Planning Commission Agenda - 12/15/25 (Workshop Jt CC-PC)AGENDA
WORKSHOP – JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 2025 – 6:30 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
City Councilmembers: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Kip Christianson, Charlotte Gabler, Tracy
Hinz, Lee Martie
Commissioners: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck,
Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark
Staff: Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Matt Leonard
Consultants: Leila Bunge - Kimley Horn, Mike Brandt – Kimley Horn,
Alison Harwood - WSB
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
2. Discussion and Comments on Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR)
• AUAR Document Overview
• Review of Comments
• Board Questions & Comments
• Next Steps
3. Adjournment
City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – 12/15/2025
1
Discussion and Comments on Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Monticello Tech LLC is proposing to develop a technology campus, including data center uses,
on 550 acres located within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. The proposed
development area is located south of 85th Street and east of TH 25, adjacent to the current city
boundary.
In December 2024, Monticello Tech LLC presented a concept to the Planning Commission and
City Council at a public workshop. Following that workshop, property owners within the
proposed development area submitted a petition for annexation. Based on this action, the City
determined an environmental review process would be the appropriate next step.
Per Minnesota Rules part 4410.3610, development of a technology campus would meet the
State’s mandatory requirements for an environmental review process managed by the City of
Monticello as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU).
The City determined that an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) should be prepared in
compliance with the State’s environmental review requirements.
An AUAR is not a project approval document. An AUAR is a planning tool used to evaluate the
environmental impacts of proposed development and identifies mitigation strategies the City
will use to manage and regulate those impacts.
The Monticello Industrial AUAR process began with an initial scoping process, resulting in the
preparation and City acceptance of a Scoping Document. This document outlined two potential
development scenarios to be evaluated in the full AUAR.
The draft Monticello Industrial AUAR therefore reviews environmental considerations for the
two different development scenarios. The first scenario is consistent with the Monticello Tech
proposal and evaluates a technology campus with up to 3 million square feet of technology or
data center uses. The second scenario is consistent with the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive
Plan for other types of light industrial uses, such as warehousing, production and assembly, and
evaluates the development of up to 5 million square feet of these types of light industrial uses.
The draft Monticello Industrial AUAR has been prepared to meet the requirements set for
AUAR review. The draft AUAR includes environmental impact analysis in each AUAR category
and a detailed mitigation plan specifying required studies, permit, plans, and other strategies
necessary to address potential impacts for either development scenario.
During the workshop, the consulting team that prepared the Monticello Industrial AUAR will
present an overview of the document and respond to comments and questions. Planning
City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – 12/15/2025
2
Commission and City Council members will have the opportunity to discuss the AUAR process
and document and offer feedback.
The AUAR is the City’s environmental review document. In comments and discussion, the City
should consider whether the draft provides the information necessary to inform future
planning decisions for either development scenario.
The members are encouraged to review the AUAR in advance of the workshop and come
prepared with questions and comments.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Environmental Reviews – City of Monticello website
B. Monticello Industrial AUAR, DRAFT
C. Agency Comments To-Date (12/11/25)
D. Public AUAR Comments To-Date (12/11/25)
E. Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR Schedule
F. Environmental Quality Board “Quick Reference: Alternative Urban Areawide Review”
NOVEMBER 2025
Monticello Industrial AUAR
DRAFT ALTERNATIVE URBAN
AREAWIDE REVIEW
PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY:
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 i
Table of Contents
1. Project Title ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Proposer .......................................................................................................................................... 3
3. RGU ................................................................................................................................................. 3
4. Reason for Preparation .................................................................................................................... 4
5. Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 4
6. Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 7
7. Climate Adaption and Resilience .................................................................................................... 11
8. Cover Types ................................................................................................................................... 17
9. Permits and Approvals Required .................................................................................................... 21
10. Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 23
11. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms .................................................................................. 34
12. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................... 39
13. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ................................................................................ 70
14. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) ................... 74
15. Historic Properties ......................................................................................................................... 80
16. Visual ............................................................................................................................................. 81
17. Air ................................................................................................................................................. 82
18. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint ...................................................................... 83
19. Noise ............................................................................................................................................. 86
20. Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 89
21. Cumulative Potential Effects .......................................................................................................... 98
22. Other Potential Environmental Effects ........................................................................................... 99
Draft Mitigation Plan ........................................................................................................................... 100
List of Tables
Table 1: Development Scenarios .............................................................................................................. 8
Table 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptions ..................................................................................... 13
Table 3: Existing and Proposed Cover Types........................................................................................... 18
Table 4: Green Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 18
Table 5: Trees ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Table 6: Anticipated Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................... 21
Table 7: Study Area Future Land Use Designations Purpose and Allowed Uses ....................................... 24
Table 8: Soil Types ................................................................................................................................. 36
Table 9: Wetland Delineation Summary ................................................................................................. 42
Table 10: Wells within AUAR Study Area ................................................................................................ 45
Table 11. Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity (Domestic).................................................................. 49
Table 12: Existing Landlocked Basin Summary ....................................................................................... 54
Table 13: Proposed Conditions Runoff Volume Summary ...................................................................... 57
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 ii
Table 14: Proposed Stormwater Basin Sizing Summary .......................................................................... 57
Table 15: Scenario 1 Water Demand Phasing ......................................................................................... 64
Table 16: Scenario 2 Water Demand Phasing ......................................................................................... 65
Table 17: Scenarios 1 and 2 Water Appropriations Summary ................................................................. 66
Table 18. Wetland Buffers ..................................................................................................................... 68
Table 19: MPCA “What’s in My Neighborhood?” Sites ........................................................................... 70
Table 20. Historic Sites .......................................................................................................................... 80
Table 21: Construction Emissions .......................................................................................................... 84
Table 22: Annual Operational Emissions ................................................................................................ 85
Table 23. Minnesota Industrial Operations Noise Standards .................................................................. 88
Table 24: Trip Generation Forecasts ...................................................................................................... 90
Table 25: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS .................................................................................. 93
Table 26: Draft Mitigation Plan ............................................................................................................ 101
List of Figures
Figure 1: USGS Map ................................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2: AUAR Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Development Scenario 1 ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Development Scenario 2 ......................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Average Annual Temperate in Wright County.......................................................................... 12
Figure 6: Average Annual Precipitation in Wright County ....................................................................... 12
Figure 7: Existing Cover Types ................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 8: Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 9: Future Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 10: Soil Types .............................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 11: Surface Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 40
Figure 12: Wetland Delineation Summary.............................................................................................. 41
Figure 13: Groundwater Resources ........................................................................................................ 46
Figure 14: Proposed Sewer Service Options ........................................................................................... 50
Figure 15. Existing Drainage Conditions ................................................................................................. 60
Figure 16. Proposed Stormwater Basins for Scenario 1 .......................................................................... 61
Figure 17. Proposed Stormwater Basins for Scenario 2 .......................................................................... 62
Figure 18: Proposed Water Infrastructure.............................................................................................. 67
Figure 19: What’s in My Neighborhood Listings ..................................................................................... 72
Figure 20: Traffic Study Intersections ..................................................................................................... 97
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 iii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Wetland Delineation Reports
Appendix B: StreamStats Report
Appendix C: Agency Project Correspondence
Appendix D: Greenhouse Gas Quantifaction
Appendix E: Traffic Impact Analysis
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 3
Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review
This Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) follows the format of an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) (December 2022 version). Where the AUAR guidance provided by the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) indicates that an AUAR response should differ notably from what is
required for an EAW, the guidance is noted in italics.
1. PROJECT TITLE
Monticello Industrial AUAR
2. PROPOSER
Proposer: Monticello Tech, LLC
Contact Person: Nick Frattalone
Address: 3205 Spruce Street
City, State, ZIP: Little Canada, MN 55117
Phone: 651-484-0448
Email: nickf@frattaloneco.com
3. RGU
RGU: City of Monticello
Contact Person: Angela Schumann
Title: Community Development Director
Address: 505 Walnut Street
City, State, ZIP: Monticello, MN 55362
Phone: 763-271-3224
Email: angela.schumann@MonticelloMN.gov
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 4
4. REASON FOR PREPARATION
AUAR Guidance: Not applicable to an AUAR.
The Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process provides local governments with the
opportunity to evaluate how different land uses may impact the community's environment and to
plan how to manage and mitigate those impacts. It allows environmental analysis before major
development occurs, helping guide local planning and zoning decisions. More information can be
found on the Environmental Quality Board’s website: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/environmental-
review/overview/alternative-urban-areawide-review-auar-process
5. PROJECT LOCATION
County: Wright
City/Township: Monticello
PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, Township 121N, Range 25W
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River – St. Cloud and North Fork Crow River
Watersheds
Tax Parcels: 213100224203, 213100224100, 213100224400, 213100233100, 213100224300,
213100224401, 213100234403, 213100233300, 213100271300, 213100271100, 213100262300,
213100262400, 213100262200, 213100271301, 213100271302, 213100233101.
At a minimum, attach each of the following to the AUAR:
US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see
Figure 1)
• Map depicting the boundaries of the AUAR and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis
(see Figure 2 through Figure 4)
• List of data sources, models, and other resources (from the Item-by-Item Guidance: Climate
Adaptation and Resilience or other) used for information about current Minnesota climate
trends and how climate change is anticipated to affect the general location of the project
during the life of the project (as detailed below in Item 7)
• Cover type map as required for Item 8 (see Figure 7)
• Land use and planning maps as required in conjunction with Item 0 (see Figure 8 and
Figure 9)
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 5
Figure 1: USGS Map
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 6
Figure 2: AUAR Study Area
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 7
6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AUAR Guidance: Instead of the information called for on the EAW form, the description section of an
AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included:
• Anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial/warehouse/light
industrial development throughout the AUAR area.
• Infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system,
etc.). Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are
normally expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More “arterial” types of roadways
that would cross an AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are
included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative
routes, is necessary.
• Information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known,
and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development
schedule.
The AUAR study area encompasses an area totaling approximately 550 acres on 16 parcels in
Monticello Township, Wright County, Minnesota (shown on Figure 2). Monticello Tech, LLC is
proposing to develop the study area from existing farmland to a technology campus or light
industrial uses. The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the worst-case potential impacts and identify
mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts.
Two scenarios are evaluated in the AUAR as outlined in Table 1. Scenario 1 includes multiple
buildings for a total of up to 3,000,000 square feet of a proposed technology park/campus
development (see Figure 3). Scenario 1 could include a data center, research and design facilities,
technology, laboratories or research park uses. These types of uses are expected to also include the
need to build additional electrical substations, transmission lines, and backup generators. For the
purposes of impact evaluation, this scenario assumes a data center campus, with 5-10 principal
buildings, approximately 200,000 – 400,000 square feet per building with a few ancillary support
buildings. Scenario 1 is expected to follow a similar life cycle of other typical light industrial
development. With most technology park campuses, including data centers, the exterior shell of the
buildings are anticipated to be used over many decades, while the internal components are
upgraded periodically as technology advances.
Scenario 2 includes multiple buildings for a total of up to 5,000,000 square feet of light industrial
land use based on the City of Monticello’s adopted land use plan (see Figure 4). Scenario 2 could
include process and production manufacturing which uses moderate amounts of partially processed
materials, warehousing and distribution, machine shops, computer technology including office and
research and development facilities (but not including data centers as a singular principal use),
professional and corporate offices and industrial engineering facilities. For the purposes of impact
evaluation, this scenario assumes a light industrial park type development that could include 5-20
buildings that range from approximately 20,000-1 million square feet. Generally, light industrial
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 8
development within Scenario 2 is expected to occur in the range of 50,000 – 500,000 square foot
buildings.
The proposed development within the AUAR study area is anticipated to begin construction in 2027.
Under Scenario 1, a developer would build out the AUAR study area in multiple phases, ending in
approximately 2034. Under Scenario 2, multiple developers would build out the AUAR study area in
multiple phases, ending in approximately 2045.
Development of the study area for both scenarios would include new municipal infrastructure,
including water service, sewer, stormwater, streets, and utilities. All new services would be
extensions to existing infrastructure or upgrades to existing systems to support the new
development. Both scenarios are anticipated to require approximately two miles of trunk water and
trunk sanitary sewer extensions to serve the site along Fallon Avenue NE and 85th Street NE
extending as directed by the City to the property boundary. Additionally, a trunk water extension
may be routed along Edmonson Ave NE. Additional infrastructure needs would be built in general
conformance with the City of Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Scenario 1 would require significantly lower operational traffic and potentially higher
water/wastewater demands compared to Scenario 2. However, both scenarios present variable
impacts to water/wastewater demand based on the types of uses develop in either scenario.
Scenario 2 would require additional public roadway network improvements as compared to
Scenario 1. Scenario 2 is anticipated to include a new entrance to Highway 25. Both scenarios are
expected to incorporate similar screening/buffering elements to minimize any potential land use
conflicts.
Table 1: Development Scenarios
Component Scenario 1 Scenario 2 (Comp Plan)
Technology Park (square feet) 3,000,000 -
Light Industrial (square feet) - 5,000,000
Total (square feet) 3,000,000 5,000,000
Total Project Area 550 acres 550 acres
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 9
Figure 3: Development Scenario 1
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 10
Figure 4: Development Scenario 2
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 11
7. CLIMATE ADAPTION AND RESILIENCE
Describe the climate trends in the general location of the project (see guidance: Climate
Adaptation and Resilience) and how climate change is anticipated to affect that location
during the life of the project.
Trends in temperature, precipitation, flood risk, and cooling degree days are described below for
the general project location. Some of the climate projections summarized below use shared
socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), which are greenhouse gas concentration scenarios used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The SSPs reflect assumptions about how
industrialization, fossil fuel dependence, land use, and population density evolve in the future.
The assumptions are based on population growth, urbanization, economic growth, technological
advances, greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, energy supply and demand, land-use changes,
and more.1 SSP 245 is an intermediate scenario in which emissions decline after peaking around
2040, and SSP 370 is a high-emission scenario in which emissions continue to rise through the
21st Century.
Temperature
According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, the annual daily average
temperature in Wright County from 2005 to 2024 was 44.7°F.2 According to the Minnesota
Climate Mapping and Analysis Tool, the annual daily average temperature in the study area is
projected to increase to 48.0°F from 2040 to 2059 under an intermediate emissions pathway
(SSP 245). 3 In 2080-2099, annual daily average temperature is projected to further increase to
51.0°F and 53.2°F under an intermediate (SSP 245) and high emissions pathway (SSP 370),
respectively.
1 More information on SSPs is available at: https://climate.umn.edu/sites/climate.umn.edu/files/2023-
06/ClimateProjectionPrimer_Compiled_CoverPage.pdf
2 National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. County Time Series.
Available at: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/county/time-series.
3 Minnesota CliMAT. University of Minnesota. Available at
https://app.climate.umn.edu/?output_type=modelVal&scenario=ssp370_2080-2099&model=ensemble&variable=tmax-
degF&time_frame=yearly&aoi=none#intro_pane
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 12
Figure 5: Average Annual Temperate in Wright County
Precipitation
According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, the annual average
precipitation in Wright County from 2005 to 2024 was 29.2 inches.4 According to the EPA
Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (CREAT) Climate Change Scenarios Projection
Map, there is a projected 2.6% to 13.8% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2035 and a
projected 5.2% to 26.9% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2060 for the AUAR study area.5
Figure 6: Average Annual Precipitation in Wright County
4 National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. County Time Series.
Available at: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/county/time-series.
5 CREAT Climate Change Scenarios Projection Map. US EPA. Available at
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3805293158d54846a29f750d63c6890e
40
42
44
46
48
50
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Avg. Temp. (F)
Year
Average Annual Temperature in Wright County
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Avg. Precip. (in)
Year
Average Annual Precipitation in Wright County
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 13
Localized Flood Risk
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Mapping for Resilience
and Adaptation (CMRA) tool 6 includes climate projections for numerous variables related to
various climate hazards. In this tool, the lower emissions scenario is a possible future in which
humans drastically reduce their use of fossil fuels, reducing global emissions of heat-trapping
gases to zero by 2040. This scenario is known as RCP 4.5. The higher emissions scenario is a
possible future in which humans continue increasing emissions of heat-trapping gases from
fossil fuels through 2100. This scenario is known as RCP 8.5. For a census tract containing the
AUAR study area, this tool projects the average annual total precipitation in 2015-2044 to
increase to 30.7 inches with lower emissions and 31.1 inches with higher emissions. In 2035-
2064, the average annual total precipitation is projected to further increase to 31.1 inches with
lower emissions and 31.2 inches with higher emissions.
Cooling Degree Days
As defined by the National Weather Service, cooling degree days, which are often used as a
proxy to estimate cooling needs for buildings, can be examined as a baseline and projected
exposure indicator under the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios. Cooling degree days are indexed
units, not actual days, which roughly describe the demand to heat or cool a building. Cooling
degree days accumulate on days warmer than 65°F when cooling is required. For example, if a
weather station recorded an average daily temperature of 78°F, cooling degree days for that
station would be 13.
According to Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota,7 which provides county level data, the number of
cooling degree days in 2019 for the county containing the AUAR study area (Wright County) was
381. The number of cooling days in 2050 for Wright County is projected to be 448 and 598 for
RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively.
For each resource category in the table below, describe the project’s proposed activities and
how the project’s design will interact with those climate trends. Describe proposed
adaptations to address the project effects identified.
Table 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptions
Resource
Category
Climate
Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change
Risks and
Vulnerabilities
Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
Project Design Aspects of
building
architecture/
materials
choices and site
In the coming
decades, the
location of the study
area is anticipated
to experience:
• Majority of technology park end
users have sustainability goals around
water, energy, carbon, recycling that
would be implemented on this site
(applies to Scenario 1).
6 NOAA Climate Mapping for Resilience and Adaption tool. Available at https://resilience.climate.gov/#assessment-tool.
7 Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Health and the University of Minnesota. Available at
https://maps.umn.edu/climatehealthtool/heat_app/.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 14
Resource
Category
Climate
Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change
Risks and
Vulnerabilities
Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
design may
impact
conditions in
the surrounding
area, including
changing
climate zones,
temperature
trends, and
potential for
extended heat
waves.
• Increased
annual
temperature.
• Increased
annual
precipitation
and more
frequent heavy
rainfall events.
• Increased freeze
thaw cycles.
• Energy efficient building shells,
appliances, equipment and lighting
would be incorporated into the
building design to minimize overall
energy needs with rising cooling
demand.
• Proposed native trees and
landscaping would reduce runoff and
mitigate heat island effect and
increased energy/water costs for
cooling.
• Parking areas would be evaluated to
reduce impervious areas within the
AUAR study area to mitigate
potential increases in precipitation.
• A chloride management plan would
be implemented per any state and
local guidelines or requirements.
Chloride conscious design would be
considered to minimize salt usage by
the development. This could include
considering potential locations of
snow melt, ice formation, and tree
shading.
• Addition of pathways and the
construction of the roundabout at
Fallon Avenue/School Boulevard and
85th/Hwy 25 will reduce vehicle
emissions from stalling vehicles and
encourage pedestrian activity.
Land Use Loss of tree
cover, removal
of wetlands,
increasing
severity of
storms,
increased
frequency of
freeze/thaw
transitions
• Development of
the study area
will convert the
land use from
agriculture to
industrial uses,
increasing
impervious
surfaces within
the study area
as well as
demand for
• Design of the site, greenway, and
stormwater management facilities
will be used to reduce the risk of
flooding in the AUAR study area.
