity?

No (Go to 4); protecting abutments from scour by riprap. Yes (Go to 4)

4. Will the capital cost of the structure exceed $1,000,000?

No (Go to 5); Yes (Go to 5)

5. In your opinion, are there any other factors that you feel should require further study 

through a risk analysis?

No (Go to 6); Yes (Indicate)

Page E-29
6. If there are no √'s in the LTEC Design column on the right, proceed with the design, 

selecting the lowest acceptable grade line and the smallest waterway opening consistent 

with the constraints imposed on the project. The risk assessment has demonstrated 

that potential flood damage costs, traffic related costs, roadway and/or structure repair 

costs are minor and therefore disregarded for this project. 

One or more √’s in the LTEC Design column indicates further analysis in the category 

checked may be required utilizing the LTEC design process or justification (below) why 

it is not required.

JUSTIFICATION: 

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my 

direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws 

of the State of Minnesota:

Signature:

License Number: Date:

Page E-30
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ENCROACHMENT DESIGN

Date: 02/27/2017

District: 8 County: Kandiyohi Vicinity of: STA 44+32 Willmar, MN

DATA REQUIREMENTS

1. Location of Crossing: TH 12 C.S. 3403 M.P. 71

Sec. 7 T 1119N R 35W

2. Name of Stream: Unnamed Bridge No. Old: New:

3. Current ADT: 6400 Projected ADT:

4. Practicable detour available Yes No

If no is checked, please explain:

If there is no practicable detour available, then the use of the road must be analyzed. Considerations such as

emergency vehicle access, emergency supply and evacuation route, and the need for school bus, milk and mail

routes should be studied. Factors to consider for this analysis include design frequency, depth, duration, and

frequency of inundation if appropriate, and available funding.

5. Hydraulic Data: (Fill in as appropriate)

Elevation Datum: NAVD88

Q2 = 31.21 cfs HW2 Elevation 1118.02 ft

Q5 = cfs HW5 Elevation ft

Q10 = 68.30 cfs HW10 Elevation 1118.77 ft

Q25 = cfs HW25 Elevation ft

Q50 = 150.74 cfs HW50 Elevation 1120.12 ft

Q100 = 218.57 cfs HW100 Elevation 1121.24 ft

Q500 = cfs HW500 Elevation ft

Approximate Flowline Elevation: 1116.5 Ft

Design Frequency Event: 100-yr 50-yr 25-yr 10-yr

Reasons for selecting Design Frequency: According to MnDOT Drainage Manual

6. Magnitude and Frequency of the smaller of "Overtopping" or "500 yr." (Greatest) flood: 218.6 cfs;100 year

7. Low member elevation: 1119.5 (approximate top of culvert)

8. Minimum roadway overflow elevation if appropriate: 1121.5

9. Elevation of high risk property, i.e. residences: 1124

Other buildings

10. Horizontal location of overflow:

At Structure (See 12) Not At Structure:

11. Type of proposed structure:

Bridge (See 12) Culvert(s)

Page E-31
12 If the proposed structure is a bridge with the sag point located on the bridge and there is ice and debris potential, strong

consideration should be given to using Q50 as design discharge with 3’ of clearance between the 50 year tailwater stage

and low member.

1. BACKWATER DAMAGE - Major flood damage in this context refers to shopping centers,

hospitals, chemical plants, power plants, housing developments, etc.

LTEC Design

1a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the 100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1b) No (Go to 1e)

1b. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. Frequency)?

Yes (Go to 1d) No (Go to 1c)

1c. Is there major flood damage potential for the overtopping flood?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1d. Is there major flood damage potential for the greatest flood (500 year frequency)?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1e. Will there be flood damage potential to residence(s) or other buildings during a 100

yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1f) No (Go to 2)

1f. Could this flood damage occur even if the roadway crossing wasn't there?

Yes (Go to 1g) No (Go to 1h)

1g. Could this flood damage be significantly increased by the backwater caused by the

proposed crossing?

Yes (Go to 1h) No (Go to 2)

1h. Could the stream crossing be designed in such a manner so as to minimize this

potential flood damage?

Yes (Go to 1i) No (Go to 2)

1i. Does the value of the building(s) and/or its contents have sufficient value to justify

further evaluation of risk and potential flood damage?

No (Go to 2) Yes (Go to 2)

2. TRAFFIC RELATED LOSSES

2a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. frequency)?