Infiltration areas will be used to
improve water quality and reduce
stormwater runoff in the project
vicinity.
• Design of the site will incorporate
buffer requirements and preservation
of wetlands or woodlands as required
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 15
Resource
Category
Climate
Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change
Risks and
Vulnerabilities
Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
utility and
energy services.
• Portions of the
proposed
development
may experience
flooding during
extreme rain
events.
by the City ordinance and/or to the
extent practical.
Water
Resources
Current
Minnesota
climate trends
and anticipated
climate change
in the general
location of the
project may
influence water
resources.
• Water resources
in the general
project area
may become
warmer, and
increase in
volume due to
increased
temperatures
and runoff.
There may be
more
evaporation and
water available
when it rains
leading to an
increase in the
flood potential.
• It is projected
that there will
be more severe
storm events
with high,
intense rain
amounts which
will require
drainage
systems to be
adequately
maintained to
accommodate
for the increase
• Developer could consider using
native plants and perennials for
landscaping and stormwater features
to absorb water and reduce the
water demand for irrigation.
• Developer could use native plants
and perennials for landscaping
adjacent to water resource buffers
• If using groundwater, water reuse
systems such as cycling water, will be
implemented for cooling purposes to
reduce water usage (applies to
Scenario 1).
• Stormwater Best Management
Practices (BMP) shall meet criteria for
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) water quality requirements.
• Stormwater BMP's shall be designed
to meet the City of Monticello’s
criteria for rate control as well as
runoff volume reduction.
• Stormwater BMP’s will be designed
to maintain stormwater runoff rates
at or below the level of existing
conditions.
• The precipitation depth for the 100-
year, 24-hour storm is anticipated to
increase by 20% by the end of the
century based on the paper
Equipping Municipalities with Climate
Change Data to Inform Stormwater
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 16
Resource
Category
Climate
Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change
Risks and
Vulnerabilities
Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
in water
volume.
Management.8 The runoff volume
and rates would increase
proportionally to the precipitation
depth assuming the same land use
and storm duration. Stormwater
BMPs should be conservatively
designed to account for this increase
in runoff volume. Stormwater
conveyance system should be
designed to account for the increase
in peak flow.
• Water efficient irrigation design will
be considered for any landscape
irrigation systems.
• Green infrastructure systems will be
included in site development. This
could be infiltration basins,
infiltration trenches, rainwater
gardens, bioretention areas without
underdrains, or vegetated swales
with impermeable check dams.
• Additional adaptations discussed in
Item 12.
Contamination
/ Hazardous
Materials/
Wastes
Current
Minnesota
climate trends
and anticipated
climate change
in the general
location of the
project may
influence the
potential
environmental
effects of
generation
/use/ storage of
hazardous
waste and
materials.
The proposed
development is not
anticipated to
generate hazardous
waste or materials.
Any potential
technology campus
and light industrial
uses may require
storage of
hazardous materials
and wastes.
Design of the site would ensure
placement of any potential storage of
hazardous materials and wastes would
not be in floodplain areas or result in
contamination.
8 Equipping Municipalities with Climate Change Data to Inform Stormwater Management. Available at:
https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/e29c1999-088a-4958-b68f-c201153f4884/content.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 17
Resource
Category
Climate
Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change
Risks and
Vulnerabilities
Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
Fish, Wildlife,
Plant
Communities,
and Sensitive
Ecological
Resources
(Rare Features)
Current
Minnesota
climate trends
and anticipated
climate change
in the general
location of the
project may
influence the
local species
and suitable
habitat.
Suitable habitat for
species may become
unsuitable due to
land use changes,
increased
temperature, and
increased runoff.
• Climate-appropriate native plantings
and stormwater BMPs will provide
suitable habitat for small mammals,
insects, and bird species.
• Integration of a future greenway
corridor will provide for additional
habitat and species connectivity.
8. COVER TYPES
AUAR Guidance: The following information should be provided:
• A cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting:
o Wetlands (identified by Circular 39 type)
o Watercourses (rivers, streams, creeks, ditches)
o Lakes (identify public waters status and shoreland management classification)
o Woodlands (break down by classes where possible)
o Grassland (identify native and old field)
o Cropland
o Current development
• An overlay map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types. This map
should also depict any “protection areas,” existing or proposed, that will preserve sensitive
cover types. Separate maps for each major development scenario should be generally
provided.
The AUAR study area is approximately 550 acres of cropland, forest, wetland, open water,
impervious surface, and grassland. See Table 3 for the complete acreage of each cover type within
the AUAR study area. There are few existing buildings and structures within the study area that
include some single-family homes and some farmstead buildings and structures. These cover types
were determined by reviewing recent aerial photography and wetland boundaries were determined
during two field delineations completed June 2024 and April 2025.
The proposed cover types for the two scenarios are included in Table 3. Protected elements,
including wetland impacts and buffer/protection areas, are shown on the proposed scenarios maps
for Scenarios 1 and 2, which are shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 18
Site development of either scenario would be required to follow city landscaping ordinances.
Landscaping could include the use of green infrastructure to enhance existing wetland function,
preserve existing natural features, and mitigate stormwater runoff. Green infrastructure systems
include infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, bioretention areas without
underdrains, vegetated swales with impermeable check dams. The project proposer will use native
plants in landscape design and will maintain existing significant floodplain and wetland complexes as
feasible. The proposed Wooded/Forest, Brush/Grassland, and Lawn/Landscaping cover types
account for the proposed greenway transecting the site. The acreage of green infrastructure
systems proposed for the two scenarios is included in Table 3 and Table 4.
Table 3: Existing and Proposed Cover Types
Cover Type Existing
(acres)
Scenario 1
(acres)
Scenario 2
(acres)
Wetlands and Shallow Lakes (less than 2 meters
deep) 30.75 22.26 29.49
Rivers/Streams 0 ln ft 0 ln ft 0 ln ft
Wooded/Forest 28 25.25 25.25
Brush/Grassland 36.25 1 1
Cropland 444 0 0
Livestock Rangeland/Pastureland 0 0 0
Lawn/Landscaping 0 289.49 262.26
Green Infrastructure (total from Table 4) 0 33 39
Impervious Surface 11 171 232
Other (Stormwater Pretreatment and Detention
Ponds) 0 8 17
Total 550 acres 550 acres 550 acres
Table 4: Green Infrastructure
Green Infrastructure Before
(acres)
Scenario 1
(acres)
Scenario 2
(acres)
Constructed Infiltration Systems (infiltration basins,
infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, bioretention areas
without underdrains, vegetated swales with impermeable
check dams)9
0 33 39
Total 0 33 39
9 Based on preliminary stormwater requirement calculations based on estimated impervious surface area.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 19
Table 5: Trees
Trees Scenario 1
(acres)
Scenario 2
(acres)
Area of Mature Trees Removed During Development10 15 25
New Trees Planted (acres)11 15 25
Any hardwood tree 6 inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), softwood tree 8 inches or more
in DBH, or conifer over 12 feet in height must be replaced at a rate of 1:1 aggregate caliper inch (ACI) to
removed DBH inches per Ordinance 847 which amends Chapter 153.061 of the Monticello Code of
Ordinances.
10 Tree clearing will be limited as much as feasible to support the proposed development scenarios. Tree clearing will be
restricted to the winter months when migratory birds are not likely to be present (November 1 – March 31). If winter tree
clearing is not feasible, technical assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be obtained before any trees or shrubs
are removed.
11 Exact number to be determined as design plans advance. Higher quality trees will be preserved to the extent practicable as
site design advances.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 20
Figure 7: Existing Cover Types
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 21
9. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED
AUAR Guidance: A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan amendments and
zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be required by the
anticipated types of development projects should be given for each major development scenario.
This list will help orient reviewers to the framework that will protect environmental resources. The
list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the implementation aspects of the
mitigation plan to be developed as part of the AUAR.
Table 6: Anticipated Permits and Approvals
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Federal
US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Section 404 Permit To be applied for, if applicable
State
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if applicable
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Stormwater Permit
for Construction Activities
To be applied for, if applicable
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Construction Contingency Plan and
Response Action Plan approval To be applied for, if applicable
Notice of Intent of Demolition To be applied for, if applicable
Industrial Wastewater Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Significant Industrial User Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Construction Stormwater Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Fuel Storage Tank To be applied for, if applicable
Air Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Discharge Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Environmental Assessment Worksheet To be applied for, if applicable
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MnDNR)
Temporary Groundwater Appropriation
Permit for Construction Dewatering
To be applied for, if applicable
Water Appropriation Permit
Ammendment
To be applied for, if applicable
Public Waters Work Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Minnesota Department of Health
Water Main Installation Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Notification of Intent to Perform a
Demolition
To be applied for, if applicable
Notification of Asbestos Related Work To be applied for, if applicable
Water Tower and Well(s) Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Minnesota Department of
Transportation Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Plumbing Review To be applied for, if applicable
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 22
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Minnesota Department of Labor
Industry Electrical Permit To be applied for, if applicable
County
Wright County
WCA Review and Approval, pending
annexation
To be applied for, if applicable
Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Subsurface Sewage Treatment System
Abandonment Permit
To be applied for, if applicable
City
City of Monticello
Preliminary/Final Plat To be applied for, if applicable
Sign Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Building Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Site Plan Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Conditional Use Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable
WCA Review and Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Zoning Map Amendment To be applied for, if applicable
Demolition Permit To be applied for, if applicable
AUAR Adoption In process
Erosion Control, Grading, and
Stormwater Permit
To be applied for, if applicable
Planned Unit Development To be applied for, if applicable
Annexation
Subject to Orderly Annexation
Agreement with Monticello
Township
Note for the potential for additional permits/approvals for Scenario 1:
Additional environmental reviews may be necessary, which are the responsibility of either the city or the
project proposer, should potential improvements and supporting infrastructure for either development
scenario exceed mandatory environmental thresholds. The local utility company will design and obtain
development permit and approvals needed for any potential grid infrastructure projects that are
required for Scenario 1 through the MN Public Utilities Commission (PUC). If either scenario results in a
proposed project that anticipates the need for more than 1,000,000 gallons of fuel storage for backup
generators and may exceed the threshold for air emissions, a separate EAW will be required for these
components of the project per Minnesota Rules 4410.4300. A separate EAW with MPCA as the RGU
could also be required if a project triggers the need for a sewer extension with over 2 million GPD of
water. For Scenario 1, a separate EAW with MPCA as the RGU would also be required for the proposed
RIB system.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 23
10. LAND USE
Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including
parks, trails, and prime or unique farmlands.
The AUAR study area is in a semi-rural area just south of the City of Monticello, in
Monticello Township, Wright County, Minnesota. The study area consists of 16 existing
parcels. The study area is generally bounded by 85th Street NE to the north, Edmonson
Avenue NE on a portion of the property to the east, and parcel boundaries to the west,
southeast, and south. Land uses adjacent to the study area include single family and
agricultural to the north, sparse single-family residences with mostly agricultural uses to
the east and west, and natural areas including woodland, grassland, and wetlands. A
single-family neighborhood is planned for development within 3-5 years to the east of
Edmonson Avenue.
There are no existing parks within the study area or immediate vicinity. Bertram Chain
of Lakes Regional Park is located approximately three miles northwest of the study area
boundary. A greenway corridor is planned per the City’s adopted Natural Resource
Inventory & Assessment. The alignment of the greenway should coincide with other
existing or added natural features on the site.
According to the Web Soil Survey for the study area 3.3 percent is mapped as prime
farmland, 2.8 percent would be prime farmland if drained, and 77 percent of the study
area is considered farmland of statewide importance.12
ii. Planned land use as identified in comprehensive plans (if available) and any other
applicable plan for land use, water, or resource management by a local, regional,
state, or federal agency.
Wright County Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan
Wright County adopted the Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan in 2007 13. The Northeast
Quadrant Land Use Plan was developed to provide a framework for shaping future
growth of the Northeast Quadrant of Wright County, which include the Buffalo,
Monticello, and Rockford Townships. Anticipated phasing for future development in the
AUAR study area is predicted to occur between 2020 and 2040. The study area is
identified as Transition Area (TA) in the 2007 Monticello Township Land Use Plan.14 The
purpose of the Transition Area is to properly manage the land at the urban/rural fringe.
Management of these areas consists of identifying and designating areas to
economically and efficiently accommodate growth pressures. The proper management
12 USDA. 2024. Web soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
13 Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan. Available at: https://www.co.wright.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/236/Northeast-
Quadrant-Land-Use-Plan---Adopted-07-31-07-PDF.
14 Monticello Township. 2007. Monticello Land Use Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.wright.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/235/Monticello-Township-Land-Use-Plan-Map-PDF
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 24
of these areas will avoid premature annexation, prohibit large lot residential
development that would make provision of municipal services unnecessarily expensive,
and limit the possibility of incompatible future land uses.15 The Plan notes that orderly
annexation agreements provide more detailed plans for annexation areas.
City of Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan
The City of Monticello adopted the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan in 2020.16 The
plan is centered around three important themes: Sustainability, Community Health, and
Sense of Place. The Plan focuses on land use, growth, and orderly annexation; mobility
and connectivity; economic development; parks, pathways, and open space; and
community character, art, design, facilities, and infrastructure. The Plan covers the
geographic area of the City’s current municipal boundary as well as the Monticello
Orderly Annexation Area. The study area is completely within the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area and is planned to be annexed into the city. The study area has the land
use designation of Light Industrial Park (see Figure 9). See Table 7 for a description of
this land use designation and allowed uses.
According to the plan, areas currently within the City limits adjacent to the study area
have been designated for future commercial or residential uses, with an identified
industrial land use to the northwest directly across 85th Street. The southern boundary
of the study area is also the southern boundary of the City’s Orderly Annexation Area.
The 2040 Plan includes appendix studies for municipal utilities, including water and
sanitary sewer systems.
The city has plans for a park south of the study area, which is intended as city-owned
and available for public use with a trail along the wetland edge.
Table 7: Study Area Future Land Use Designations Purpose and Allowed Uses
Land Use
Designation Purpose Allowed Uses
Light Industrial
Park (LIP)
To promote a strong industrial
business sector represented by
increased jobs and tax revenue
generated for the City of
Monticello.
Process and production manufacturing which
uses moderate amounts of partially processed
materials, warehousing and distribution,
research and development, medical
laboratories, machine shops, computer
technology, professional and corporate offices
and industrial engineering facilities.
“Computer technology” includes active
technology uses dominated by office and
research-oriented businesses. The Light
Industrial Designation accommodates Data
Center (or similar “Technology Campus”)
15 Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan. Available at: https://www.co.wright.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/236/Northeast-
Quadrant-Land-Use-Plan---Adopted-07-31-07-PDF
16 City of Monticello. 2020. Monticello 2040 Vision and Plan . Available at: Complete-Monticello-2040-Comprehensive-Plan-PDF
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 25
Land Use
Designation Purpose Allowed Uses
development for passive computer storage
and processing only when specific elements
are demonstrated. Consideration of these uses
in the LIP areas shall be subject to the
following review requirements, among others
as determined on a case-by-case basis:
a. The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data
centers as a singularly unique land use due
to size and scope.
b. Data center use locations will not create
conflict with other land uses, especially
residential land uses, through off-site
impacts including unusual amounts of
noise, lights, odors, or other similar
aspects. Data center users will
demonstrate site conditions that meet this
condition and are consistent with other
light industrial development.
c. Where data center development creates
shortages in land supply, utility services,
electric generation service to the broader
area, or any other impacts on the City of
Monticello or its neighboring
communities, and which are not
specifically mitigated by the data center
developer and its associated partners, the
City is under no obligation to
accommodate the use within any land use
district or location, or through any land
use process.
d. Data center uses shall demonstrate
convincingly that its burden on municipal
services, infrastructure, or fiscal condition
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 26
Land Use
Designation Purpose Allowed Uses
is completely mitigated by the data center
project and its developers, and such
mitigation is sustainable by its subsequent
owners, users, and other related entities.
e. The data center will not inhibit future
growth; it will accommodate and facilitate
the extension of efficient and orderly
municipal infrastructure to the edge of the
development property consistent with the
City’s plans for growth.
Full and clear assurances from both the data
center use and the electric utility provider that
data center development will not create
threats of power loss to the community, nor
limit the city’s other growth and development
interests in the future.
Source: City of Monticello. 2020. Monticello 2040 Chapter 3: Land Use, Growth and Orderly
Annexation. https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/313/Chapter-3---Land-Use-
Growth-and-Orderly-Annexation-PDF.
Monticello Orderly Annexation Agreement
The City and Monticello Township have established an Orderly Annexation Agreement
providing for the annexation of specific land area within Monticello Township. The
current agreement extends through January 1, 2040. The agreement outlines the
triggering events for annexation. The study area is within the orderly annexation area
covered by the agreement.
Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment
The City of Monticello has adopted a Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment which
identifies and inventories existing natural resources within the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area and assesses the resource’s quality. The document is used to plan for
parks, trails and integration of natural resources into development planning.
The Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment identifies a conceptual future
greenway corridor17 that bisects the study area east-west. From this plan, the purpose
of the greenway corridor is to connect the major parks of the City and future annexation
area. The locations for these corridors were identified based on the presence of natural
land cover features, existing parks and open spaces, locations of Areas of Community
Importance, and locations of conservation areas. Greenway corridors could provide
connections between and among natural open spaces and parks via trails and walkways
17 Source: City of Monticello. 2008. Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment.
https://www.monticellomn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/270/Natural-Resource-Inventory-Assessment-Conceptual-Greenway-
Corridors-PDF
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 27
and can be natural areas such as wildlife corridors with no developed trail system or
other disturbance within the corridor.
Wright County Trail & Bikeway Plan
In addition to consistency with the City’s Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment, the
greenway corridor evaluation should consider long-range regional trail planning as
identified in the Wright County Trail & Bikeway Plan. The plan is designed to connect the
County with non-motorized trails and bikeways which will provide opportunities for
residents to increase their physical activity and improve their health. The Plan envisions
the County creating a network of offroad trails and on-road bikeways that connect and
complement city and township trails and bikeways.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and
scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
AUAR Guidance: Water-related land use management districts should be delineated on
appropriate maps, and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be
described. If any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the AUAR area
are envisioned, this should be discussed.
Zoning
The study area is currently within Monticello Township and is being used for agricultural
purposes. Once annexed into the City of Monticello municipal limits, a zoning change
would be required for future development and would be required to be consistent with
the City of Monticello’s Comprehensive Plan. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance includes
a Wetland Overlay District, which would apply to wetlands within the study area.
The city is also in the process of creating a Data Center Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Zoning Ordinance that would create a review and plan submittal process specific to the
data center use and its impacts. The Ordinance once adopted would apply to data
centers of any scale or location within the city.
FEMA National Flood Hazard
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Map (panel number 27171C0170D, effective 6/20/2024 and panel number
27171C0165D, effective 6/20/2024), the AUAR study area is in an area of minimal
flooding area, or Zone X.18,19
Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan20
The Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) serves as a comprehensive planning
document to guide the City in conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water
resources. The City will use the WRMP as a guide to reach goals related to water quality,
18 FEMA. 2024. FEMA Flood Map 27171C0165D. Available at: FIRMette Web [27171C0165D] (fema.gov).
19 FEMA. 2024. FEMA Flood Map 27171C0170D. Available at: FIRMette Web [27171C0170D] (fema.gov).
20 City of Monticello. 2019. Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. Available at: Comprehensive-Water-Resource-
Management-Plan-PDF (monticello.mn.us)
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 28
volume reduction, and flood management. The WRMP also includes associated goals
and policies that address wetland management. As part of the goals and policies relating
to wetland management, the WRMP references wetland buffers between developments
adjacent to a wetland area. The goals and policies outlined in the WRMP relating to
wetland buffers are in accordance with the City of Monticello’s Code of Ordinances for
Wetland Districts and associated buffer and setback requirements.
City of Monticello Shoreland Ordinance
As noted above, the study area is within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area and is
planned to be annexed into the city. Once annexed, a reclassification of DNR Basin 86-
394 would be required. The DNR anticipates this basin would be classified as Natural
Environment. The city would zone the 1,000-foot area surrounding the Ordinary High
Water Level (OHWL) of this basin as a Shoreland Overlay District. According to the city
zoning ordinance, industrial use is not allowed within a shoreland district. Within a
shoreland district, building structures and sewers must be located at least 150 feet from
the OHWL, no structures shall exceed 25 feet in height, and detached accessory
structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height. Structures must be placed in accordance
with floodplain regulations applicable to the site. If these controls do not exist, the
elevation of the lowest floor’s placement or floodproofing must be three feet above the
OHWL or the highest known water level, whichever is higher. Non-water oriented uses
on lots with water frontage are required to double the ordinary structure setbacks
unless substantially screened from view by vegetation (leaf-on conditions) or
topography. There are also restrictions that apply to the shore and bluff impact zones;
however, given the required setback of 150 feet from the OHWL, impacts to these zones
are not anticipated. The Community Development Department will also evaluate
possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before
issuing a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways,
structures, or other improvements on steep slopes within the shoreland district. Full
ordinance language is found in Zoning Code 153.046 Overlay Zoning Districts.
iv. If any critical facilities (i.e., facilities necessary for public health and safety, those
storing hazardous materials, or those housing occupants who may be insufficiently
mobile) are proposed in floodplain areas and other areas identified as at risk for
localized flooding, describe the risk potential considering changing precipitation and
event intensity.
No critical facilities are proposed as part of the project.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 29
Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a
above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
AUAR Guidance: The extent of conversion of existing farmlands anticipated in the AUAR should
be described. If any farmland will be preserved by special protection programs, this should be
discussed.
If development of the AUAR will interfere or change the use of any existing designated parks,
recreation areas, or trails, this should be described in the AUAR. The RGU may also want to
discuss under this item any proposed parks, recreation areas, or trails to be developed in
conjunction with development of the AUAR area.
The AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its comprehensive plan
complies with the requirements set out at Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 1. The
AUAR document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in the context of the
comprehensive plan. If this has not been done as part of the responses to Items 6, 9, 11, 18, and
others, it must be addressed here; a brief synopsis should be presented here if the material has
been presented in detail under other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan
elements to allow for any of the development scenarios should be noted. If there are any
management plans of any other local, state, or federal agencies applicable to the AUAR area, the
document must discuss the compatibility of the plan with the various development scenarios
studied, with emphasis on any incompatible elements.
Existing Land Use
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
The existing agricultural and residential land use within the study area is expected to transition
to other uses as the area develops. Any new development, redevelopment, annexation, change
in land use, or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the City of Monticello 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
Wright County has not included the AUAR study area in its zoning map. Monticello Township
does not have a zoning map. When the AUAR study area is annexed by the city of Monticello,
the City’s zoning map will need to be updated to include the study area with an applicable
zoning district that is consistent with the future land use for the area.
Both scenarios are anticipated to comply with the Water Resources Management Plan and the
Shoreland Overlay Ordinance that applies to the Unnamed MnDNR Public Water Wetland on the
southern portion of the study area.
Once the Data Center PUD Zoning Ordinance is adopted, it may include different development
requirements applicable to Scenario 1. Any requirements pertaining to overlay districts that
overlap with the study area will also apply.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 30
2040 Comprehensive Plan
The City of Monticello has certified that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan complies with the
requirements set out in Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 1.
Scenario 1
The development anticipated under Scenario 1 is consistent with the future Light Industrial Park
land use designation for the AUAR study area pending compliance with the review requirements
as detailed within the designation language of the 2040 Plan. The City of Monticello 2040
Comprehensive Plan accommodates technology campus development as described for Scenario
1 under the Light Industrial Park designation pending rezoning in compliance with the list of
review requirements as described in Table 7 for a data center or similar technology campus use.
Scenario 2
Development as contemplated under Scenario 2, which consists of a variety of light industrial
use, is consistent with the land uses allowed under the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Light Industrial Park designation.
Wright County Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan
Scenario 2
The study area was anticipated to be developed between 2020 and 2040 in the Wright County
Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan. Scenario 2’s full build out is likely to require a longer
timeline beyond 2040 based on typical light industrial land development occurring in the greater
Twin Cities area and would therefore be subject to future land use planning for that
undeveloped portion.
Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment
Scenarios 1 and 2
Both scenarios would need to incorporate the conceptual future greenway corridor as site
planning advances.
Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential
incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.
Both scenarios would incorporate buffering and screening to mitigate any potential land use
conflicts with nearby existing residential uses. No industrial development would occur within
shoreland, in accordance with city zoning ordinances.
Scenario 1
Scenario 1 would require a zoning change to allow for a technology campus use in the study
area and would need to comply with the Data Center PUD Zoning Ordinance once approved.
Application of the Shoreland Overlay District will also require review. The study area is outside
the city of Monticello and would require the city to annex land from the Township. Future
development would need to consider aligning the Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 31
greenway corridor with the natural amenities in the area and accommodate future development
as shown on Figure 3.
Scenario 2
Scenario 2 would require a zoning change to allow for light industrial use in the study area. The
study area is outside the city of Monticello and would require the city to annex land from the
Township. Future development would need to consider aligning the Natural Resource Inventory
& Assessment plan greenway corridor with the natural amenities in the area and accommodate
future development as shown on Figure 4.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 32
Figure 8: Existing Land Use
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 33
Figure 9: Future Land Use21
21 Future land uses for the city of Monticello and adjacent areas determined in the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Available at: https://monticellomn.gov/274/Monticello-2040.
Agricultural land use for Monticello Township was determined in the Monticello Township Land Use Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.wright.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/235/Monticello-Township-Land-Use-Plan-Map-PDF.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 34
11. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY/LAND FORMS
Geology – Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any
susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations,
unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for
the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project
designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
AUAR Guidance: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified.
According to the Geologic Atlas of Wright County, the majority of the AUAR study area is
underlain by Mesoproterozoic bedrock and Paleozoic bedrocks. The Mesoproterozoic rocks
consist largely of sandstone, with minor amounts of siltstone and shale. These rocks are poorly
known in Wright County; therefore, they cannot be confidently assigned to individual
formations. However, they are likely to correlate with parts of the Hinckley Sandstone, Fond du
Lac, and Solor Church Formations. The Paleozoic rocks are dominantly medium-to coarse-
grained quartz sandstone and are part of the Mt. Simon Sandstone formation.22
There are no known sinkholes located within the AUAR study area. Additionally, there are no
karst conditions located within or near the study area. There is a shallow, unconfined aquifer
within the AUAR study area.
A Geotechnical Evaluation of the study area was completed in May 2025. According to borings
conducted during the study the site contains topsoil across varying in thickness from 1-2 feet.
Beneath the topsoil a mix of upper clay and silt soils was encountered generally extending 1-5
feet deep. Beneath this layer the site generally consists of sandy soils mixed with varying
amounts of clay, silt, and gravel to a depth of 30-50 feet with groundwater typically
encountered 10-30 feet beneath the surface. The Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) systems,
discussed in the water resources section below, will be placed according to the results of a
hydrogeological analysis. This analysis will ensure RIB placement results in an adequate distance
between projected groundwater mounding, at the end of a 20-year infiltration period, and the
soil surface. The soils are generally considered suitable for support of the proposed buildings
with some soil improvements recommended, such as removal of topsoil and replacement with
engineered fill materials. With 10 feet or more of soil above the groundwater, construction
activities will not impact the groundwater in the study area as the soil acts as a natural filter.
Soils and Topography – Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or
highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or
grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and
operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after
22 University of Minnesota. 2013. Bedrock Geology. Available at:
https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c8f26a04-9210-476a-9e2c-b098c1209760/content.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 35
project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections, or other
measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed
in response to Item 11.b.ii.
AUAR Guidance: The number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to be
moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for
development of the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In
discussing mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any
special measures that would be added for AUAR purposes should be included. A standard soils
map for the area should be included.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the study area
is comprised of 12 different soil types. Soils are classified by the NRCS into four hydrologic soil
groups, A, B, C, and D, with A having the lowest runoff potential and D having the greatest
runoff potential. The erosion hazard indicates the hazard of soil loss from off-road areas after
disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. All soil information for the study area is
described in Table 8. Within the project site, 13.0 percent of the soil surface is mapped with a
“moderate” rating, indicating that some erosion is likely in these areas and that erosion control
measures may be needed. The remaining 86.1 percent of the study area is mapped with a
“slight” rating, meaning that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions, and 0.9
percent is considered null or not rated.
Topography within the study area varies from 948 feet in elevation in the northeastern corner of
the site to 980 feet in elevation in the southern portion of the study area as shown in Figure 1.
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
It is anticipated that for both development scenarios the raw earthwork can be generally
balanced on the site to maintain the existing drainage patterns when feasible. This earthwork
will be compliant with the city shoreland ordinance. Where appropriate, slope stabilization will
be provided by means of vegetation establishment, erosion control blankets, or other standard
methods of erosion and sediment control.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program Construction Stormwater Permit (SWPPP) will be obtained prior to any
earthwork or grading activities within the AUAR study area.
Operational activities are not expected to have an impact on soils within the study area.
A 1991 report by the MnDNR identified substantial aggregate resources underneath the study
area.23 The report did not designate the study area as an “Aggregate Resource Area”; however,
it is adjacent to a proposed Aggregate Resource Area. The city will consider mining of aggregate
resources prior to moving forward with either development scenario. While mining could be
23 MnDNR. Wright County Aggregate Map. Available at:
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/aggregate_maps/completed/wright.html.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 36
incorporated under Scenario 2, Scenario 1 would not allow for these aggregate resources to be
mined.
Table 8: Soil Types
Map
unit
symbol
Map unit
name
Acres
in AOI
Percent
of AOI
Farmland
Rating
Hydric
Rating
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Erosion
Hazard
Rating
261 Isan-Isan,
frequently
ponded,
complex, 0 to 2
percent slopes
0.7 0.1% Not prime
farmland
2, 3 A/D Slight
375 Forada sandy
loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
15.6 2.8% Prime
farmland if
drained
2, 3 B/D Slight
406 Dorset sandy
loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
127.0 23.1% Farmland of
statewide
importance
2 B Slight
441 Almora loam, 0
to 2 percent
slopes
8.8 1.6% All areas are
prime
farmland
0 B Slight
1288 Seelyeville and
Markey soils,
ponded, o to 1
percent slopes
9.1 1.7% Not prime
farmland
1, 2, 3 A/D Slight
1368 Southhaven
loam, o to 2
percent slopes
9.5 1.7% All areas are
prime
farmland
0 B Slight
1377B Dorset-Two
Inlets complex,
6 to 12 percent
slopes
279.8 50.9% Farmland of
statewide
importance
0 A Slight
1377C Dorset-Two
Inlets complex,
6 to 12 percent
slopes
59.1 10.7% Not prime
farmland
0 A Moderate
1377D Dorset-Two
Inlets complex,
12 to 20
percent slopes
12.6 2.3% Not prime
farmland
0 A Moderate
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 37
Map
unit
symbol
Map unit
name
Acres
in AOI
Percent
of AOI
Farmland
Rating
Hydric
Rating
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Erosion
Hazard
Rating
1942 Forada and
Leafriver soils,
frequently
ponded, 0 to 1
percent slopes
6.4 1.2% Not prime
farmland
1, 2, 3 B/D Slight
1975 Oylen sandy
loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
16.5 3.0% Farmland of
statewide
importance
2 C Slight
W Water 4.9 0.9% Not prime
farmland
N/A N/A Not Rated
Source: United States Department of Agriculture. 2024. Web Soil Survey.
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 38
Figure 10: Soil Types
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 39
12. WATER RESOURCES
AUAR Guidance: The information called for on the EAW form should be supplied for any of the
infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, and for any development expected
to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be
impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should cover the possible
impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the
mitigation plan.
Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below.
i. Surface Water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial
ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake,
wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource
value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the
current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project.
Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
There are seven identified wetlands within the study area as shown in Figure 12. Two
field wetland delineations were completed in 2024 and 2025 to confirm the extents of
wetlands and waterways within the project study area (see Appendix A).24
The closest MPCA 303d Impaired Water to the study area is Pelican Lake, located
approximately 1.3 miles to the southeast.25 There is one unnamed MnDNR Public Water
Wetland in the southeastern corner of the study area (ID# 86039400). There are five
unnamed MnDNR Public Water Wetlands within one-mile of the study area (ID#
86048400, 86008300, 86007700, 86007500, 86008400). There are three MnDNR Public
Water basins within one-mile of the study area (Paradise Lake - ID# 86008200, Slough
Lake - ID# 86007800, Gilchrist Lake - ID# 86006400).26 Additionally, there are no trout
streams or lakes, County Ditches migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lakes, or
outstanding resource value waters within or adjacent to the study area.
Runoff from the study area generally drains to landlocked basins on the west, east and
north side of the property, and approximately 15% of the site drains towards the
wetland located in the southern portion of the study area.
24 The westernmost wetland is referred to as “Wetland 7” in this document. However, since this wetland was delineated in
2025, separately from the other six wetlands, it is referred to as “Wetland 1” in the 2025 Notice of Decision included in
Appendix A.
25 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2024. Impaired Waters. Available at:
https://mpca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fcfc5a12d2fd4b16bc95bb535d09ae82
26 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2025. Public Waters (PW) Basin and Watercourse Delineation. Available at:
https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-mn -public-waters
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 40
Figure 11: Surface Water Resources
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 41
Figure 12: Wetland Delineation Summary
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 42
Table 9: Wetland Delineation Summary
Resource
ID
Wetland Plant
Community
Size
(acres)
Anticipated
Wetland
Quality 27
Notes
Wetland
1
Seasonally
Flooded Basin 0.33 Low
Wetland located in depression in the
northcentral section of the study area. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape. The wetland
boundary was based on the change in
topography and offsite aerial analysis.
Wetland
2
Fresh Wet
Meadow 4.44 Medium
Wetland located in depression in the
northeastern section of the study area. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape. The wetland
boundary was based on the change in
topography, offsite aerial analysis, and
hydrophytic vegetation dominance.
Wetland
3
Seasonally
Flooded Basin 2.19 Low
Wetland located in depression in the
northeastern section of the study area. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape. The wetland
boundary was based on the change in
topography, offsite aerial analysis, and
hydrophytic vegetation dominance.
Wetland
4
Shallow, Open
Water;
Floodplain
Forest; Fresh
Wet Meadow
22.26 Medium
Wetland complex located in a depression
between agricultural fields along the
southern border of the study area. The
complex consists of a shallow, open water
plant community surrounded by a fresh
wet meadow plant community and a
forested floodplain plant community. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape and a series of
onsite/offsite mapped National Wetland
Inventory, National Hydrology Database,
and Public Water Inventory features. The
wetland boundary was based on the
change in topography and hydrophytic
vegetation dominance.
Wetland
5
Seasonally
Flooded Basin 0.75 Low
Wetland located in depression in the
northeastern section of the study area. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape. The wetland
27 Wetland quality is discussed further in Table 11.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 43
Resource
ID
Wetland Plant
Community
Size
(acres)
Anticipated
Wetland
Quality 27
Notes
boundary was based on the change in
topography, presence of hydric soils, and
hydrophytic vegetation dominance.
Wetland
6
Seasonally
Flooded Basin 0.60 Low
Wetland located in depression in the
northeastern section of the study area. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape. The wetland
boundary was based on the change in
topography and offsite aerial analysis.
Wetland
7
Seasonally
Flooded Basin 0.18 Low
The wetland is located in a farmed
depression in the center of the study area.
The wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape and drains south.
The wetland boundary was based on the
change in topography, historic aerials, and
LiDAR review.
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if
project is within a MDH well protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite
and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there are
no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
According to the Geologic Atlas of Wright County groundwater is present at
approximately 20 feet below grade, excluding the wetland portion.28
Based on Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MnDNR) well records, five wells may be located within the study
area. Descriptions of each well are identified in Table 10 and wells with verified mapped
locations are shown in Figure 13. If unable to re-use, wells located within the study area
would be properly sealed by a licensed well contractor prior to redevelopment within
the study area as per MDH well sealing requirements.
If unidentified wells are found, the MDH must be contacted to determine the course of
action, which may include sealing, relocating, or preserving by a licensed well contractor
according to Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725.
The northwestern corner of AUAR study area is located within a wellhead protection
area (Monticello) and a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA)
(Monticello).29 The DWSMA is listed as low vulnerability. According to the Monticello
28 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2018. Geological Atlas of Wright County, Minnesota Part B, Hydrogeology.
Available at: https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/cga/c30_wright/wright_report.pdf
29 Minnesota Department of Health. Source Water Protection Web Map Viewer. Available at:
https://mdh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=8b0db73d3c95452fb45231900e977be4
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 44
Wellhead Protection Plan, the DWSMA is an area studied for potential contaminant
sources and how to reduce pathways for those contaminants that could reach the
source water aquifer.30 Under Scenario 1, the DWSMA would need to be re-evaluated to
account for the anticipated increase in water appropriations from the aquifer. Surface
water that is captured and infiltrated will be designed in accordance with the MPCA
stormwater manual and DWSMA standards, to reduce the risk of impacting the
groundwater from surface water runoff. The surface water runoff from future
development will be captured and treated in lined stormwater ponds prior to leaving
the site to meet requirements from the City of Monticello, MPCA, MDH, and the NPDES
Construction Stormwater Permit.
Scenario 1
Scenario 1 would include the use of non-contact cooling water. This water is used to
absorb and remove heat from equipment or processes without directly contacting the
materials being cooled. It typically circulates through heat exchangers or condensers to
dissipate heat from various mechanical or industrial systems before being discharged or
reused. This water could be circulated through the system two or more times to reduce
water usage. The non-contact cooling wastewater generated under Scenario 1 is
proposed to be discharged into the groundwater via a Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB)
system. See the wastewater section below for a detailed description of RIB function.
The City completed a draft study in 2025 to evaluate the current aquifer capacity in the
area. The study evaluated two scenarios, both assuming four new wells with
assumptions for pumping at different levels. The study found that there appears to be
limited draw down impact to adjacent wells within city limits and wells directly across
the Mississippi River. The four sites for the potential location for the well identified
through this study include the following:
• Site No. 1: 4th St. and Palm St.
• Site No. 2: Southeast parcel on the corner of Dundas Rd. and Dundas Cir.
• Site No. 3: 4th St. and Wright St.