Yes (Go to 3) No (Go to 2b)

2b. Does the ADT exceed 50 vehicles per day?

Yes (Go to 2c) No (Go to 3)

2c. Would the (duration of road closure in days) multiplied by the (length of detour

minus the length of normal route in miles) exceed 20?

Yes (Go to 2d) No (Go to 3)

2d. Does the annual risk cost for traffic related costs exceed 10% of the annual capital

costs?

No (Go to 3) (See figures A and B – Appendix A(2) - for Assistance) Yes (Go to 3)

3. ROADWAY AND/OR STRUCTURE REPAIR COSTS

Page E-32
3a. Is the overtopping flood less than a 100 year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3b) No (Go to 3i)

3b. Compare the Tailwater (TW) elevation with the roadway sag point elevation for the

overtopping flood. Check the appropriate category.

When TW is above the sag point (Go to 4)

TW is between 0 and 0.5' below sag point (Go to 3c)

TW is between 0.5' and 1.0' below sag point (Go to 3d)

When TW is 1.0' and 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3e)

When TW is more than 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3g)

3c. Does the embankment have a good erosion resistant vegetative cover?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3d)

3d. Is the shoulder constructed from erosion resistant material such as paved, coarse

gravel, or clay type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3e)

3e. Will the duration of overtopping for the 25-year flood exceed 1 hour?

Yes (Go to 3f) No (Go to 3i)

3f. Is the embankment constructed from erosion resistant material such as a clay

type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3g)

3g. Is the overtopping flood less than a 25-year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3h) No (Go to 3i)

3h. Will the cost of protecting the roadway and/or embankment from severe damage

caused by overtopping exceed the cost of providing additional culvert or bridge

capacity?

No (Go to 3i); Yes (Go to 3i)

3i. Is there damage potential to the structure caused by scour, ice, debris or other

means during the lesser of the overtopping flood or the 100 year flood?

Yes (Go to 3j) No (Go to 4)

3j. Will the cost of protecting the structure from damage exceed the cost of providing

additional culvert or bridge water capacity?

No (Go to 4); protecting abutments from scour by riprap. Yes (Go to 4)

4. Will the capital cost of the structure exceed $1,000,000?

No (Go to 5); Yes (Go to 5)

5. In your opinion, are there any other factors that you feel should require further study

through a risk analysis?

No (Go to 6); Yes (Indicate)

6. If there are no √'s in the LTEC Design column on the right, proceed with the design,

selecting the lowest acceptable grade line and the smallest waterway opening consistent

Page E-33
with the constraints imposed on the project. The risk assessment has demonstrated that

potential flood damage costs, traffic related costs, roadway and/or structure repair costs

are minor and therefore disregarded for this project.

One or more √’s in the LTEC Design column indicates further analysis in the category

checked may be required utilizing the LTEC design process or justification (below) why it

is not required.

JUSTIFICATION:

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my

direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws

of the State of Minnesota:

Signature:

License Number: Date:

Page E-34
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ENCROACHMENT DESIGN

Date: 02/27/2017

District: 8 County: Kandiyohi Vicinity of: STA. 107+15 Willmar, MN

DATA REQUIREMENTS

1. Location of Crossing: TH 12 C.S. 3403 M.P. 72

Sec. 17 T 119N R 35W

2. Name of Stream: Bridge No. Old: New:

3. Current ADT: 6400 Projected ADT:

4. Practicable detour available Yes No

If no is checked, please explain:

If there is no practicable detour available, then the use of the road must be analyzed. Considerations such as

emergency vehicle access, emergency supply and evacuation route, and the need for school bus, milk and mail

routes should be studied. Factors to consider for this analysis include design frequency, depth, duration, and

frequency of inundation if appropriate, and available funding.

5. Hydraulic Data: (Fill in as appropriate)

Elevation Datum: NAVD88

Q2 = 21.57 cfs HW2 Elevation 1113.42 ft

Q5 = cfs HW5 Elevation ft

Q10 = 45.11 cfs HW10 Elevation 1114.55 ft

Q25 = cfs HW25 Elevation ft

Q50 = 89.36 cfs HW50 Elevation 1115.60 ft

Q100 = 110.91 cfs HW100 Elevation 1116.08 ft

Q500 = cfs HW500 Elevation ft

Approximate Flowline Elevation: 1112.3 Ft

Design Frequency Event: 100-yr 50-yr 25-yr 10-yr

Reasons for selecting Design Frequency: According to MnDOT Drainage Manual

6. Magnitude and Frequency of the smaller of "Overtopping" or "500 yr." (Greatest) flood: 110.9 cfs;100 year

7. Low member elevation: 1115.3 (approximate top of culvert)

8. Minimum roadway overflow elevation if appropriate: 1116.80

9. Elevation of high risk property, i.e. residences: 1121

Other buildings Commercial

10. Horizontal location of overflow:

At Structure (See 12) Not At Structure:

11. Type of proposed structure:

Bridge (See 12) Culvert(s)

Page E-35
12 If the proposed structure is a bridge with the sag point located on the bridge and there is ice and debris potential, strong

consideration should be given to using Q50 as design discharge with 3’ of clearance between the 50 year tailwater stage

and low member. 1. BACKWATER DAMAGE - Major flood damage in this context refers to shopping centers,

hospitals, chemical plants, power plants, housing developments, etc.

LTEC Design

1a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the 100 yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1b) No (Go to 1e)

1b. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. Frequency)?

Yes (Go to 1d) No (Go to 1c)

1c. Is there major flood damage potential for the overtopping flood?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1d. Is there major flood damage potential for the greatest flood (500 year frequency)?

No (Go to 1e) Yes (Go to 1e)

1e. Will there be flood damage potential to residence(s) or other buildings during a 100

yr. flood?

Yes (Go to 1f) No (Go to 2)

1f. Could this flood damage occur even if the roadway crossing wasn't there?

Yes (Go to 1g) No (Go to 1h)

1g. Could this flood damage be significantly increased by the backwater caused by the

proposed crossing?

Yes (Go to 1h) No (Go to 2)

1h. Could the stream crossing be designed in such a manner so as to minimize this

potential flood damage?

Yes (Go to 1i) No (Go to 2)

1i. Does the value of the building(s) and/or its contents have sufficient value to justify

further evaluation of risk and potential flood damage?

No (Go to 2) Yes (Go to 2)

2. TRAFFIC RELATED LOSSES

2a. Is the overtopping flood greater than the "greatest" flood (500 yr. frequency)?

Yes (Go to 3) No (Go to 2b)

2b. Does the ADT exceed 50 vehicles per day?

Yes (Go to 2c) No (Go to 3)

2c. Would the (duration of road closure in days) multiplied by the (length of detour

minus the length of normal route in miles) exceed 20?

Yes (Go to 2d) No (Go to 3)

2d. Does the annual risk cost for traffic related costs exceed 10% of the annual capital

costs?

No (Go to 3) (See figures A and B – Appendix A(2) - for Assistance) Yes (Go to 3)

3. ROADWAY AND/OR STRUCTURE REPAIR COSTS

Page E-36
3a. Is the overtopping flood less than a 100 year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3b) No (Go to 3i)

3b. Compare the Tailwater (TW) elevation with the roadway sag point elevation for the

overtopping flood. Check the appropriate category.

When TW is above the sag point (Go to 4)

TW is between 0 and 0.5' below sag point (Go to 3c)

TW is between 0.5' and 1.0' below sag point (Go to 3d)

When TW is 1.0' and 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3e)

When TW is more than 2.0' below sag point (Go to 3g)

3c. Does the embankment have a good erosion resistant vegetative cover?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3d)

3d. Is the shoulder constructed from erosion resistant material such as paved, coarse

gravel, or clay type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3e)

3e. Will the duration of overtopping for the 25-year flood exceed 1 hour?

Yes (Go to 3f) No (Go to 3i)

3f. Is the embankment constructed from erosion resistant material such as a clay

type soil?

Yes (Go to 3i) No (Go to 3g)

3g. Is the overtopping flood less than a 25-year frequency flood?

Yes (Go to 3h) No (Go to 3i)

3h. Will the cost of protecting the roadway and/or embankment from severe damage

caused by overtopping exceed the cost of providing additional culvert or bridge

capacity?

No (Go to 3i); Yes (Go to 3i)

3i. Is there damage potential to the structure caused by scour, ice, debris or other

means during the lesser of the overtopping flood or the 100 year flood?

Yes (Go to 3j) No (Go to 4)

3j. Will the cost of protecting the structure from damage exceed the cost of providing

additional culvert or bridge water capacity?