• Site No. 4: Adjacent to the Monticello Fire Station
Following construction of the new well, the City would implement monitoring wells and
the water data from these monitoring wells would be sent to the MnDNR to evaluate if
there is additional mitigation needed for adjacent private wells. If there is an impact to
adjacent wells, the DNR and City would lower the pumping levels allowed.
The wellhead protection boundary area as part of the DWSMA will need to be increased
with any new wells.
30 City of Monticello. Wellhead Protection Program. Available at: https://www.monticellomn.gov/232/Wellhead-Protection-
Program.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 45
Scenario 2
Scenario 2 would not require a RIB system for cooling wastewater discharge, and all
wastewater would be discharged to the Municipal collection system.
Table 10: Wells within AUAR Study Area
Well ID Number Index
Status Well Use Well Depth (feet) MN DNR Permit
182151 Active Irrigation 122 2012-0909
472289 Active Domestic 62 -
785271 Unverified Irrigation 120 -
840393 Unverified Irrigation 96 2019-1384
183902 Unverified Domestic 79 -
Source: Minnesota Department of Health. Minnesota Well Index. Available at:
https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Well
Records.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 46
Figure 13: Groundwater Resources
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 47
Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or
mitigate the effects below.
i. Wastewater – For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities, and
composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewaters projected
or treated at the site.
AUAR Guidance: Observe the following points of guidance in an AUAR:
• Only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR—industrial
wastewater would be coming from industrial uses that are excluded from review
through an AUAR process
• Wastewater flows should be estimated by land use subareas of the AUAR area;
the basis of flow estimates should be explained
• The major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected
flows should be identified
• If not explained under Item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system
construction should be described
• The relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU’s comprehensive
sewer plan and (for metro area AUARs) to Metropolitan Council regional systems
plans, including MUSA expansions, should be discussed. For non-metro area
AUARs, the AUAR must discuss the capacity of the RGU’s wastewater treatment
system compared to the flows from the AUAR area; any necessary improvements
should be described.
• If on-site systems will serve part of the AUAR, the guidance in the February 2000
edition of the EAW Guidelines on page 16 regarding item 18b under Residential
development should be followed.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water
and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
wastewater infrastructure.
The City of Monticello has its own wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that is
permitted for 2.36 million gallons per day (MGD) and has an average daily flow of
1.15 MGD. The WWTP ultimately discharges into the Mississippi River. For both
Scenarios 1 and 2, the City of Monticello's Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive plan
indicates a proposed trunk sewer being extended to and through the site to serve
this area of the city. A draft analysis of the sanitary sewer collection system for this
development was completed in November 2024 by the city to determine the scope
of the improvements to serve this area with sanitary sewer. Based on the results of
the study, a 36-inch trunk sanitary sewer line will need to be constructed down
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 48
Fallon Avenue from Chelsea Road. A more detailed analysis of the scope and extent
of the trunk sewer extension will be needed for a specific project. If the specific
project that requires a sewer extension with over 2 MGD of water, a separate EAW
would be required with MPCA as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU).
Scenario 1
Under Scenario 1, a technology campus use would only send domestic strength
waste to the WWTP. Typically, facilities of this size have discharges of 25,000 gallons
per day (GPD) or 50,000 GPD depending on the number of people on site per day.
The city has the available capacity to treat the domestic wastewater at their current
treatment plant but will require the trunk sewer extension to be constructed to
provide sewer service to the study area, see Table 11.
For the purposes of evaluating the worst case scenario, Scenario 1 assumes a water-
cooled system could be implemented. If a specific project advances that intends to
use an air-cooled system or a combination or air and water-cooled, the peak
demand evaluated in this AUAR already covers the upper limit for water use
anticipated in terms of impacts and mitigation.
Non-contact cooling water use from a technology campus is anticipated to have a
peak discharge of 1 to 1.5 MGD for the peak day, and may discharge as much as 100
million gallons per year. This discharge does not contain any Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD) or Total Suspended Solids (TSS) like domestic wastewater and is only
discharged from approximately April through October on an intermittent basis. The
discharge does not occur on an everyday basis and the amount of water discharged
is dependent on the temperature of the facility and the ambient air temperature.
This discharge is proposed to be infiltrated back into the soil through a Rapid
Infiltration Basin (RIB) system within the site. The proposed Rapid Infiltration Basin
(RIB) system will be separate from any stormwater management systems or basins
and is well-suited to the study area due to the generally sandy and permeable soils.
The RIB system is designed with Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA)
considerations in mind and will comply with Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards of care for
DWSMA regions.
Non-contact cooling water, which circulates through equipment multiple times in
technology parks, will ultimately be discharged to the RIB. This water contains no
human or industrial waste and meets MDH drinking water standards, consisting only
of water from groundwater wells. The discharge will be infiltrated back into the soil
through the RIB system, allowing for gradual aquifer recharge over time.
As part of the RIB system permit application, a hydrogeological study will be
conducted to determine groundwater flow direction, assess soil suitability, and
identify any limitations for siting the RIB. This study will also address the rate of
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 49
infiltration and required RIB sizing. A full water quality analysis of the effluent will be
provided, and any pre-treatment requirements will be determined by the MPCA
prior to discharge. The permitting process will include an Environmental Assessment
Workshop (EAW) and a 30-day public and agency comment period, with an
anticipated timeline of 12 to 18 months from permit submittal to approval.
The RIB system will consist of multiple cells, each accepting cooling water
wastewater flow for two days and then resting for six days, with rotation to ensure
proper infiltration and resting. The system acts as a large filter, trapping most
impurities at the surface. Maintenance will involve periodic removal of the top few
inches of mineral deposit-laden soil, which will be disposed of in a landfill. Monthly
Discharge Monitoring Reports will be required according to the NPDES permit. The
end user will be responsible for hiring a licensed professional to prepare these
reports and send them to the MPCA.
If a future development requires 310,000 GPD or less of non-contact cooling water
and domestic wastewater then that discharge could go to the city’s municipal
sanitary sewer collection system as the additional discharge to the WWTP is within
hydraulic capacity. However, with the additional non-contact cooling water that is
anticipated with Scenario 1, it is expected to have a slight decrease in the organic
loading that would require biological adjustments to operation of the WWTP.
Scenario 2
Office/warehouse industrial developments typically have a low water and
wastewater demand on the distribution and collection system. Based on the
anticipated uses and using the MCES SAC determination calculator, assuming 30%
office and 70% warehouse for each building, Scenario 2 is estimated to produce
approximately 310,000 GPD of wastewater. The wastewater would consist of typical
domestic strength wastewater. The city appears to have the available capacity in
their existing system for the proposed flows for Scenario 2 with the extension of the
sanitary sewer trunk main, see Table 11.
Table 11. Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity (Domestic)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
WWTP Permit Capacity (MGD) 2.36
WWTP Average Flow (MGD) 1.15
WWTP Average Available Capacity (MGD) 1.21
Additional Proposed Flow to WWTP (MGD) 0.025-0.05 0.31
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 50
Figure 14: Proposed Sewer Service Options
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 51
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS),
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for
such a system.
No subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) are anticipated within the AUAR
study area for the proposed development scenarios. The residences within the
study area will remain until such time development starts. The SSTS systems will be
pumped, collapsed, filled, and abandoned per the MPCA chapter 7080 code. A
permit for the abandonment of the existing SSTS will be applied for from the county.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater
treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to
mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from
wastewater discharges.
There is no planned surface discharge of the non-contact cooling wastewater for
either scenario. The cooling water from the facility will be discharged to a RIB
system and infiltrated into the ground water. The effluent that will be discharged to
the ground water will need to meet the water quality standards set by the MPCA for
the discharge as described above.
ii. Stormwater – Describe changes in surface hydrology resulting from change of land
cover. Describe the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the project site
(major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss
environmental effects from stormwater discharges on receiving waters post-
construction, including how the project will affect runoff volume, discharge rate, and
change in pollutants. Consider the effects of current Minnesota climate trends and
anticipated changes in rainfall frequency, intensity, and amount with this discussion.
For projects requiring NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater permit coverage, state the
total number of acres that will be disturbed by the project and describe the
stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), including specific best management
practices to address soil erosion and sedimentation during and after project
construction. Discuss permanent stormwater management plans, including methods
of achieving volume reduction to restore or maintain the natural hydrology of the site
using green infrastructure practices or other stormwater management practices.
Identify any receiving waters that have construction-related water impairments or are
classified as special as defined in the Construction Stormwater permit. Describe
additional requirements for special and/or impaired waters.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR the following additional guidance should be followed in
addition to that in EAW Guidelines:
• It is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 52
• A map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water
bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided
• The description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional”
detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new
water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will
be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the
design standards that will be followed.
• If present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies
must be given special analyses:
o Lakes: Within the Twin Cities metro area, a nutrient budget analysis
must be prepared for any “priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan
Council. Outside of the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget
analysis must be determined by consultation with the MPCA and DNR
staffs.
o Trout streams: If stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout
stream, an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and
temperature regime of the stream and the consequent impacts on the
trout population (and other species of concern) must be included.
Environmental Effects
Stormwater runoff can cause several environmental problems. When untreated,
stormwater drains from manmade locations such as agricultural fields, impervious
surfaces, and construction sites. It can carry sediments and/or pollutants that harm
aquatic ecosystems and wildlife.
Analysis Objectives
This analysis aims to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed development in the
AUAR on receiving waters and provide guidance on necessary stormwater mitigation
measures to protect downstream bodies. The focus is on recommending stormwater
mitigation strategies to reduce runoff volumes and rates leaving the AUAR area to the
MnDNR Public Water Wetland (ID#86039400) and to address the potential loss of
landlocked storage within the study area. The standards and strategies guiding these
mitigation measures are derived from the following sources:
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit;
• City of Monticello Engineering Design Standards for Stormwater Management
• City of Monticello Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
• Minnesota Stormwater Manual
Specific requirements that guided the analysis for the AUAR are described below:
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 53
1. Rate Control – The City of Monticello requires onsite detention to maintain existing flow
rates for the 2-year (2.84 inches), 10-year (4.22 inches), and 100-year (6.87 inches) 24-
hour rainfalls. In addition, the city requires that detention basins be designed with
capacity for the critical 100-year event (2-hour, 6-hour, 12-hour, or 24-hour rainfall, or
the 10-day, 9.94-inch snowmelt runoff event). If the basin is landlocked, the back-to-
back 24-hour event and the 10-day 9.94-inch snowmelt runoff event is also used.
2. Volume Control – The City of Monticello's performance goal is to capture and retain on
site 1.1 inches of runoff from the sum of the new and fully reconstructed impervious
surfaces in post-construction conditions. The City's Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan states that the city prefers the use of regional stormwater retention
systems.
3. Water Quality – The City of Monticello requires pretreatment prior to discharge to
infiltration facilities. And if the volume control standard has been met, then the water
quality sizing criteria shall be considered satisfied.
Meeting these AUAR standards should sufficiently protect the downstream system after
development in either scenario.
Existing Conditions
Most of the study area is agricultural land with good soils. There is minimal impervious
surface area within the study area, and no existing permanent stormwater management
features. There are three landlocked areas located in the study area and four main
drainage areas, See Figure 15 for names and drainage areas.
Approximately 326 acres, (308 acres within study area, 18 acres offsite) flows south and
west to landlocked basin LL-1 with an ultimate outfall to the southwest of approximately
964.2 feet above sea level. Approximately 94 acres of the site drains northeast to
landlocked basin LL-2 with an ultimate outfall of 954.9 feet above sea level.
Approximately 79 acres of the site drains east to landlocked basin LL-3 with an ultimate
outfall of 961.4 feet above sea level. Approximately 69 acres of the site flows south
unrestricted to the unnamed MnDNR Public Water Wetland in the southeast corner of
the site (ID# 86039400). This feature appears to be hydraulically connected to Paradise
Lake and Gilchrist Lake to the south.
HydroCAD was used to model the landlocked basins and assess their storage capacity
and potential discharge. The available storage was calculated using the 100-year, 10-day
runoff (7.2 inches) per the City of Monticello Design Manual, dated December 2024. The
HWL was calculated using the 10-day, 9.94-inch snowmelt runoff event per the City of
Monticello Design Manual. See table below for existing landlocked basin available
storage and HWL.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 54
Table 12: Existing Landlocked Basin Summary
Basin
Name
Available Storage
(acre-feet)
Existing
HWL
Overflow
Elevation
Discharge in Critical 100-yr
Event?
LL-1 95.6 965.1 964.2 Yes
LL-2 54.5 954.5 954.9 No
LL-3 36.1 961.5 961.4 Yes
There is approximately 18 acres of offsite drainage area from the southwest that
contributes to the existing landlocked basin LL-1. According to StreamStats, 31
approximately 4.35 square miles of offsite drainage originates at County Road 12 and
continues northwest toward the study area (see Appendix B for the Streamstats report).
However, public LIDAR data indicates that this drainage does not actually reach the
study area boundary. Within the StreamStats-defined drainage area, there are several
landlocked basins (ID#86042300, ID#86008000, ID#86007900, and ID#86007800) that
retain runoff volume and prevent flow from moving further downstream. Additionally,
the mapped flow path in StreamStats crosses Minnesota Highway 25, but the road’s
lowest elevation near the study area is 971 feet, while Basin #86007800’s DNR-defined
ordinary high water level (OHWL) is 950.9 feet. This elevation difference, along with the
presence of landlocked basins, means that the estimated 4.35 square miles of offsite
drainage shown in StreamStats does not actually flow through or enter the study area. A
detailed survey of this area will be conducted to confirm the conveyance of offsite flow
in this area.
During Construction
During construction, erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs)
will be implemented to prevent impacts to aquatic ecosystems per the City of
Monticello and MPCA MS4 and NPDES Standards. There are no special or impaired
waters within 1-mile of the study area. The following design/construction standards are
to be adhered to during construction:
• Plan for and implement appropriate construction phasing, vegetative buffer
strips, horizontal slope grading, and other construction practices to minimize
erosion and prevent damage to adjacent property. All areas not to be disturbed
shall be marked (e.g., with flags, stakes, signs, silt fence etc.) on the project site
before any work begins.
• The erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained and repaired
throughout construction and until such time as the property has been either
sodded or a seeded vegetative cover has taken hold.
31 Available at: https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 55
• Temporary rock entrances are required on every construction site and are
required after backfilling of foundation.
• Exposed soil, including stockpiles shall be stabilized immediately where activity
has permanently or temporarily ceased on any portion of this site and will not
resume for a period of time exceeding 14 days.
• After connecting drainage ditches or swales that drain water from the site, the
last 200 linear feet must be stabilized within 24 hours after connecting to
surface water.
• If dewatering is to take place, adequate treatment must be provided so that
nuisance conditions will not result from the discharge.
• Pipe outlets must have temporary or permanent energy dissipation before
connecting to surface water.
• All areas disturbed during construction must be restored, and a minimum of six
inches of topsoil must be installed prior to permanent restoration.
• Sediment control practices must be established on all down gradient perimeters
before any upgradient land disturbing activities begin. These practices must
remain in place until final stabilization has been achieved.
• Temporary sedimentation basins will be designed with outlet skimmers, energy
dissipation, sediment storage, stabilized banks, and permanent vegetation to
maximize pollutant removal and control.
• Ensure that clearing and grading activities are restricted within 20 feet of the
existing wetland boundary that is to be protected, in order to maintain a buffer
strip of natural vegetation.
• Compliance with the NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit
requirements.
Post Construction
Overall impervious surface area is proposed to increase to 170 acres in Scenario 1 and
233 acres in Scenario 2, increasing the runoff coefficient from existing conditions. To
mitigate this, on-site stormwater basins are proposed and will be sized to accommodate
runoff from these impervious areas and the outlet control structures will be designed to
discharge at a rate less than that in the existing condition for the 2-year, 10-year, and
100-year, 24-hour storm events and the 10-day, 9.94-inch runoff event for landlocked
basins. These basins will be separate from the proposed RIB systems to mitigate non-
contact cooling water discharge.
The proposed conditions analysis assumes the impervious areas in scenarios 1 and 2 are
distributed evenly across the site. Additionally, as the drainage area boundaries are
schematic, it is assumed that in either scenario existing drainage patterns are able to be
maintained with the proposed locations of the stormwater management areas. There
are three stormwater management areas proposed in this analysis that align with where
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 56
the existing landlocked basins are located. See Figure 16 and Figure 17 for proposed
stormwater management drainage areas and basins.
The PR-DA-1 drainage area encompasses approximately 325 acres, in the western
portion of the study area with all runoff directed to Basin P1 in the southwest. Basin P1
is sized to detain the full runoff volume generated by a 100-year, 24-hour storm event
and retain 1.1” times the new impervious area. For storm events exceeding 24-hours,
controlled discharge from Basin P1 may occur to Minnesota Public Water Wetland ID
#86039400. Furthermore, discharge rates from Basin P1 will be restricted to match
existing condition rates from LL-1 to prevent adverse impacts downstream.
The PR-DA-2 drainage area encompasses approximately 107 acres in the northeast
portion of the study area, with all runoff directed to Basin P2. Basin P1 is sized to detain
the full runoff volume generated by a 100-year, 24-hour storm event and retain 1.1”
times the new impervious area. The existing landlocked basin does not discharge in the
10-day, 9.94-inch runoff event. Therefore, PR-DA-2 will be restricted to this threshold.
Basin 2 may discharge to the preserved landlocked area as long as this landlocked area
maintains no discharge to the north.
The PR-DA-3 drainage area encompasses approximately 94 acres, in the eastern portion
of the study area with all runoff directed to Basin P3 in the southwest. Basin P1 is sized
to detain the full runoff volume generated by a 100-year, 24-hour storm event and
retain 1.1” times the new impervious area. For storm events exceeding 24-hours,
controlled discharge from Basin P3 may occur to Minnesota Public Water Wetland
ID#86039400. Furthermore, discharge rates from Basin P3 will be restricted to match
existing condition rates from LL-3 to prevent adverse impacts downstream.
The PR-DA-4 drainage area encompasses approximately 42 acres in the southeast
portion of the study area and will flow directly to Minnesota Public Water Wetland
ID#86039400. Discharge rates from PR-DA-4 will be restricted to match existing
condition rates entering Minnesota Public Water Wetland ID#86039400.
According to the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, the city prefers to
provide rate control with a regional stormwater retention system.32 If a regional system
is not viable, onsite basins will be required to store the full runoff volume in the event of
a 100-year, 24-hour storm.33 For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed basins are
sized to manage the runoff from a fully developed drainage area, including any offsite
drainage area (approximately 18 acres from the southwest). Infiltration basins with
pretreatment NURP ponds are assumed to be viable based on the high-quality soils.
Infiltration basins will follow MPCA guidelines and the requirements of the NPDES
Permit. Drawdown times and ponding depths are the driving metric for basin size and
footprint. NURP ponds with permanent pools should be evaluated for algae growth.
32 Available at: https://www.monticellomn.gov/203/Resources.
33 See Section 3.1 Policy 4 of the City of Monticello Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. Available at:
https://www.monticellomn.gov/203/Resources.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 57
Natural buffers around the ponds should be prioritized to reduce nutrient loading and
trash entering the pond from the direct drainage areas, aeration devices can also be
used to increase pond circulation and limit algae growth.
Infiltration basin sizing assumes a maximum ponding depth of 4 feet with an infiltration
rate of 1.0 inches per hour, with a mix of sand and gravel soils present. Future Geotech
reports will help further define infiltration rates used in the basins. Pretreatment basins
are sized to provide a permanent pool of the 2.5” event based on NURP standards with
an average ponding depth of six feet. The detention area needed is based on the
difference in runoff volume from existing conditions to proposed conditions for the
Back-to-Back 100-year storm for a given basin on the site. See Table 13 and Table 14
below for a summary of the proposed runoff volumes and stormwater basin sizing.
Table 13: Proposed Conditions Runoff Volume Summary
Scenario Basin
1.1” *
Impervious
Volume
Control
Requireme
nt (ac-ft)
2.5” Runoff Volume (ac-
ft)
100-yr
Runoff
Volume (ac-
ft)
Δ Volume
for Back-to-
Back 100-
Year Storm
(ac-ft)
Scenario 1
P-1 8.9 7.3 78.6 17.1
P-2 2.9 2.4 25.9 16.4
P-3 1.2 2.1 22.7 15.2
Scenario 2
P-1 12.2 12.3 95.0 42.6
P-2 4.0 3.8 31.2 21.6
P-3 1.6 3.3 26.8 21.4
Table 14: Proposed Stormwater Basin Sizing Summary
Scenario Basin Pretreatment
Area (ac)
Infiltration
Area (ac)
Detention
Area (ac)
Total Stormwater
Area (ac)
Scenario
1
P-1 1.2 19.7 2.9 23.7
P-2 0.4 6.5 2.4 9.3
P-3 0.4 5.7 2.5 8.6
Scenario
2
P-1 2.1 23.8 7.1 32.9
P-2 0.6 7.8 3.6 12.0
P-3 0.6 6.7 3.6 12.0
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 58
Potential locations for these basins are based on buildable area, minimizing wetland
impacts and maintaining existing drainage patterns, see Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure
17. These figures are schematic in nature, a detailed stormwater management plan
would be provided in later design stages with the potential for more stormwater BMPs.
Additionally, freeboard will be 2-feet above the High-Water Level determined by
modeling the 100-year critical event. The emergency overflows shall be 1.5-feet below
the lowest ground elevation adjacent to a structure.
Outlets to landlocked areas may be constructed if decreases in storage or increased
design elevations cause negative upstream or downstream impacts to infrastructure or
property. If no outlet is proposed for the existing or proposed landlocked basins,
freeboard will be determined by the greater of the following: 1) three feet above the
HWL determined by modeling back-to-back 100- year, 24-hour events. 2) Three feet
above the highest known water level. 3) Five feet above the HWL determined by
modeling a single 100-year, 24-hour event. In existing conditions, the greatest freeboard
comes from three feet above the HWL of the Back-to-back 100-year, 24-hour event.
Future stormwater management plan(s) for the study area will define the freeboard
requirements on a site-by-site, basin-by-basin basis.
Future stormwater BMPs would manage stormwater runoff and limit the volume of
discharge to existing landlocked areas. A climate trends analysis including the potential
for increased rainfall will help define any additional volume or rate control needs during
site design. The city code does not currently specify a requirement to evaluate increased
precipitation depths due to climate change. The precipitation depth for the 100-year,
24-hour storm is anticipated to increase by 20% by the end of the century based on the
paper, Equipping Municipalities with Climate Change Data to Inform Stormwater
Management.34 The runoff volume and rates would increase proportionally to the
precipitation depth assuming the same land use and storm duration. During site design,
stormwater BMPs may consider a conservative design to account for this increase in
runoff volume. Stormwater conveyance systems may also consider a conservative
design to account for the increase in peak flow.
Under the proposed development, stormwater from the impervious areas of the site
will be conveyed to stormwater management BMPs using storm sewer and overland
flow. The conveyance system will be designed to the City of Monticello Engineering
Design Standards. The onsite BMPs will be designed to the published MPCA guidelines
as well as City of Monticello requirements. Pretreatment of stormwater is required prior
to discharge to an infiltration basin or filtration basin. It is anticipated that all onsite
BMPs would be constructed prior to any construction of impervious surface.
The soils across the AUAR study area primarily consist of hydraulic group A/B and are
potentially suitable for infiltration. Additional studies and percolation testing should be
34 Equipping Municipalities with Climate Change Data to Inform Stormwater Management. Available at:
https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/e29c1999-088a-4958-b68f-c201153f4884/content.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 59
considered to better understand site specific infiltration feasibility. As an alternative to
infiltration, biofiltration or wet stormwater ponds could be pursued as the stormwater
management approach for the site. The required treatment volume is determined by
the City of Monticello, MS4 General Permit and NPDES Stormwater Permit as a function
of new and reconstructed impervious area and will be required to meet the permanent
stormwater management requirements of the MS4 and NPDES permit. For both
scenarios, it will be required to retain 1.1 inches of runoff from new and reconstructed
impervious surfaces. If volume retention is deemed infeasible, biofiltration or wet
sedimentation may be used to treat stormwater runoff and must comply with the City’s
MIDS Flexible Treatment Options. Finally, existing off-site flows directed to the project
will need to be managed onsite using a regional system or maintain existing drainage
patterns via bypass flow. Conveyance strategies for offsite flow must be sized assuming
fully developed conditions.
Additional detailed stormwater analysis will be provided at later stages of the design
phase. This will include a stormwater management plan with existing and proposed
detailed drainage figures, narrative describing onsite stormwater management and
offsite conveyance, as well as applicable hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. Detailed
basin information (normal water level, water quality volume, high water level) will also
be provided in the stormwater management plan. The following stormwater
management and erosion control requirements will be adhered to:
• City of Monticello Engineering Design Standards for Stormwater Management.
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements will be
determined for each new development within the AUAR study area.
Additionally, to mitigate additional winter salt use associated with the planned increase
impervious surfaces, the project proposer will implement a chloride management plan
with every project that requires an NPDES permit.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 60
Figure 15. Existing Drainage Conditions
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 61
Figure 16. Proposed Stormwater Basins for Scenario 1
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 62
Figure 17. Proposed Stormwater Basins for Scenario 2
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 63
iii. Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, and
purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required.
Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply,
identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required
expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from
water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for
appropriation. Discuss how the proposed water use is resilient in the event of changes
in total precipitation, large precipitation events, drought, increased temperatures,
variable surface water flows and elevations, and longer growing seasons. Identify any
measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water
appropriation. Describe contingency plans should the appropriation volume increase
beyond infrastructure capacity or water supply for the project diminish in quantity or
quality, such as reuse of water, connections with another water source, or emergency
connections.
AUAR Guidance: If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about
that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if
groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should
be addressed.
The water supply for the study area is anticipated to be obtained from the City of
Monticello water supply system. Currently, the city has a MnDNR water appropriations
permit to extract up to 800 million gallons per year from the Quaternary Buried Artesian
aquifer from four wells. From 2019 to 2023 the city pumped a total of 511 to 651 million
gallons per year of water from the aquifer. The City of Monticello has an average daily
water demand of approximately 2.2 million gallons per day and a maximum day demand
of 4.4 million gallons per day. The city is currently in the early stages of designing a
water treatment plant that will remove the iron and manganese from the water supply
(shown on Figure 18). The city has completed a preliminary study of their water supply
system and has determined that watermain extensions and potentially a water storage
tank will need to be constructed to service the study area. Depending on the specific
water demand, additional pumping capacity may need to be added to the water system.
Minimum watermain improvements for both scenarios include a 24-inch water main
extension along Fallon Avenue from Chelsea Road to 85th Street NE and a 16-inch
watermain extension along Edmondson Road from School Boulevard to the site to
complete a looped system (see Figure 18).
Currently, the study area has two irrigation wells that have a combined water
appropriation permits from the MnDNR totaling 76.3 million gallons per year (MGY). In
2023 there were 88.4 million gallons withdrawn through the two irrigation wells and a
low of 43.1 million gallons withdrawn in 2019. In both scenarios these two wells will be
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 64
abandoned and removed from service. This will lessen the demand on the aquifer by the
76 MGY that is currently being withdrawn per year.
The city has completed a preliminary aquifer analysis. Under either scenario, the DNR
may choose to perform further analysis before providing the required permits or
approvals for any new city wells to evaluate potential impacts on adjacent wells or
Pelican Lake.
Scenario 1
For the purposes of evaluating the worst case scenario, Scenario 1 assumes a water-
cooled system could be implemented. If a specific project advances that intends to use
an air-cooled system or a combination or air and water-cooled, the peak demand
evaluated in this AUAR already covers the upper limit for water use anticipated in terms
of impacts and mitigation.
For Scenario 1, a technology campus is anticipated to have a maximum peak day water
demand of up to 3-3.5 million gallons per day (MGD) for non-contact cooling water use
during the months of April through October at full build out. This would be an average
daily demand of 750,000-875,000 GPD. This water demand is also intermittent and
dependent on the ambient temperature and will fluctuate greatly during these months.
It is anticipated that this system will only run 5-15% of the entire year. The estimated
yearly water demand could be as high as 250 – 300 million gallons per year, including
the domestic demand, which could range between 25,000 to 50,000 GPD depending on
the total number of employees at the facility. Onsite storage at the facility may be
implemented to shave the peak day demand to levels in the average daily demand
category.
Under Scenario 1, the city would need to increase their water appropriation from the
MnDNR to accommodate the full buildout of the project. The water demands will be
phased as the project is intended to be built over the next 10+ years to get to the full
build out (summarized in Table 15). The phasing will depend on the availability of water
for the facility and the specific end user’s development plans.
Table 15: Scenario 1 Water Demand Phasing
Year Demand
2025 0 million gallons per year
Ramp up End user dependent
Full build out (approximately 2035) Up to 250-300 million gallons per year
Currently, the City of Monticello has approximately 149 MGY of available water
appropriations available. The existing irrigation wells within the study have an
appropriation of approximately 76 MGY. The future development is anticipated to
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 65
provide up to 75 MGY of recharge water back to the aquifer through the on-site RIB
system. The new net demand from the facility would be 99 MGY on the aquifer once the
demand from the current irrigation wells are removed and the 75 MGY is infiltrated to
the aquifer (see Table 17 for a breakdown). The infiltration process through the RIB will
not immediately recharge the aquifer but will occur over the next 10-20 years.
If using groundwater for cooling, water reuse systems, such as cycling water, will be
implemented to reduce water usage. This would entail having the cooling water cycle
two or more times for reuse.
For Scenario 1, the firm pumping capacity for the city will need to be increased and a
2.5-million-gallon water storage tank would likely need to be constructed near the site
in addition to the watermain extensions as shown on Figure 18. Under this scenario, the
water treatment plant capacity would need to be increased to accommodate up to 3-3.5
million gallons per day for peak demand.
Scenario 2
Scenario 2 is assumed to be an office/warehouse type of industrial development. These
buildings typically contain approximately 30% office space, while 70% of the building
would be used as warehouse space. For industrial type buildings of this nature, water
demands are typically based on the estimated sewer demands for the project. The
estimated water demands are based on a flow rate of 274 gallons per day for every
2,400 square feet of office space and 7,000 square feet of warehouse space. For 5
million square feet of building, an estimated water demand would be 310,000 GPD. The
watermain extensions as previously outlined would need to be completed, but the
additional storage and increased pumping capacity would need further evaluation.
Additional water appropriations would be needed from the MnDNR.
Table 16: Scenario 2 Water Demand Phasing
Year Demand
2025 0 million gallons per year
Ramp up End user dependent
Full build out (approximately 2035) Up to 113,150,000 gallons per year
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 66
Table 17: Scenarios 1 and 2 Water Appropriations Summary
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
City’s Water
Appropriation 149 MGY
Current Property
Owner Appropriation 76 MGY
Demand from Proposed
Development
250-300 MGY (minus 75 recharged back, minus 76 returned
from the current property owner appropriation) = 99-149
MGY net demand on the city’s water system
113.15 MGY
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 67
Figure 18: Proposed Water Infrastructure
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 68
iv. Surface Waters
1) Wetlands – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland
features, such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, and vegetative
removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical
modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed
wetland alterations may have to the host watershed, taking into consideration
how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the
general location of the project may influence the effects. Identify measures to
avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate
environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory
wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor
or major watershed and identify those probable locations.
The development proposed in Scenarios 1 and 2 would avoid wetland impacts to the
extent practicable. The wetland impacts proposed in Table 3 are based on
anticipated worst case development impact and are dependent on final design for
the chosen scenario. The project proposer will be required to comply with all
federal, state, and local wetland requirements including avoiding and minimizing
impacts to the extent practicable and mitigating any wetland impacts that are
unavoidable. If natural flowpaths between wetlands cannot be maintained, piped
connections may be installed to maintain hydraulic connectivity.
The City of Monticello requires the following wetland buffers based on anticipated
wetland quality:
Table 18. Wetland Buffers35
Wetland Quality Exceptional High Medium Low
Wetland buffer width (minimum) 50 feet 40 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Wetland buffer width (maximum) 100 feet 60 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Wetland buffer average width 75 feet 50 feet 30 feet 25 feet
Structure setback (from buffer) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Total (average) 90 feet 65 feet 45 feet 40 feet
These wetland buffers will consist of natural vegetative ground cover and will be
incorporated into site design. Wetland investigators anticipate Wetlands 1, 3, 5, 6,
and 7 to be low quality and Wetlands 2 and 4 to be medium quality based on the
City of Monticello definition, see Figure 12.36 To ensure the correct buffer size is
35 City of Monticello. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 153.046 N.5. “Wetland buffer strips and setbacks”. Available at:
https://www.monticellomn.gov/315/City-Ordinances.
36 City of Monticello. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 153.012 “Wetlands”. Available at: https://www.monticellomn.gov/315/City-
Ordinances.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 69
used, the developer will classify the wetlands using the Minnesota Routine
Assessment Method (MnRAM) prior to construction.37
The MnDNR maps Wetland 4 as a Public Water Wetland. If impacts to this feature
are anticipated, a Public Waters Work permit will be obtained prior to construction
activities. Regulatory coordination with the Minnesota DNR Hydrologist will be
conducted to implement appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, if
required. If the city annexes the study area, a reclassification of this basin will occur.
The MnDNR anticipates its classification to be “Natural Environment”. Upon
receiving this classification, the basin would be subject to the Shoreland Overlay
Ordinance established by the city.
2) Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to
surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels,
county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging,
diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal, and riparian
alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical
modification of water features, taking into consideration how current Minnesota
climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the
project may influence the effects. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best
Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize
turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how
the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body,
including current and projected watercraft usage.
AUAR Guidance: Water surface use need only be addressed if the AUAR area would
include or adjoin recreational water bodies.
No alterations to other surface waters are anticipated as part of the development
scenario. The AUAR study area does not contain and is not adjacent to any
recreational water bodies. No industrial development would occur within shoreland,
in accordance with city zoning ordinances.
Pelican Lake is less than two miles downstream of the AUAR study area. The MPCA
lists this waterbody as an impaired lake. Due to Pelican Lake’s hydrologic separation
from the AUAR study area, developers are not required to implement further
construction-related practices mitigating discharge to this waterbody. However, the
developer will design the site with runoff rates and volumes that provide no
measurable effects to pollution levels in Pelican Lake. The developer will manage
total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) loading through volume
reduction practices or through the City of Monticello’s Flexible Treatment Option.
The city is not anticipating negative effects to Pelican Lake due to the development
of the AUAR study area.
37 Available at: https://bwsr.state.mn.us/wetland-functional-assessment.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 70
13. CONTAMINATION/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTES
Pre-project Site Conditions – Describe existing contamination or potential environmental
hazards on or in close proximity to the project site, such as soil or groundwater
contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and
hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-
project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and
operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing
contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency
Plan or Response Action Plan.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) What’s In My Neighborhood (WIMN)
database was reviewed to determine if any known contaminated properties or potential
environmental hazards are within the study area. During this review, Kimley-Horn identified one
WIMN listing within the study area and ten within ¼-mile:
Table 19: MPCA “What’s in My Neighborhood?” Sites
Site ID Site Name Location Activity
Status Activities Program
151878
School Blvd &
85th St
Improvements
In Study Area Inactive Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
257130
Fritz
Companies
LLC
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active
Construction
Stormwater,
Wastewater,
Industrial
NPDES/SDS
Permit
Multiple
Programs
53396
Jacob
DesMarais
Farm
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active Feedlots Feedlots
263645 Haven Ridge
West
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
16608 Monticello
Township Hall
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Inactive Hazardous
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
96277 Featherstone Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
260340 Monticello
Town Hall
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
246632 Edmonson
Ridge
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Inactive Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
229214 Featherstone
4th Add.
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 71
Site ID Site Name Location Activity
Status Activities Program
150255
Genereux Fine
Wood
Products
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active
Air Quality,
Hazardous
Waste, Very
Small Quantity
Generator,
Industrial
Stormwater
Multiple
Programs
35957 The H Window
Co
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Inactive Hazardous
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
The School Blvd & 85th St Improvements listing is an inactive stormwater permit that was
terminated August 29, 2019. This listing is not anticipated to constitute an environmental hazard
to the study area.
A review of MN Department of Agriculture’s Chemical Incidents and Agricultural Spills database
was completed for the study area and no reports are documented within the study area or
within 1/4 mile of the study area.
A Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) should be completed prior to construction
under either Scenario and coordinate with the MPCA on safe handling and disposal of any
contamination and hazardous materials found on the site prior to and during construction. An
asbestos and regulated materials (ARM) assessment would need to be completed prior to the
demolition of any structures and a demolition notification will be made to the MPCA/Minnesota
Department of Health (MDH) if asbestos containing material (ACM) is identified during the ARM
assessment. If ACM and/or other regulated solid waste is identified during the ARM assessment
requiring removal, generated solid waste will be disposed of at an MPCA permitted landfill.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 72
Figure 19: What’s in My Neighborhood Listings
Project Related Generation/Storage of Solid Wastes – Describe solid wastes generated/stored
during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 73
potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify
measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid
waste including source reduction and recycling.
AUAR Guidance: Generally, only the estimated total quantity of municipal solid waste generated
and information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be
included.
According to the Wright County Solid Waste Ordinance, the county will ensure compliance with
applicable laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste
as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 473.811.
Construction Generated Solid Waste
Construction under either development scenario would generate construction-related waste
materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would either be
recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and
guidelines.
Operation Generated Solid Waste
Recycling for industrial buildings in the AUAR study area will be conducted in accordance with
the 2016 Recycling Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115A, Section 115A.151 and Section
115A.552). Furthermore, Wright County Ordinance 156.026 requires all solid waste haulers to
offer recycling services within the county.
The proposed development would generate new demands on solid waste management and
sanitation services provided in the project area. During operation, it is estimated that the non-
residential (commercial/industrial) waste stream be approximately 1,630 tons per year for
Scenario 1 and 16,297 tons per year for Scenario 2 38.
Project Related Use/Storage of Hazardous Materials – Describe chemicals/hazardous
materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method
of storage. Indicate the number, location, and size of any above or below ground tanks to
store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental
spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source
reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan.
AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR. Potential locations of storage tanks associated with
commercial uses in the AUAR should be identified (e.g., gasoline tanks at service stations).