No (Go to 4); protecting abutments from scour by riprap. Yes (Go to 4)

4. Will the capital cost of the structure exceed $1,000,000?

No (Go to 5); Yes (Go to 5)

5. In your opinion, are there any other factors that you feel should require further study

through a risk analysis?

No (Go to 6); Yes (Indicate)

6. If there are no √'s in the LTEC Design column on the right, proceed with the design,

selecting the lowest acceptable grade line and the smallest waterway opening consistent

Page E-37
with the constraints imposed on the project. The risk assessment has demonstrated that

potential flood damage costs, traffic related costs, roadway and/or structure repair costs

are minor and therefore disregarded for this project.

One or more √’s in the LTEC Design column indicates further analysis in the category

checked may be required utilizing the LTEC design process or justification (below) why it

is not required.

JUSTIFICATION:

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my

direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws

of the State of Minnesota:

Signature:

License Number: Date:

Page E-38
SP 3403-74 Page 1 of 9

Wetland Assessment 

March 2017

WETLAND ASSESSMENT & TWO PART FINDING 

County: Kandiyohi 

Watershed: Minnesota River - Granite Falls (No. 25)

WETLAND ASSESSMENT 

The Wetland Assessment is attached (Table 1). 

AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES 

Several alternatives, including the No Build, were analyzed for the BNSF railway and 

the TH 12 realignment. These alternatives had varying levels of wetland impacts, 

which are summarized in the attached Table 2. Due to the size of the various project 

alternative locations, a wetland delineation was not conducted for each one. The 

National Wetlands Inventory was used to assist in estimating wetland impacts where 

field delineation data were not available. Each alternative that was reviewed is 

summarized below. Detailed descriptions of each alternative are available in Section 

III of the main document. 

No Build Alternative: 

Under the No Build Alternative, the proposed Willmar rail connection and industrial 

access connection would not be constructed and there would be no modifications to 

the local, regional and state transportation network. Instead, BNSF would continue to 

switch trains between the Morris and Marshall Subdivisions within the downtown 

Willmar Terminal. This would continue to perpetuate delays in regional and local 

railway service and limit opportunities to park trains for longer durations. Trains 

switching between the subdivisions would continue to occupy existing at-grade 

railway crossings within and approaching the Willmar Terminal resulting in continued 

delay and detouring of travel routes for motorized and non-motorized users, including 

emergency responders and school buses, which have time-sensitive travel. 

Unpredictability of train delays (not knowing if it is a switching train or a through 

train) would also be perpetuated. 

Quality of life beyond transportation delays would continue to decrease within 

downtown Willmar. Due to the idling of trains and motorized vehicles, emissions 

would continue and likely increase in the future when train traffic increases. 

Additionally, opportunities to serve the new industrial park with rail service which is a 

key component of the city’s planned economic development would be impractical and 

cost prohibitive. 

Other Alternatives 

Alternative 1 (RR1): Connection West of CSAH 55 on Existing MnDOT Right of Way 

Alternative 1 involved the use of some MnDOT Right of Way that was no longer needed 

by MnDOT to construct the new BNSF rail line. This alternative would have kept 

switching trains out of the Willmar Terminal and would reduce the number of trains at 

at-grade crossings. The total amount of wetland impact that would have resulted 

Page E-39
SP 3403-74 Page 2 of 9

Wetland Assessment 

March 2017

from this alternative was approximately 13.77 acres. In addition to the amount of 

wetland impact, the disadvantage of this alternative was that its proximity to the 

industrial park was not ideal and would have resulted in the need for additional 

railway service to that area. In addition, the transportation network between key 

local and regional destinations would be broken. For these reasons, Alternative 1 was 

rejected. 

Alternative 2 (RR2): Loop Track East of Willmar Terminal 

Alternative 2 created a loop track east of the Willmar Terminal. It would have been 

created on agricultural land west of US Highway 71 and north of the Wayzata 

Subdivision. This alternative would have resulted in 0.47 acre of wetland impact. The 

disadvantages of this alternative were that it would not provide access to the 

industrial park and would not reduce the train trips into downtown Willmar that 

ultimately delay traffic. Because Alternative 2 did not address all of the defined 

project needs, it was rejected. 