Above ground fuel belly tanks for the back-up generators may be needed for the Scenario 1 for
emergency use. Details pertaining to the number, size, and location are unknown at this time
and will be determined as site planning advances. Each will be installed and maintained in
compliance with applicable state regulations for above ground storage tanks, including:
38 Based on the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board’s Climate Calculator Tool
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 74
• New tanks and piping would be designed to applicable industry standards and guidance.
• Tank upgrades and repairs would follow applicable industry standards.
• Tank owners would clearly label all tanks and piping.
• Underground storage tanks of any size will not be used as above ground storage tanks.
It is possible that there may be some above ground storage or back-up generators with Scenario
2, but the quantity would be significantly less than Scenario 1. The developer would prepare an
Emergency Action Plan for the use of back-up generators under either scenario, which should
include routine maintenance and testing, proper and safe setup during an outage, and fuel
management. The plan must emphasize safety protocols, such as operating generators
outdoors, away from openings, and never "back-feeding" power through a wall outlet.
If either scenario results in a proposed project that anticipates the need for more than
1,000,000 gallons of fuel storage for backup generators and may exceed the threshold for air
emissions, a separate EAW will be required for these components of the project per Minnesota
Rules 4410.4300.
Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of
disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and
disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the
generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling.
AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR.
Not applicable.
14. FISH, WILDLIFE, PLANT COMMUNITIES, AND SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES (RARE
FEATURES)
Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site.
AUAR Guidance: The description of fish and wildlife resources should be related to the habitat
types depicted on the cover types map. Any differences in impacts between development
scenarios should be highlighted in the discussion.
Approximately 2% of the land within the study area has been previously disturbed for the
construction of residences as well as agricultural facilities and provides little to no habitat.
Approximately 81% of the land within the study area has been previously disturbed through
farming and provides limited, low-quality habitat. Approximately 13% of the land within the
study area is woodland, grassland, or wetland, and provides habitat for wildlife. These habitat
types are shown in Figure 7. Wildlife that can be found within the study area includes birds,
small mammals, and insects. There is one record of a state-listed species, Blanding’s turtle
(Emydoidea blandingii), within a mile of the study area. No native plant or animal communities
under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are located within
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 75
the study area.39 There are no areas of biodiversity significance within one mile of the study
area. Additionally, there are no regionally significant ecological areas within one mile of the
study area. There are no trout streams within a mile of the study area.
Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern)
species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity
Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site.
Provide the license agreement number and/or correspondence number (ERDB) from which
the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any
additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe
results.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Division of Ecological Resources
for information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. Include
the reference numbers called for on the EAW form in the AUAR and include the DNR’s response
letter. If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the
appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-site surveys should be depicted on
a map, as should any “protection zones” established as a result.
State-Listed Species
Kimley-Horn conducted a review of the DNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) in June
2024 per license agreement LA-2024-006 for the AUAR study area and area within a one-mile
buffer for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species (see Appendix C).
The review identified the Blanding’s turtle southwest of the study area. The preferred habitat
for this species is upland areas within approximately one mile of wetlands, waterbodies, and
watercourses. Another NHIS review was requested in July 2025 and was received in August 2025
from the DNR for any potential changes since 2024. No changes were identified.
Federally-Listed Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Service Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool
was used to identify federally-listed species within or near the AUAR Study Area. This review
identified two proposed threatened species, the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) and the
western regal fritillary (Argunnis idalia occidentalis), as well as one experimental population
(non-essential), the whooping crane (Grus americana). The IPaC species list is included in
Appendix C.
Monarch Butterfly
The monarch butterfly is designated as a proposed threatened species for official listing by the
USFWS. The preferred habitat for this species is prairie where milkweed and flowers are
present. If this species is listed as threatened prior to development, effects on the species may
need to be reevaluated.
39 USFWS. ND. Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. Available at:
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 76
Whooping Crane
The whooping crane is designated as an experimental population, non-essential species by the
USFWS. Non-essential experimental populations are treated as threatened species on National
Wildlife Refuge and National Park land (require consultation under 7(a)(2) of the ESA) and as a
proposed species on private land (no section 7(a)(2) requirements, but Federal agencies must
not jeopardize their existence (section 7(a)(4))). The preferred habitat for the species includes
shallow marshes and adjacent, open grasslands.40
Western Regal Fritillary
The western regal fritillary is a butterfly species that is known to occur in Minnesota and was
identified as potentially occurring within the study area. The species is not federally listed but is
proposed threatened. Suitable habitat consists of native grasslands containing violets, nectar
sources, and tall vegetation. If this species is listed as threatened prior to development, effects
on the species may need to be reevaluated.
Migratory Birds – Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation,
and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically
authorized by USFWS. USFWS has the responsibility under the MBTA to prevent the mortality of
migratory birds and provide recommendations to mitigate or reduce potential impacts to
migratory birds, such as initiating clearing of forested habitats outside of the nesting season
(generally March 1 to August 31) or requiring nest surveys to be conducted prior to clearing or
other construction related activities to avoid injury to eggs or nestlings.
In addition to the species identified above, the IPaC results indicated that several migratory bird
species, including the bald eagle (Haliateetus leucocephauls), have the potential to be present in
the study area. Bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems
may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive
species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known
threatened and endangered species.
State Listed Species
Wetland drainage and degradation, vehicle collisions, and development of upland habitat near
wetlands can all negatively impact populations of the Blanding’s turtle. Both scenarios propose
impacts to wetlands, increases in vehicular traffic to the AUAR study area, and development of
upland surrounding wetlands; therefore, impacts to the Blanding’s turtle are possible given the
proximity of a NHIS listing to the AUAR study area.
Federally-listed Species
Monarch Butterfly
Agricultural users have disturbed most of the study area to cultivate crops. Natural prairie
vegetation does exist within the study area; however, the proposed scenarios are not expected
40 USFWS. Whopping Crane. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 77
to appreciably diminish the quality or extent of available suitable habitat in the vicinity of the
study area.
Whooping Crane
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. While potential suitable habitat may be
present, the study area is located on land outside of a federal National Wildlife Refuge or
National Park.
Western Regal Fritillary
Agricultural users have disturbed most of the study area to cultivate crops. Natural prairie
vegetation does exist within the study area; however, the proposed scenarios are not expected
to appreciably diminish the quality or extent of available suitable habitat in the vicinity of the
study area.
Invasive Species
Invasive species are a major cause of biodiversity loss and are considered biological pollutants
by the DNR. Invasive species can be moved on construction equipment, landscaping equipment,
and other debris.
Stormwater
Stormwater run-off can cause several environmental problems. When stormwater drains off a
construction site, it can carry sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, rivers, streams, and
wetlands, which in turn may harm wildlife.
Tree Removal
The AUAR study area contains approximately 26 acres of wooded land. Forests and forested
areas provide an important natural resource in Minnesota. Forest clearing and tree removal
creates a variety of environmental impacts including habitat destruction, biodiversity
impairment, soil erosion, and loss of carbon sinks. Any tree clearing will be conducted in
accordance with Ordinance 847 which amends Chapter 153.061 of the Monticello Code of
Ordinances.
Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
State-listed Species
Blanding’s Turtle
The MnDNR determined future development within the study area would not likely affect any
rare features per letter received on July 17, 2024. This determination is valid for one year; thus,
Kimley-Horn submitted a new Natural Heritage Review request to the MnDNR on July 16, 2025.
A letter was received on August 14, 2025. The MnDNR determined that Blanding’s turtle may be
impacted by the proposed project and required the following mitigation efforts for the
Blanding’s turtle, which include:
• Avoid wetland and aquatic impacts during hibernation season, between September 15 and
April 15, if the area is suitable for hibernation.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 78
• Limit erosion and sediment control to wildlife friendly erosion control.
• Check bare ground within construction areas for turtles before the use of heavy equipment
or any ground disturbance.
• The Blanding’s turtle flyer must be given to all contractors working in the area.
• Report any sightings using the DNR Plant and Animal Observation Form.
• If turtles are in imminent danger, move them by hand out of harm’s way; otherwise, they
are to be left undisturbed. Directions on how to move turtles safely can be found at Helping
Turtles Across the Road.
Federally-listed Species
Monarch Butterfly
The use of native plant species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat
within the study area.
Whooping Crane
Experimental population, non-essential status does not provide species protection under the
ESA listing process outside of federal lands; therefore, negative impacts to this species are
unlikely.
Western Regal Fritillary
The use of native plant species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat
within the study area.
Invasive Species
State requirements necessitate the control and spread of state listed noxious weeds and/or
invasive weeds if encountered prior to construction. Disturbed areas would be reestablished
using appropriate native and stabilization seed mixes. Methods to avoid spreading noxious
weeds and/or invasive species will be incorporated into project specifications (and/or SWPPP
when developed). According to the DNR, some methods that can prevent the spread of invasive
species during construction include:
• Inspecting construction equipment and removing any visible plant, seeds, mud, dirt
clods, and animals when arriving and leaving a site.
• Using certified weed-free products such as weed-free seed or hay whenever possible.
• Using mulch, soil, gravel, etc., that is free of invasive species whenever possible.
• Inspecting soil and plant material during planting for signs of invasive species and
removing or destroying the invasive species or the plant and associated soil if the
invasive species cannot be separated out.
Tree Removal
Any hardwood tree 6 inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), softwood tree 8 inches
or more in DBH, or conifer over 12 feet in height must be replaced at a rate of 1:1 aggregate
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 79
caliper inch (ACI) to removed DBH inches per Ordinance 847 which amends Chapter 153.061 of
the Monticello Code of Ordinances. In accordance with this ordinance, the developer will also
conduct a tree survey prior to construction. Although some tree removal will be necessary, the
scope of removal will be limited as much as feasible to support the proposed development.
Trees will be planted in accordance with requirements in the city of Monticello’s Tree Manual.
Stormwater
The proposed development scenarios include stormwater management and treatment of all
stormwater runoff within the AUAR study area.
Greenway Corridor
A conceptual greenway corridor is planned within the study area that could provide connections
between and among natural open spaces and be a natural area for wildlife.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 80
15. HISTORIC PROPERTIES
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in
close proximity to the site. Include 1) historic designations; 2) known artifact areas; and 3)
architectural features. Attach letter received from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction
and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects
to historic properties.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic Preservation Office and State
Archeologist is required to determine whether there are areas of potential impacts to these
resources. If any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas is needed to address the
issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified.
The Minnesota Statewide Historic Inventory Portal (MnSHIP) was reviewed to identify historic
resources. According to MnSHIP, there are three historic sites in the vicinity of the AUAR study area.
None of the historic sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Table 20. Historic Sites
Address Property
Name
National Register
Listing Status
Distance from Study
Area
8817 TH 25
Monticello Township,
MN 55362
Nickerson
Farm Inventoried – Not Listed Approximately 1,700 feet
north
7607 TH 25
Monticello Township,
MN 55261
Goetzke
Property Inventoried – Not Listed Approximately 2,000 feet
west
N/A Trunk Highway
25 Not eligible Adjacent to northwest
boundary
According to the Minnesota Office of the State Archeologist (OSA) Public Viewer map, there are
known archeological records within and/or in the vicinity of the study area. Prior to construction
under either scenario, developers will need to consult with both the OSA and Minnesota Indian
Affairs Council.
An archeological consultant (In Situ) conducted a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the study area in
2025. This included a background literature review within and surrounding the study area along with
a field survey conducted in March 2025. The field survey consisted of 408 acres of the study area
that covered everything except for a few areas on the northwest and southwest portions of the
study area. Field conditions prevented the investigators from evaluating the entire AUAR study area.
The remaining area (totaling 122 acres) will be subject to archaeological survey at a later date,
unless development is not planned in these areas.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 81
The survey identified three new archaeological sites which were all pre-contact, isolated, lithic finds
that are recommended as not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places due to no known
cultural affiliation and with no associated diagnostic artifacts or features. Further, the investigators
recommended a finding of No Historic Properties Affected within the survey limits and pending
agency concurrence, recommended no further archeological work for the area that was surveyed.
If a federal nexus is identified during preparation of project permits (i.e. if a USACE Section 404
permit is required due to impacts to regulated wetlands), the project proposer must also consider
potential impacts on historic properties under Section 106, which requires consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other relevant parties to identify any potential
mitigation needed. If human remains are recovered at any time during archaeological investigation
or development, all activities must stop and consultation initiated with the Office of the State
Archaeologist and Minnesota Indian Affairs Council.
Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office and State Archeologist is ongoing. Both
agencies received a copy of the AUAR Scoping Document and this Draft AUAR for review and any
identified mitigation from their review will be included, if warranted.
16. VISUAL
Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual
effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from
the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
AUAR Guidance: Any impacts on scenic views and vistas present in the AUAR should be addressed.
This would include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. EAW
Guidelines contains a list of possible scenic resources.
If any non-routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated development, this should be
discussed here along with appropriate mitigation.
Scenarios 1 and 2
The AUAR study area includes existing agricultural land and small residential sites that are not near
any unique designated scenic views or vistas. Any development of agricultural land will have an
impact on the visual look of a property. Future development would conform with the city
ordinances for building height, building form, landscape screening, outdoor storage areas, and
lighting to avoid impacts to neighboring properties and species. No significant visual impacts are
anticipated. Future development will need to follow the City of Monticello’s landscaping and
screening standards applicable to the Scenario development and land uses to provide a visual buffer
to neighboring properties. Scenario 1 is expected to have larger buffers and setback requirements
between nearby uses around the perimeter of the buildings as compared to Scenario 2. Additionally,
tree mitigation and replacement plans would be coordinated with the City as required by the
ordinance and incorporated in the development plans.
As building and site designs advance, lighting practices will be selected to address known ecological
concerns and prevent avoidable impacts to insects, wildlife, rare plants, and adjacent natural areas.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 82
Guidance from the USFWS to minimize blue light, uplight, and backlight will be adhered to the
extent practicable.
17. AIR
Stationary Source Emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities, and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air
pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality
including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a
discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of
that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
AUAR Guidance: This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source
large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review.
Not applicable to an AUAR. If any potential emission generation (e.g., from generators) from
future development is above the threshold for an air quality permit/environmental review, then
that specific project would be subject to additional environmental review beyond what is
evaluated in this AUAR.
Vehicle Emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions.
Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g.,
traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to
minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions.
AUAR Guidance: Although the MPCA no longer issues Indirect Source Permits, traffic-related air
quality may still be an issue if the analysis in Item 18 indicates that development would cause or
worsen traffic congestion. The general guidance from the EAW form should still be followed.
Questions about the details of air quality analysis should be directed to MPCA staff.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed a screening method
designed to identify intersections that will not cause a carbon monoxide (CO) impact above
state standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections
in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts 41. Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes
lower than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards.
MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic
volumes below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution
problems. None of the intersections in the study area exceed the criteria that would lead to a
violation of the air quality standards.
Dust and Odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust
and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be
41 Source: MnDOT CO Hot Spot Screening Method. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/project -development/subject-guidance/air-
quality/process.html#:~:text=The%20Twin%20Cities%20area%20has,carbon%20monoxide%20(CO)%20violations
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 83
discussed under Item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project
including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to
minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
AUAR Guidance: Dust and odors need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual
reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any dust
control ordinances in effect.
Scenarios 1 and 2
The proposed development may generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during
construction. The City of Monticello regulates dust according to Minnesota pollution control
standards. Dust emissions can be controlled by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or
as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Dust emissions are not anticipated during
operations as all ground surfaces will either be impervious or vegetated.
18. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS/CARBON FOOTPRINT
a. GHG Quantification – For all proposed projects, provide quantification and discussion of
project GHG emissions. Include additional rows in the tables as necessary to provide project-
specific emission sources. Describe the methods used to quantify emissions. If calculation
methods are not readily available to quantify GHG emissions for a source, describe the
process used to come to that conclusion and any GHG emission sources not included in the
total calculation.
About Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical
role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s
atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a
smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then
emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies
emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower
temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes
through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that
otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of
the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for
maintaining a habitable climate on earth.
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that
contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen
trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use
development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 84
believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of
unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.42
Project-related GHG Emissions
This section estimates emissions of the following GHGs for each scenario:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Methane (CH4)
The projected GHG emissions are provided on an average annual basis using the CO2 equivalent
(CO2e) and include the proposer’s best estimate of average annual emissions over the proposed
life/design service life of future development. The estimates also include emissions from the
construction and operating phases of the scenario. Emissions were estimated using the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board’s Climate Calculator Tool 43 and are summarized in
Table 21, Table 22, and Appendix D by project phase (i.e., construction and operations) and
source type (e.g., material inputs, building energy consumption).
Construction emissions for the two proposed scenarios are based on length of construction and
are from material inputs, transport of those material inputs, employee commuting, construction
equipment, land use change, and construction waste.
Table 21: Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Scenario 1 Project-Related CO2e
Emissions (total)
Scenario 2 Project-Related CO2e
Emissions (total)
Material inputs 117,457.85 197,881.21
Transportation of
material inputs 2,383.50 4,049.70
Employee commuting 126,621.97 211,458.70
Construction equipment 19,939.55 19,939.55
Land use change 38.15 43.02
Construction waste 398.93 664.89
Total 266,839.95 434,037.07
42 Summarized from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
43 Available at: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/environmental-review/climate-assessments.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 85
Table 22: Annual Operational Emissions44
Emissions Source Scenario 1 Proposed CO2e
Emissions (tons/year)45
Scenario 2 Proposed CO2e
Emissions (tons/year)
Building energy consumption 127,404.78 190,317.19
Industrial Processes N/A 2,793,425.57
HFC leakage 247.18 372.73
On-road vehicles 5,626.18 21,190.94
Treatment of waste off-site 913.99 8,269.44
Total 134,192.13 3,013,575.87
b. GHG Assessment
i. Describe any mitigation considered to reduce the project’s GHG emissions.
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
The following are potential design strategies and sustainability measures that are under
consideration for the proposed development to reduce emissions for both scenarios:
• Create new open space with native vegetation and habitat
• Expand urban tree planting
• Require energy efficient appliances
Implementation of the above strategies will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based
on code requirements, feasibility, availability of materials, schedule, and tenant
considerations. For Scenario 1, most technology park end users have sustainability goals
pertaining to water, energy, carbon, and recycling that would be implemented on this
site.
ii. Describe and quantify reductions from selected mitigation, if proposed to reduce the
project’s GHG emissions. Explain why the selected mitigation was preferred.
• By creating new vegetated areas from previously cropped land, the project
would sequester carbon dioxide that would not have been captured without the
land conversion. Trees and other vegetation also incorporate carbon into their
biomass when growing.
• Tree planting can provide shade, which reduces building cooling demands.
When this demand is reduced, it also reduces energy consumption and
corresponding GHG emissions.
44 While the existing conditions within the AUAR study area do emit GHGs, Kimley-Horn assumed the emissions to be negligible
when compared to the emissions of the development scenarios; therefore, Kimley-Horn did not include the annual operational
emissions of the existing conditions in Table 15.
45 Note: Scenario 1’s estimated annual emissions are based on the EQB’s recommended Climate Calculator Tool and is based on
a typical light industrial user.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 86
• Selecting energy-efficient appliances reduces energy consumption and
corresponding GHG emissions.
The potential mitigation listed in Item 18.b.i. was selected to comply with best
management practices for new construction and reduce GHG emissions where
practicable during operations.
iii. Quantify the proposed project’s predicted net lifetime GHG emissions (total tons per
number of years) and how those predicted emissions may affect achievement of the
Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act goals and/or other more stringent state or
local GHG reduction goals.
The Next Generation Energy Act requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in the state by 80 percent between 2005 and 2050, while supporting clean energy,
energy efficiency, and supplementing other renewable energy standards in Minnesota.
The MPCA’s biennial GHG emissions reduction report from 2021 identifies strategies for
reducing emissions in the three economic sectors with the highest emissions –
transportation, electricity generation, and agriculture, forestry, and land use.
The expected lifespan of the project is 50 years, this equates to a total estimated
7,915,791.36 CO2e metric tons over the lifetime of the development under Scenario 1
and 190,289,315.97 CO2e metric tons over the lifetime of the development under
Scenario 2 (including both construction and operations phases). The proposer will
evaluate implementing the sustainability measures listed in Item 18.b.i to reduce
operational emissions to the extent practicable. The proposed development will be built
in compliance with state regulations and city building codes.
19. NOISE
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during
project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project
including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area; 2) nearby sensitive receptors; 3)
conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken
to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
AUAR Guidance: Construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual
reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any
construction noise ordinances in effect.
If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources, a noise analysis is needed to determine if any
noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation
measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic
analysis of Item 18.
Existing Noise
The AUAR study area is currently cropland, woodland, wetland, grassland, and some residences. The
existing noise sources at the site consist mainly of the surrounding roadways.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 87
Construction Noise
As stated in the AUAR guidelines, construction noise need not be addressed unless there is some
unusual reason to do so. No unusual circumstances have been identified for either scenario that
would necessitate a detailed construction noise analysis. Construction activities are prohibited
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.46 Construction of the proposed project would
comply with these requirements.
Traffic Generated Noise
A sound increase of 3 dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear, a 5 dBA increase is clearly
noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is
doubled (i.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dBA increase in noise, which is just barely
noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases by a factor of 10, the resulting
sound level will increase by about 10 dBA and be heard as twice as loud.
Traffic volumes in the project area are either on roadways that do not have receivers that are
sensitive to noise, or the traffic levels attributable to the project are well below the amount that
would generate a sound increase that could be noticeable.
The change in traffic noise levels is not anticipated to be readily perceptible.
Operational Noise
Scenario 1
For Scenario 1, the main source of noise, depending on the type of technology park use, could
include computers and ventilation/cooling systems within the building, and the testing of generators
up to once per month and operating in the case of emergency. Depending on a variety of factors
(i.e., equipment manufacturer, operational capacity, etc.), chiller equipment at a typical data center
could range from around 65 dB(A) up to around 80 dB(A) at a distance of approximately 30 feet.
Given the quantity of chillers needed for a typical data center building, these noise levels would be
higher. Manufactures can apply treatments to the equipment to make them quieter, or noise
attenuating barriers can be designed and implemented to help reduce noise.
Depending on the manufacturer specifications for the various pieces of operational equipment, it is
possible for low frequency noise to be emitted. Similar to chillers, manufacturers offer mitigation
packages that could be applied directly to the equipment. Additionally, absorptive screening barriers
can be implemented to assist with reducing operational noise levels, including low frequency noise.
Scenario 2
Light industrial uses like those proposed under Scenario 2 can include outdoor storage areas.
Operation of large vehicles in these storage areas could generate unwanted noise.
Scenarios 1 and 2
Operational noise from both scenarios could include emergency generators that are only expected
to operate during maintenance and testing as well as during emergency conditions for power
46 City of Monticello. Code of Ordinances Chapter 130.09. Available at: https://www.monticellomn.gov/315/City-Ordinances.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 88
outages. When used, generations could range between 75 dB(A) to 85 dB(A). Depending on the
specific use for each Scenario, it is expected that Scenario 1 may require more backup generators
than Scenario 2. Sensitive receptors within a mile of the study area include residential homes,
farmsteads, commercial developments, and churches. In some cases, more robust noise enclosures
are needed as well as physical barriers to assist with containing operational noise from emergency
generator use.
The site plans developed for specific projects should show the proposed locations and types of
mitigation, with the estimated noise reductions for all areas projected to exceed noise standards.
The State of Minnesota regulates industrial operations standards in Chapter 7030 of the Minnesota
Administrative Rules (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/7030). The chapter establishes the
thresholds in Table 23. Both scenarios will abide by these thresholds. For Scenario 1, these
thresholds will apply whether the cooling system uses just water or a hybrid of air and water.
Table 23. Minnesota Industrial Operations Noise Standards
Maximum Permissible Hourly Sound Pressure Levels (dBA)
Noise Area Classification (NAC) Daytime/Nighttime
L10 L50
Residential housing, religious
activities, camping and picnicking
areas, health services, hotels,
educational services
65/55 60/50
Retail, business and government
services, recreational activities,
transit passenger terminals
70/70 65/65
Manufacturing, fairgrounds and
amusement parks, agricultural
and forestry activities
80/80 75/75
dBA: An A-weighted decibel is a unit for measuring sound levels that is adjusted to represent how the
human ear hears sound
L10: sound level, in dBA, which is exceeded ten percent of the time for a one-hour survey
L50: sound level, in dBA, which is exceeded fifty percent of the time for a one-hour survey
Minnesota law permits the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to enforce the State's noise
rules; however, the enforcement of noise rules are generally conducted at the local level. Under
either of the scenarios, noise attenuation measures will be incorporated into the project design to
ensure MPCA noise rules and City noise ordinances are followed.47 As site development progresses,
developers would be responsible for assessing whether operational noise exceeds established noise
standards which may require studies of ambient and proposed noise conditions and then mitigation
for compliance.
47 MPCA N oise Pollution Rules Available at: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/7030/.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 89
20. TRANSPORTATION
Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include 1) existing and
proposed additional parking spaces; 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated; 3)
estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip
generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative
transportation modes.
Parking
Minimum off-street parking and loading requirements listed in Section 153.067 and 153.068 of the
City of Monticello Code of Ordinances will be adhered to.
Existing Conditions
The following provides a description of the public roadways within the AUAR area:
85th Street NE (or CR 106 West of MN 25) is an east-west roadway that serves as the northern
boundary of the AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway with dedicated right- and left-turn
lanes at the intersection with MN 25. 85th Street NE is classified as a major collector, according to
the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along 85th Street is approximately 1,797 vehicles per day (vpd)
west of MN 25, as of 2024. No AADT data is available east of MN 25. The posted speed limit is 45
mph west of MN 55 and unposted east of MN 55, with a statutory speed limit of 55 mph.
Minnesota State Highway 25 (MN 25) is a generally north-south state highway that runs west of the
AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway about 1000’ south of 85th Street, where it transitions
to a four-lane divided roadway to the north. There are dedicated left and right turn lanes along MN
25 at the intersections with 85th street NE and CSAH 37. MN 25 is classified as Principal Arterial -
other, according to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping
Application, the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along MN 25 is approximately 15,009
vehicles per day (vpd) north of 85th Street, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 60 mph.
Edmonson Avenue NE (CR 117) is a north-south roadway that serves as the eastern boundary of the
AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway that connects to the AUAR site via 85th Street NE.
There are no existing turn lanes along this road. Edmonson Avenue NE is classified as a minor
collector according to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. Edmonson Avenue NE has an AADT of
1,808 vpd north of CSAH 37 and 1,930 vpd north of 85th Street NE. The posted speed limit is 55 mph.
CSAH 37 is an east-west County State Aid Highway (CSAH) located south of the AUAR area. It is a
two-lane undivided roadway and is classified as a major collector south of the AUAR area according
to page 99 of the 2045 Monticello Comprehensive Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping
Application, the road has an AADT of approximately 4,873vpd west of MN 25 as of 2024. The posted
speed limit is 55 mph.
Davidson Avenue NE is a north-south roadway that serves as the western boundary of the AUAR
area. It is a two-lane undivided local roadway with no turn lanes. There is no AADT data available for
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 90
Davidson Avenue NE and there is no posted speed limit. The speed limit was assumed to be 45 mph
for analysis purposes.
School Boulevard is a three-lane undivided east-west roadway with one travel lane in each direction
and a shared left turn lane. School Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial, according to the
Monticello 2040 Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 5,994 west of Edmonson Avenue and 6,464 west
of Fenning Avenue, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 40 mph, with a school speed limit of 30
mph enforced when children are present.
Fallon Avenue is a two-lane undivided north-south roadway. Fallon Avenue is classified as a local
road according to the Monticello 2040 Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 3,847 north of School
Boulevard, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
Traffic Generation
The trip generation of the two previously shown development scenarios were estimated based on
data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Scenario 1 utilized the Land Use Code (LUC)
for Data Center (LUC 160) as the best available representation of the number of trips generated,
while Scenario 2 utilized the code Industrial Park (LUC 130). Note that a significant portion of site
trips in Scenario 2 are anticipated to be heavy vehicle trips. The trip generation is shown below in
Table 24. The full traffic study conducted for the AUAR can be found in Appendix E.
Table 24: Trip Generation Forecasts
Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Total In Out Total In Out
Scenario 1 330 182 148 270 81 189 2,970
Scenario 2 1,700 1,377 323 1,700 373 1,327 16,850
Availability of Transit
There are no transit services available near the site. It is not anticipated that there will be significant
change in transit usage.
Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic
improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional
transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total
daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the
format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access
Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance.
AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews, a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the
MnDOT guidance as listed on the EAW form. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in
the response to Items 16 and 17.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 91
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in August 2025 based on the projected trip generation
of the proposed scenarios. The results of this study can be found in Appendix E. Based on the
detailed findings of the Monticello Industrial TIA, the area’s transportation network is expected to
support development within the AUAR study area with mitigation. The TIA identified improvements
that could be constructed to mitigate possible future traffic impacts associated with development
within the AUAR study area. Metrics for traffic analysis include intersection delay as measured by
Level of Service (LOS) and queue lengths.
The traffic analysis report includes intersection capacity analyses for intersections at the site access
points as well as intersection operations within the vicinity of the project (see locations identified in
Figure 20). Access to the study area is anticipated to be provided via three locations:
• North Access (along 85th Street NE)
• East Access (along Edmonson Avenue NE)
• West Access (Scenario 2 only; along Davidson Avenue NE / via future connection to MN 25)
The location of the proposed access points will adhere to the access management standards
outlined in the City of Monticello’s 2040 Transportation Plan.
Based on the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis, all study intersections are anticipated to operate
at an overall LOS D or better under Existing and No-Build (2030 and 2045) scenarios. Some
movements at signalized intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS E, but all intersections are
anticipated to operate acceptably overall.
Under Scenario 1 conditions, delays see a minor increase, but all analyzed intersections are
expected to remain at generally acceptable LOS through the analyzed design year (2045). A
southbound right turn lane is recommended at Edmonson Avenue NE & East Access and a
northbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street.
Under Scenario 2 conditions, delays see a larger increase than Scenario 1 conditions, and some
study area intersections are anticipated to experience operational issues if left unmitigated. A traffic
signal or roundabout is anticipated to be required at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector).
Analysis also indicates that a roundabout or traffic signal will be required at School Boulevard &
Fallon Avenue by the opening year (the city is planning to construct a roundabout here in the long
term). All other study intersections are anticipated to operate acceptably with some turn lane
improvements.
Table 25 shows the LOS for the study area intersections in each analysis scenario. Mitigated
conditions results (where applicable) are shown after a slash. With mitigation, all intersections are
expected to operate at generally acceptable levels of service in all scenarios.
Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure
For both scenarios, pedestrian access will be provided via the greenway corridor proposed to be
located along the southern portion of the study area. Connections to external pathway and/or
sidewalk systems will be required for both scenarios, to be constructed along all directly adjacent
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 92
roadways. For Scenario 2, sidewalks are required along all internal public streets. These
improvements would be provided by the developer(s).
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 93
Table 25: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS
Intersection
Existing
LOS No-Build LOS Scenario 1 LOS Scenario 2 LOS
2025 2030 2045 2030 2045 2030 2045
AM Peak Hour
MN 25 & 85th Street A A A A B B B
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street A A A A A B C
MN 25 & CSAH 37 B A A A A A B
CSAH 37 & Davidson Avenue A A A A A A A
CSAH 37 & Edmonson Avenue B B B B B B B
MN 25 & Davidson Avenue /
Proposed Collector A A C B B C D / A
School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue A A A B A D / A B
85th Street & North Access - - - A A C C
Edmonson Avenue & East Access - - - A A B B
PM Peak Hour
MN 25 & 85th Street A A B B B B B
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street A A A A B C D
MN 25 & CSAH 37 B A C A C B C
CSAH 37 & Davidson Avenue A A A A A A B
CSAH 37 & Edmonson Avenue B B C B C C F / E
MN 25 & Davidson Avenue /
Proposed Collector A - D - E F F / B
School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue A A A B A C / A B
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 94
Intersection
Existing
LOS No-Build LOS Scenario 1 LOS Scenario 2 LOS
2025 2030 2045 2030 2045 2030 2045
85th Street & North Access - - - A A C C
Edmonson Avenue & East Access - - - A A B C
Construction Conditions Analysis for Scenario 1
In addition to the traffic study, a construction conditions analysis will also be completed with a focus
on Scenario 1 (Technology Park) as the construction period is anticipated to see significantly higher
trip generation than what will occur at full build out during typical operations of this type of
development. No construction analysis will be conducted for Scenario 2, as the construction is
anticipated to be less trip-intensive than the typical operations of this development type and the
peak trip generation would be the same for both scenarios during construction. However, length of
construction is anticipated to vary between the two scenarios due to Scenario 2 being higher density
and would likely be developed by multiple developments. The analysis was conducted to determine
if additional mitigation would be required during the initial construction phase of the development
for Scenario 1. The analysis indicated that all study intersections operate at LOS A or B with the
addition of the estimated Scenario 1 construction traffic (see Appendix E for more information).
Future Road Network
As shown on Figure 3: Development Scenario 1 and Figure 4: Development Scenario 2, it is
anticipated that both development scenarios will include a future road network within the study
area. Scenario 1 is expected to have a new public road connection off 85th Street NE into the site
with only private roads internal to the site (not shown as these are end user dependent). Scenario 2
is anticipated to have a grid system of internal public roads to facilitate traffic between various
tenants.
Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation
effects.
The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the
traffic analysis for the Monticello Industrial development. It should be noted that mitigation
measures noted in the mitigation plan are only the mitigation measures that are the direct result of
the development in addition to the background mitigation. The planned single-lane roundabouts at
MN 25 & County Road 37 and School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue are assumed to be in place in the
analysis years 2030 and 2045, respectively.
Existing (2025) Conditions
• No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2030) No-Build Conditions
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 95
• No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane at 85th Street & North Access
• Install a northbound left turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install side street stop control at site access points (one approach lane is acceptable for each)
• Install pedestrian pathways along all arterial and collector roadways impacted by the project. As
parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install sidewalk and trail connections to connect to
existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Construction Conditions (2030) Scenario 1
• Install an eastbound right turn lane at 85th Street & North Access
• Install northbound left and southbound right turn lane s at Edmonson Avenue & East Access
• Install a northbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install side street stop control at site access points (one approach lane is acceptable for each)
• Reconstruction of roads heavily impacted by construction (i.e., 85th Street) will be required.
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at 85th Street & North Access
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at Edmonson Avenue & East Access
• Install northbound left- and right-turn lanes at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install Side Street Stop control at all site access points (single-lane approaches are acceptable)
• Install pedestrian pathways along all arterial and collector roadways impacted by the project. As
parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install sidewalk and trail connections to connect to
existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
• Install a single-lane roundabout at School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue
Design Year (2045) No-Build Conditions
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) and install a
side street stop control at the intersection.
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Condition
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) and install a
side street stop control at the intersection.
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install a traffic signal or roundabout at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed minor collector).
Install a northbound right-turn lane at this intersection.
• Alternatively, the intersection could be installed as a right-in/right-out or a three-
quarter access intersection to minimize side street delays.
• Install a southbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NE
• Install northbound and southbound left turn lanes at CSAH 37 & Edmonson Avenue and monitor
the intersection for further mitigation needs.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 96
• Install a northbound bypass lane for right turns at MN 25 & CSAH 37.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 97
Figure 20: Traffic Study Intersections
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 98
21. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS
AUAR Guidance: Because the AUAR process by its nature is intended to deal with cumulative
potential effects from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presumed that the
responses to all items on the EAW form automatically encompass the impacts from all anticipated
developments within the AUAR area.
However, the total impact on the environment with respect to any of the items on the EAW form
may also be influenced by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the
AUAR area. The cumulative potential effect descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to
other appropriate EAW items, or in response to this item.
Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects
that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
Cumulative effects are defined as the “effect on the environment that results from the
incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant
area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources, including
future projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of
what person undertakes the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the
projects.”48 The geographic areas considered for cumulative effects are those areas adjacent to
the AUAR study area, and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be
constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future (by 2030).
Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has
been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the
geographic scales and timeframes identified above.
The second of five phases of the Haven Ridge West housing development is currently under
construction approximately 0.5 miles east of the study area. This includes approximately 300
single family homes. The remaining two phases are yet to be completed and timing is dependent
on the developers plans and the market.
Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental
effects due to these cumulative effects.
Future public and private development projects may result in impacts to transportation, water
resources, and utilities. These impacts will be addressed via the regulatory permitting and
approval processes and will be individually mitigated to ensure minimal cumulative impacts
occur. For regional impacts associated with these facilities, it is expected that review by state
agencies will be coordinated to study and address expected impacts. These types of projects
would also be required to complete an environmental review and if developed, coordinate with
48 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 99
state and local agencies for the applicable permits and approvals, which would have the
authority to determine if there were adequate resources available at the time of application.
22. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
AUAR Guidance: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by
Items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and
identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.
Power Needs (Scenario 1)
The proposed development scenarios will have a higher power need and consumption than what is
currently required for the existing land uses within the AUAR study area. Future power needs for
any proposed development would need to be coordinated with the current power provider for the
AUAR study area.
Under Scenario 1, the project proposer would request the utility company complete a System
Impact Study on the existing grid network to understand the existing capacity and future
infrastructure needs to provide sufficient capacity for the proposed development scenarios while
maintaining the grid system for the surrounding area. After that step, a Facilities Study would be
completed and look at what improvements would be needed (i.e. substation/transmission lines).
This Facilities Study would also include the cost associated with needed improvements (which would
be paid for by the project proposer) and how those improvements would support larger grid
improvements beyond this study area. For Scenario 1, the cost of these improvements would not
affect current rate payers. The utility company’s model would be coordinated with the Midcontinent
Independent System Operator’s model to ensure the project properly integrates into the broader
energy system.
After the studies are completed, additional permits, environmental reviews, and approvals would be
identified specific to power lines, transmission lines, and substations for onsite and offsite
improvements under Scenario 1. Typically, the utility company will design and permit the grid
infrastructure projects through the MN Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and apply for associated
development permits/approvals needed then construct the improvements.
Site Security (Scenario 1)
Depending on the chosen scenario and end user, security measures could include fencing, buffering
from public roads, private roads, and security personnel. These measures would address anti-
terrorism and other safety concerns.