Alternative 3 (TH12-1, RR3): Bridge on Existing TH 12 alignment, Railroad Connection 

East of CSAH 55 

The Alternative 3 roadway alignment would have involved reconstruction of the 

existing TH 12 to accommodate a railway grade separation and would have included 

the following elements: 

• reconstruction of TH 12 from 7th Ave West to approximately 1 mile to the east, 

• raising TH 12 in the reconstructed area up on retaining walls to accommodate 

the new railway connection (maximum wall height would be 40 feet), 

• construction of a skewed steel bridge on TH 12 over the new railway line, 

• raising and reconstructing the TH 40 and CSAH 55 intersection to provide a 

grade-separated crossing for TH 40 over the proposed railway, 

• realignment of CSAH 55 from south of the western leg of 1st Ave West to US 12, 

• reconfiguration of the CSAH 55 and 1st Ave West intersection, 

• disconnection of 45th Street NW south of TH 12 and construction of a cul-desac, 

• construction of a new driveway off of CSAH 55 to the mini storage site, 

• disconnection of 45th Street NW north of TH 12 and realigned with the new 

CSAH 55 intersection south of TH 12, and 

• crossing of Hawk Creek (County Ditch 10). 

Alternative 3 would have resulted in 10.72 acres of wetland impacts. Alternative 3 

was rejected for various reasons, which are summarized below: 

• wetland impacts associated with Alternative 3 were higher than other potential 

alternatives, 

• the height of the raised TH 12 alignment and bridge raised safety concerns, 

particularly during winter when strong winds could cause visibility and ice 

issues, and 

• the skewed bridge and retaining walls would increase maintenance and 

operations costs. 

Page E-40
SP 3403-74 Page 3 of 9

Wetland Assessment 

March 2017

Alternative 4 (TH12-2, RR-3, CSAH 55/1st Ave-1): 1st Avenue At-Grade Railroad 

Crossing and TH 12/CSAH 55 Quadrant Interchange 

Alternative 4 was very similar in design to the preferred alternative, but included an 

at-grade crossing of 1st Avenue at the proposed railway, raised TH 12 over CSAH 55, 

and created a quadrant interchange at TH12 and CSAH 55. This alternative would 

have resulted in 9.40 acres of wetland impact. The disadvantages of this alternative 

were that it would have involved an at-grade crossing of the proposed railroad at 1st 

Avenue. Because of the safety concerns related to at-grade railroad crossings, this 

alternative was rejected. 

Alternative 5 (TH12-2, RR-3, CSAH 55/1st Ave-2) – 1st Avenue At-Grade Railroad 

Crossing and TH 12/CSAH 55 At-Grade Intersection 

Alternative 5 was very similar in design to the preferred alternative, but included an 

at-grade crossing of the proposed railroad at 1st Avenue and an at-grade crossing at 

the intersection of TH 12 and CSAH 55. This alternative would have resulted in 10.34 

acres of wetland impact. The disadvantages of this alternative were that it would 

have involved an at-grade crossing of the proposed railroad at 1st Avenue. Because of 

the safety concerns related to at-grade railroad crossings, this alternative was 

rejected. 

Various sub-options were evaluated for each alternative (e.g., crossing alternatives 

and industrial park access routes), but none would have significantly affected the 

overall wetland impacts, so are not discussed in detail here. 

MINIMIZATION MEASURES 

In order to minimize impacts to wetlands, the northwest portion of the preferred TH 

12 roadway realignment was shifted to the east approximately 1,000 feet in order to 

avoid crossing the largest spans of wetland in that area. This shift in alignment 

reduced the wetland impacts from the preferred alternative by approximately 3 

acres. In other locations, equalizer culverts will be placed under the new roadway and 

railway to maintain the hydrology of the wetlands. In addition to this alignment shift, 

the BNSF rail line cross sections include 2:1 side slopes and the roadway cross sections 

include 3:1 slopes in order to minimize impacts to wetlands. 

WETLAND IMPACTS 

The preferred alternative includes a new BNSF rail line east of CSAH 55 and the 

realignment of TH 12 from approximately the intersection of TH 12 with 7th Avenue 

West south to a new intersection with CSAH 55 about 1,400 feet south of 1st Avenue 

West and reconnecting with the existing TH 12 at Airport Drive West. The existing 1st 

Avenue West and CSAH 55 intersection will be closed and 1st Avenue West will be 

removed between CSAH 55 and the new railway. A new roadway located east of the 

proposed railway will provide access into the industrial park from 1st Avenue West. 

Grade-separated crossings will be constructed over the new BNSF rail line at TH 12 

and TH 40. 

Page E-41
SP 3403-74 Page 4 of 9

Wetland Assessment 

March 2017

Various project elements contribute to the wetland impacts that result from this 

alternative, which are shown on the attached Table 3. These project elements are 

caused by construction associated with MnDOT, BNSF, and Kandiyohi County projects. 

Wetland impacts caused by the preferred alternative total 11.76 acres. 

COMPENSATION (REPLACEMENT/ENHANCEMENTS) 

It is anticipated that wetland impacts resulting from this project will be replaced at a 

2:1 ratio, for a total of approximately 23.52 acres of replacement. This replacement 

will be achieved through the use of the MnDOT Road Bank for impacts that are 

associated with the TH 12 realignment and various other roadway improvements, and 

through the purchase of wetland credits from a US Army Corps-Approved wetland 

bank for impacts resulting from the BNSF rail line.

The specific siting of the wetland banks will follow the Wetland Conservation Act 

siting requirements. These requirements call for wetland replacement to be provided 

in the following priority order: 

(1) onsite, or within the same minor watershed as the impacted wetlands;

(2) in the same watershed as the impacted wetlands;

(3) in the same county or wetland bank service area (BSA) as the impacted 

wetland; and 

(4) in another wetland bank service area.

Based on current bank data from the Board of Water and Soil Resources, there are no 

banks available within the same minor or major watershed as the project. There is 

one bank available within Kandiyohi County, but it does not have enough credits 

available to cover all of the impacts. A few banks are available within the same bank 

service area as the project (BSA 9). Therefore, it is anticipated that mitigation will 

come from banks that meet siting criteria (3). If at the time the permit application is 

submitted no banks are available that meet siting criteria (3) and a bank in another 

service area must be used, the replacement ratio will increase to 2.5:1. 

The proposed wetland replacement options are described below. 

WETLAND REPLACEMENT OPTIONS 

All Wetlands 

Location TBD 

onsite, offsite Offsite 

Classification TBD 

Approx. Size, acres 23.52 (4.90 Rail; 18.62 road) 

Topographic setting TBD 

Method of construction N/A 

Timetable In-advance 

Page E-42
SP 3403-74 Page 5 of 9

Wetland Assessment 

March 2017

CONCLUSION 

Based upon the above factors and considerations, it is determined that there is no 

practicable alternative to the proposed construction in the identified wetlands, and 

the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the 

wetlands. 

ATTACHMENTS 

 Table 1a – Preferred Alternative Wetland Assessment 

 Table 1b –Preferred Alternative Wetland Assessment

 Table 2 – Wetland Avoidance Alternatives 

 Table 3 – Preferred Alternative Wetland Impacts 

 Figure A-E – Preferred Alternative Impact Figures 

Page E-43
SP 3403-74 Page 6 of 9

Wetland Assessment March 2017

Table 1a: Willmar Preferred Alternative Wetland Assessment

ID # 1 ID # 2 ID # 3 ID # 4 ID # 5 ID # 6 ID # 7 ID # 9 ID # 10 ID 

Classification (Type of wetland) 

Type 3 Type 2 Type 3 Type 3 Type 3 Type 3 Type 

2 

Type 1 

Type 1 Ty

1/

Approx. Basin Size, acres 

0.33 0.26 1.80 0.49 31.70 0.38 0.52 0.39 0.35 26

Anticipated Encroachment Size, acres 

0.02 0.04 1.30 0.01 1.98 0.10 0.04 0.32 0.01 0.

Type of Impact: fill, excavation, drain 

Fill Fill Fill Fill Fill Fill Fill Cut Fill Fi

Cu

% Encroachment to Basin Size 

6.10 15.40 72.22 2.04 6.24 26.32 7.69 82.05 2.86 3.

Protected wetland? Y/N 

N N N N N N N N N N 

Connection to other wetlands? Y/N 

N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N 

Impacts to public water supply? Y/N 

N N N N N N N N N N 

Water Quality impacts? ----recharge/discharge----water pollution ----flooding ----sedimentation ----erosion 

N N N N N N N N N N 

Impacts to fish/wildlife & habitat? 

N N N N N N N N N N 

Impacts to recreational, cultural, or scientific uses? 

N N N N N N N N N N 
SP 3403-74 Page 7 of 9

Wetland Assessment March 2017

Table 1b: Willmar Preferred Alternative Wetland Assessment 

ID # 20 ID # 21 ID # 24 ID # 32 ID # 33 ID # 34 ID # 35 ID # 36 ID 

Classification (Type of wetland) 

Type 1 Type 2 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 T

Approx. Basin Size, acres 3.10 0.38 0.07 7.60 1.13 0.39 17.15 0.90 0Anticipated Encroachment Size, acres 

0.40 0.38 0.01 1.49 0.18 0.39 2.45 0.17 0

Type of Impact: fill, excavation, drain

Fill Fill, 

Cut 

Fill Fill Fill Fill Fill Fill F

% Encroachment to Basin Size 12.90 100 14.29 19.61 15.93 100 14.29 18.89 9Protected wetland? Y/N N N N N N N N N N Connection to other wetlands? Y/N 

N N N N N N N N N 

Impacts to public water supply? Y/N 

N N N N N N N N N 

Water Quality impacts?----recharge/discharge ----water pollution ----flooding ----sedimentation ----erosion 

N N N N N N N N N 

Impacts to fish/wildlife & habitat? 

N N N N N N N N N 

Impacts to recreational, cultural, or scientific uses? 

N N N N N N N N N 
SP 3403-74 Page 8 of 9

Wetland Assessment March 2017

Table 2: Willmar Wetland Avoidance Alternatives 

AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES – Anticipated Encroachment per Alternative, acres 

 No Build Alternative Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Alternative #4 

Wetland ID # 1 0 0 0 0 0 Wetland ID # 3 0 0 0 0.644 1.240 Wetland ID # 4 0 0 0 0 0.003 Wetland ID # 5 0 6.086 0 1.703 2.012 Wetland ID # 6 0 0.109 0 0 0.099 Wetland ID # 7 0 0.056 0 0 0.059 Wetland ID # 9 0 0 0 0.097 0.275 

Wetland ID # 10 0 0 0 0.034 0.066 Wetland ID # 15 0 0 0 1.498 1.129 Wetland ID # 16 0 0 0 1.325 0.082 Wetland ID # 19 0 0 0 0.105 0.422 Wetland ID # 20 0 0 0 0.911 0.006 Wetland ID # 21 0 0 0 0.102 0.083 Wetland ID # 22 0 0 0 0 0.250 Wetland ID # 24 0 0 0 0 0 Wetland ID # 32 0 0 0 1.057 1.102 Wetland ID # 33 0 0 0 0 0.018 Wetland ID # 34 0 0 0 0.387 0.212 Wetland ID # 35 0 0 0 1.853 1.961 Wetland ID # 36 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 Wetland ID # 38 0 0 0 0.278 0.343 Wetland ID # 39 0 0 0 0.030 0.030 Wetland ID # 40 0 0.087 0 0 0 Wetland ID # 41 0 0.145 0 0 0 

NWI Wetland # 1 0 5.043 0 0 0 NWI Wetland # 2 0 1.480 0 0 0 NWI Wetland # 3 0 0.398 0 0 0 NWI Wetland # 4 0 0.362 0 0 0 NWI Wetland # 5 0 0 0.473 0 0 

Total, acres 0 13.770 0.473 10.718 9.395 
SP 3403-74 Page 9 of 9

Wetland Assessment March 2017

Table 3: Willmar Preferred Alternative Wetland Impacts 

WETLAND IMPACTS - Preferred Alternative 

Anticipated Encroachment per Type of Wetland, acres 

1 1L 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Wetland ID # 1 0.02 Wetland ID # 2 0.04 Wetland ID # 3 1.30 Wetland ID # 4 0.01 Wetland ID # 5 1.98 Wetland ID # 6 0.10 Wetland ID # 7 0.04 Wetland ID # 9 0.32 Wetland ID # 10 0.01 Wetland ID # 15 0.96 Wetland ID # 16 0.08 Wetland ID # 19 0.87 Wetland ID # 20 0.40 Wetland ID # 21 0.38 Wetland ID # 24 0.01 Wetland ID # 32 1.49 Wetland ID # 33 0.18 Wetland ID # 34 0.39 Wetland ID # 35 2.45 Wetland ID # 36 0.17 Wetland ID # 38 0.45 Wetland ID # 39 0.10 Wetland ID # 58 0.01 Total 6.98 0.00 2.50 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 
)n

GÁWX

?ËA@

GdWX

?1⁄4A@

GoWX

1st Ave W

GÁWX

0 1,000

Feet

Ü

Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Wetland_Impacts_preferred_overview.mxd Date Saved: 10/26/2016 11:11:00 AM

Project Limits

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure A-E Overview: Aquatic Resource Impacts

Willmar, MN

SEE FIGURE A

SEE FIGURE B

SEE FIGURE C

SEE FIGURE D

SEE FIGURE E

Page E-48
)n

1st Ave W

15

5

11

20

55

51

19

46

13

49

48

6

4

18 12

1

7

56

3

9

8

10

47

2

57

17

45

16

51

15

16

51

49

5

55

46

15

5

3

3

0 1,000

Feet

 ̄ Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure A: Aquatic Resource Impacts

Willmar, MN 1 inch = 672 feet

Document Path: K:\01705-100\GIS\Maps\2-part finding updated impact figure -030717.mxd Date Saved: 3/7/2017 12:00:02 PM

Legend

Aquatic Resource Impacts

Approved Wetland Boundary

Project Limits

Page E-49
GdWX

30

15

31

52

28

44

18

2

6

27

29

53

52

52

52

0 1,000

Feet

 ̄ Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure B: Aquatic Resource Impacts

Willmar, MN 1 inch = 672 feet

Document Path: K:\01705-100\GIS\Maps\2-part finding updated impact figure -030717.mxd Date Saved: 3/7/2017 12:00:02 PM

Legend

Aquatic Resource Impacts

Approved Wetland Boundary

Project Limits

Page E-50
GÁWX

?ËA@

32

35

30

31

53

51

3

3

6

3

28

21

38

3

5

4

8

44

26

22

27

24

25

52

29

20

23

19

52

35

38

52

53

36

52

35

53

52

52

0 1,000

Feet

 ̄ Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure C: Aquatic Resource Impacts

Willmar, MN 1 inch = 672 feet

Document Path: K:\01705-100\GIS\Maps\2-part finding updated impact figure -030717.mxd Date Saved: 3/7/2017 12:00:02 PM

Legend

Aquatic Resource Impacts

Approved Wetland Boundary

Project Limits

Page E-51
?ËA@

GÁWX

35

37

32

3

3

6

3

58

43

38

34

52

38

35

35

36

38

52

0 1,000

Feet

 ̄ Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure D: Aquatic Resource Impacts

Willmar, MN 1 inch = 672 feet

Document Path: K:\01705-100\GIS\Maps\2-part finding updated impact figure -030717.mxd Date Saved: 3/7/2017 12:00:02 PM

Legend

Aquatic Resource Impacts

Approved Wetland Boundary

Project Limits

Page E-52
GoWX

50

54

42

41

39

40

50

42

0 1,000

Feet

 ̄ Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Figure E: Aquatic Resource Impacts

Willmar, MN 1 inch = 672 feet

Document Path: K:\01705-100\GIS\Maps\2-part finding updated impact figure -030717.mxd Date Saved: 3/7/2017 12:00:02 PM

Legend

Aquatic Resource Impacts

Approved Wetland Boundary

Project Limits

Page E-53
Attachment 2 – Section 4(f) De Minimis Concurrence

Attachment 2 - Section 4(f) De Minimis Concurrence
Attachment 2 - Page 1
Attachment 2 - Page 2
Attachment 2 - Page 3
Attachment 2 - Page 4
Attachment 2 - Page 5
Attachment 2 - Page 6
Attachment 2 - Page 7
Attachment 2 - Page 8
Document Path: K:\02051-020\GIS\Maps\EnvironmentalAssessment\Section4fResources-RR.mxd

Willmar Rail Connector & Industrial Access Project

S.P. 3403-74

Section 4(f) Resource: Historic Site

Willmar, MN

Ü

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,

Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©

OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

GÁWX

)n City of GdWX

Willmar

BNSF Morris Subdivision

45th St NW

1st Ave W 1st Ave W

Willmar

Breckenridge

Minneapolis

_^

Project

Area

Legend

Subject Section 4(f) Resource

Proposed Railway Connection

Proposed Road Improvement

Proposed New Roadway Bridge

Proposed Road Removal

Railroad

City Boundary

St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Mainline:

St. Anthony to Breckenridge Railroad

Corridor Historic District

(HE-MPC-16387)

Minnesota

Marshall

Existing Public

At-Grade Crossing

Existing Private

At-Grade Crossing Project Area

Attachment 2 - Page 9
Attachment 2 - Page 10
Attachment 2 - Page 11
Attachment 2 - Page 12
Attachment 2 - Page 13