Electromagnetic Field Radiation (Scenario 1 and 2)
Electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation refers to the waves of the electromagnetic field produced by
electrically charged objects. These waves propagate through space carrying electromagnetic radiant
energy. EMF radiation can come from both natural sources such as the Earth’s magnetic field and
manmade sources, such as electronics/electronic appliances, cell phones, and power lines.
Types of EMF Radiation
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 100
Non-ionizing Radiation: This includes extremely low-frequency (60Hz) EMFs (like those from power
lines) and low frequency (up to 1015Hz) optical radiation (like visible light, infrared, and ultraviolet).
Non-ionizing radiation is generally considered less harmful, as it does not have enough energy to
remove tightly bound electrons from atoms.
Ionizing Radiation: This includes ultraviolet rays (part of it), X-rays, and gamma rays, which have
higher frequencies (greater than 1015Hz) and the energy to ionize atoms and molecules, potentially
causing damage to cells and DNA.
Potential Impacts of EMF Radiation
The health and environmental impacts of EMF radiation have been a subject of extensive study.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), low-frequency EMF exposures from power lines
and electrical appliances are far below the levels that can produce significant heating or long-term
tissue damage. A committee of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, reported in 1996 that it had found no persuasive evidence that household
appliances or power transmission lines presented a threat.49
Project Related EMF Radiation
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
Both scenarios propose new electronics and utilities that would emit EMF levels. Scenario 1 would
emit EMF levels typical of industrial and utility applications and Scenario 2 would emit EMF levels
typical of office and warehouse applications. Under Scenario 1, potential for new high voltage
transmission lines servicing a data center could be constructed. The EMFs generated by these
transmission lines are within the non-ionizing range and would comply with federal regulatory
standards to ensure public safety including the National Electrical Safety Code, which sets forth
guidelines for the installation and operation of power lines to control EMF exposure.
The project's design would include EMF mitigation strategies to ensure that the EMF radiation levels
remain well within the safety thresholds. These strategies include maintaining safe distances from
residential areas, using EMF shielding techniques where necessary, and adhering to the
recommended exposure limits set by health and safety regulatory bodies. Additionally, the EMF
emissions from high voltage transmission lines are closely monitored and regulated to prevent any
adverse environmental or health impacts.
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
This Draft Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the AUAR to provide reviewers and regulators with an
understanding of the actions that are advisable, recommended, or necessary to protect the
environment and minimize potential impacts by the proposed development scenarios. This Mitigation
Plan will be revised and updated based on comments received during the AUAR comment period.
49 World Health Organization (2014). Electromagnetic fields and public health. Retrieved from WHO website. Available at:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields -and-public-health-mobile -phones
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 101
This Draft Mitigation Plan is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require the preparation of a
mitigation plan that specifies measures or procedures that will be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
the potential impacts of development within the AUAR study area. Although mitigation strategies are
discussed throughout the AUAR document, this plan will be formally adopted by the RGU as their action
plan to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts.
The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is the effective use of ordinances,
rules, and regulations. The plan does not modify the regulatory agencies’ responsibilities for
implementing their respective regulatory programs nor create additional regulatory requirements. The
plan specifies the legal and institutional arrangements that will assure that the adopted mitigation
measures are implemented.
In addition to the anticipated permits and approvals listed in Table 6, the mitigation measures
developed in the AUAR process are outlined in Table 26. The mitigation items identified are regulatory
requirements and/or mitigation measures that reduce the level of potential impact of development
within the study area. The plan is formatted consistent with the sections of the AUAR for ease of
reference.
Table 26: Draft Mitigation Plan
Resource Area Mitigation
Climate Adaption
and Resilience
Scenario 1: Most technology park end users have sustainability goals
pertaining to water, energy, carbon, and recycling that would be implemented
on this site.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Water efficient irrigation design will be considered for any
landscape irrigation systems.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Energy efficient building shells, appliances, equipment and
lighting will be incorporated into the building design.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Retention of existing and planting of native trees and
landscaping will reduce runoff and mitigate heat island effect.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Parking areas will be evaluated to potentially reduce
impervious areas within the AUAR study area.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Green infrastructure such as infiltration basins, infiltration
trenches, rainwater gardens, bioretention areas without underdrains,
vegetated swales with impermeable check dams will be implemented for both
scenarios.
Scenarios 1 and 2: A chloride management plan will be implemented per any
state and local guidelines or requirements. Chloride conscious design will be
considered to minimize salt usage by the development. This could include
considering potential locations of snow melt, ice formation, and tree shading.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Addition of pathways and the construction of the
roundabout at Fallon Avenue/School Boulevard and 85th/Hwy 25 will reduce
vehicle emissions from stalling vehicles and encourage pedestrian activity.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 102
Resource Area Mitigation
Land Use
Scenarios 1 and 2: The city will annex the AUAR study area prior to
development and incorporate it into an applicable zoning district and overlay
districts, subject to land use permit review.
Scenario 1: Future development would be required to comply with the list of
review requirements as described in Table 7 for a data center or similar
technology campus use and comply with the future Data Center PUD Zoning
requirements.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Incorporate the conceptual future greenway corridor as site
planning advances.
Scenarios 1 and 2: The project proposer will use native plants in landscape
design and will maintain existing significant floodplain, woodland, and wetland
complexes as feasible.
Geology, Soils, and
Topography
Scenarios 1 and 2: A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Construction Stormwater
Permit (SWPPP) would need to be obtained prior to any earthwork or grading
activities within the AUAR study area.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Where required, slope stabilization will be provided by
means of vegetation establishment, erosion control blankets, or other
standard methods of erosion and sediment control. The proposed
development within the AUAR study area will require compliance with the City
of Monticello’s erosion and sediment control standards as well as stormwater
management requirements.
Water Resources -
Stormwater
Scenarios 1 and 2: Infrastructure will be built within the AUAR study area to
convey stormwater to stormwater management areas to help achieve the
appropriate water quality treatment. Design of the site and stormwater
management facilities will be used to reduce the risk of flooding in the AUAR
study area. Infiltration areas will be used to improve water quality and reduce
stormwater runoff in the project vicinity.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Maintenance and monitoring of the stormwater
management areas will be performed to ensure long term effectiveness of the
facilities.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Best management practices pertaining to stormwater
management will be adhered to during construction.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) shall meet
criteria for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) water quality
requirements.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Stormwater BMPs shall be designed to meet the City of
Monticello’s criteria for rate control as well as runoff volume reduction and
will be designed to maintain stormwater runoff rates at or below the level of
existing conditions.
Scenarios 1 and 2: The use of native plants will be considered for landscaping
and stormwater features to absorb water, reduce water demand for irrigation,
and protect water resources from pollution.
Scenarios 1 and 2: The impact of more severe precipitation events on offsite
flows will be evaluated with conveyance and/or storage of offsite flow.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 103
Resource Area Mitigation
Scenarios 1 and 2: A stormwater management plan will be prepared during
development plan review for each proposed development with existing and
proposed drainage figures, narrative describing onsite stormwater
management and offsite conveyance, as well as applicable hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling. Detailed basin information (normal water level, water
quality volume, high water level) will also be provided in the stormwater
management plan.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Future stormwater BMPs would manage stormwater runoff
and limit the volume of discharge to existing landlocked areas. Adequate
freeboard would be maintained for stormwater BMPs and landlocked areas.
Water Resources -
Surface Water
Scenarios 1 and 2: Avoidance measures will be taken to avoid impacts to the
wetlands within the AUAR study area to the extent practicable. As design plans
advance and if impacts to wetlands are found necessary, the project proposer
will obtain appropriate permits and purchase wetland banking credits. Buffers
will also be installed around wetlands to protect water quality from adjacent
development.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Future development would need to comply with the city’s
Shoreland Ordinance, which applies to the 1,000-foot area surrounding the
OHWL of the DNR Public Water Wetland in the southeast corner of the study
area.
Water Resources –
Water
Appropriation
Scenarios 1 and 2: Technology Park and Light Industrial land use water
demands can be highly variable depending upon the business operation or
manufacturing process used at each property. At the time of the five year
AUAR update evaluation, water demands from individual properties should be
evaluated and estimated future demands revised, if necessary.
Scenarios 1 and 2: The presence or absence of unverified wells will be
confirmed and any existing wells will be sealed according to MDH
requirements.
Scenario 1: The City will need to install a new well to serve the entirety of the
study area and satisfy City-wide water demands and shall be constructed in
accordance with local ordinances and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103I and
Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725. This will also include additional elevated
storage, raw watermain piping and well modifications to meet capacity. The
City would also implement monitoring wells after the City drills the new well.
The water data from these monitoring wells would be sent to the MnDNR to
evaluate if there is additional mitigation needed for adjacent private wells.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Both scenarios would require the City to request an
amendment to water appropriations from the MnDNR.
Scenario 1: The City would need to increase the capacity of the future water
treatment plant that the city is constructing in 2026.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Construct the extension of the water supply and
distribution system according to the site according to Figure 18 and in
accordance with Minnesota Department of Health standards.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Construct infrastructure improvements needed to expand
the capacity of the wastewater system to the site as shown on Figure 14.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 104
Resource Area Mitigation
Water Resources -
Wastewater
Scenarios 1 and 2: An EAW, with MPCA as the RGU, could be required if a
project triggers the need for a sewer extension with over 2 million GPD of
water.
Scenario 1: The industrial cooling water discharge will be treated through a
Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) system, which will need to be permitted through
the MPCA and designed to meet MDH standards. As part of the MPCA review,
the permit application will undergo an EAW process and 30 day public
comment process prior to any issuance of a permit. Additionally, a full water
quality analysis of the effluent will be provided as part of the RIB permit
process and a hydrogeological study would be conducted, including soil
testing, to determine any limitations for a RIB within the study area. These
studies would address the rate of infiltration to the proposed RIBs, the rate of
recharge to the aquifer, as well as the required size of RIBs. Through the
permitting process, any pre-treatment requirements would be determined by
the MPCA prior to discharge to the RIBs. Monitoring will occur monthly to
dispose of any sediment build up.
Water Resources -
Groundwater
Scenario 1: The proposed RIB will follow the DWSMA guidelines set by the
MDH.
Scenario 1: If a future development requires 310,000 GPD or less of non-
contact cooling water and domestic wastewater then that discharge could go
to the city’s municipal sanitary sewer collection system. This would not require
any improvements to the WWTP. Biological operational adjustments would be
needed to accommodate the slight decrease in organic loading from the non-
contact cooling water.
Scenario 1: The RIB system is a natural filtration of water into the ground and
will allow the water to be naturally cleaned by the soil to less any adverse
impact on the ground water. This will also allow for the aquifer to become
recharged from the cooling water system infiltration. The infiltration process
through the RIB system will not immediately recharge the aquifer but will
occur over the next 10-20 years.
Scenario 1: If using groundwater for cooling, water reuse systems, such as
cycling water, will be implemented to reduce water usage.
Scenarios 1 and 2: The City would complete a well capacity and aquifer
pumping plan in coordination with the DNR.
Scenario 1: The wellhead protection boundary area as part of the DWSMA will
need to be increased with any new wells.
Scenario 1: A future hydrogeological analysis would be needed to site the RIB
system, which would include soil testing, to understand any limitations for a
RIB system within the study area.
Contamination/
Hazardous Waste
Scenarios 1 and 2: Ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and
ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste as
required by Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 473.811, subdivision 5c.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Coordinate with the MPCA regarding the required plans,
material handling, and disposal.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 105
Resource Area Mitigation
Scenarios 1 and 2: Development would both generate construction-related
waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes,
which would be either recycled or disposed in the proper facilities.
Scenarios 1 and 2: An Emergency Action Plan should be created for the backup
generators. See Item 13 for more information.
Scenarios 1 and 2: A Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) should be
completed prior to construction and coordinate with the MPCA on safe
handling and disposal of any contamination and hazardous materials found on
the site prior to and during construction.
Scenarios 1 and 2: If either scenario results in a proposed project that
anticipates the need for more than 1,000,000 gallons of fuel storage for
backup generators and may exceed the threshold for air emissions, an EAW
will be required for these components of the project per Minnesota Rules
4410.4300.
Scenarios 1 and 2: The placement of any potential storage of hazardous
materials and wastes would not be in floodplain areas.
Fish, Wildlife, Plant
Communities, and
Sensitive Ecological
Resources
Scenarios 1 and 2: Invasive species will be controlled during site construction.
Additionally, appropriate measures will be taken to control the spread of
invasive species will be controlled during construction and landscaping:
• Inspecting construction equipment and removing any visible plant,
seeds, mud, dirt clods, and animals when arriving and leaving a site.
• Using certified weed-free products such as weed-free seed or hay
whenever possible.
• Using mulch, soil, gravel, etc., that is free of invasive species whenever
possible.
• Inspecting soil and plant material during planting for signs of invasive
species and removing or destroying the invasive species or the plant
and associated soil if the invasive species cannot be separated out.
• Native and drought-tolerant species will be utilized in landscaped
areas.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Wildlife friendly erosion control methods will be utilized
within the study area to minimize impacts to wildlife using the site during
construction.
Scenarios 1 and 2: The use of native plant species, including flowering plants,
in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat within the
study area.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Climate-appropriate native plantings and stormwater BMPs
will provide suitable habitat for small mammals, insects, and bird species.
Scenarios 1 and 2: The developer will conduct a tree survey prior to
construction and tree replacement will comply with the City’s tree protection
ordinance.
Scenarios 1 and 2: A future greenway corridor will be incorporated as site
planning advances.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 106
Resource Area Mitigation
Scenarios 1 and 2: The DNR required specific mitigation measures to avoid
impacts to the state-listed threatened Blanding’s turtle. These efforts include
avoiding wetland and aquatic impacts between September 14-April 15,
limiting erosion, checking bare ground, trenches, holes, and depressions
during construction activities, provide contracts the Blanding’s turtle fact
sheet, sighting reporting, and following guidelines for interactions of in-danger
turtles.
Historic Properties
Scenarios 1 and 2: If a federal nexus is identified during preparation of project
permits additional coordination with SHPO and other relevant parties may be
required.
Scenarios 1 and 2: The remaining area not previously surveyed will be subject
to archaeological survey prior to construction, unless development is not
planned in these areas.
Scenarios 1 and 2: If human remains are recovered at any time during
archaeological investigation or development, all activities must stop and
consultation initiated with the Office of the State Archaeologist and Minnesota
Indian Affairs Council.
Visual
Scenarios 1 and 2: Lighting practices will be selected to address known
ecological concerns and prevent avoidable impacts to insects, wildlife, rare
plants, and adjacent natural areas. Guidance from the USFWS that
recommends a lighting system that minimizes uplight and backlight would be
adhered to the extent practicable.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Through the development review process, the City will
review future site and building plans to ensure is it conforming with city
ordinances for building height, form, material, landscape screening and
lighting. Note: site buffering requirements related to Scenario 1 will be defined
in the Data Center PUD Zoning Ordinance once this has been finalized.
Air
Scenarios 1 and 2: Fugitive dust emissions from construction will be controlled
by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and
soil conditions dictate.
Scenarios 1 and 2: An air permit may be required from the MPCA for backup
generators.
GHG
Emissions/Carbon
Footprint
Scenarios 1 and 2: The following are potential design strategies and
sustainability measures that are under consideration for the proposed
development to reduce emissions for both scenarios:
• Create new open space with native vegetation and habitat
• Expand urban tree planting
• Require energy efficient appliances
Noise
Scenarios 1 and 2: Construction activities may result in temporarily elevated
noise levels. To the extent possible, construction activities will be conducted to
minimize noise levels and nighttime construction activities. Construction will
not occur between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Further noise evaluation may be conducted as required to
demonstrate compliance with local and state regulations. Noise attenuation
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 107
Resource Area Mitigation
measures will be incorporated into the project design to ensure MPCA noise
rules and city noise ordinances are followed.
The site plans developed for specific projects should show the proposed
locations and types of mitigation, with the estimated noise reductions for all
areas projected to exceed noise standards.
Transportation
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane at 85th Street & North
Access
• Install a northbound left turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install side street stop control at site access points (one approach lane
is acceptable for each)
• Install pedestrian pathways along all arterial and collector roadways
impacted by the project (85th Street, Fallon Avenue, and Edmonson
Avenue). As parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install
sidewalk and trail connections to connect to existing pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure
Construction Conditions (2030) Scenario 1
• Install an eastbound right turn lane at 85th Street & North Access
• Install northbound left and southbound right turn lanes at Edmonson
Avenue & East Access
• Install a northbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th
Street
• Install side street stop control at site access points (one approach lane
is acceptable for each)
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at 85th Street & North
Access
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at Edmonson Avenue & East
Access
• Install northbound left- and right-turn lanes at Edmonson Avenue &
85th Street
• Install Side Street Stop control at all site access points (single-lane
approaches are acceptable)
• Install pedestrian pathways along all arterial and collector roadways
impacted by the project (85th Street, Fallon Avenue, and Edmonson
Avenue). As parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install
sidewalk and trail connections to connect to existing pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure
• Install a single-lane roundabout at School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue
Design Year (2045) No-Build Conditions
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 & Future Roadway
(proposed collector) and install a side street stop control at the
intersection.
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 Conditions
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Condition
Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 2025 108
Resource Area Mitigation
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 & Future Roadway
(proposed collector) and install a side street stop control at the
intersection.
•
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 Conditions
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install a traffic signal or roundabout at MN 25 & Future Roadway
(proposed minor collector). Install a northbound right-turn lane at this
intersection.
o Alternatively, the intersection could be installed as a right-
in/right-out or a three-quarter access intersection to minimize
side street delays.
• Install a southbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
NE
• Install northbound and southbound left turn lanes at CSAH 37 &
Edmonson Avenue and monitor the intersection for further mitigation
needs.
• Install a northbound bypass lane for right turns at MN 25 & CSAH 37.
Scenarios 1 and 2: Connections to external pathway and/or sidewalk systems
will be required for both scenarios, to be constructed along all directly
adjacent roadways. For Scenario 2, sidewalks are required along all internal
public streets. These improvements would be provided by the developer(s).
Any reconstruction of public roadways necessary for site construction
purposes will also be provided by the developer(s).
Appendix A:
Wetland
Notice of
Decisions
(NODs)
BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 1
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Notice of Decision
Local Government Unit: Wright SWCD County: Wright
Applicant Name: Frattalone Development Company Applicant
Representative: Keller Leet-Otley
Project Name: Frattalone Development Wetland Delineation LGU
Project No. (if any):
Date Complete Application Received by LGU: 9-10-24
Date of LGU Decision: 10-30-24
Date this Notice was Sent: 10-30-24
WCA Decision Type - check all that apply
☒ Wetland Boundary/Type ☐ Sequencing ☐ Replacement Plan ☐ Bank Plan (not credit purchase)
☐ No-Loss (8420.0415) ☐ Exemption (8420.0420)
Part: ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐ F ☐ G ☐ H Subpart: ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7 ☐ 8 ☐ 9
Replacement Plan Impacts (replacement plan decisions only)
Total WCA Wetland Impact Area:
Wetland Replacement Type: ☐ Project Specific Credits:
☐ Bank Credits:
Bank Account Number(s):
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendations (attach if any)
☒ Approve ☐ Approve w/Conditions ☐ Deny ☐ No TEP Recommendation
LGU Decision ☐ Approved with Conditions (specify below)1 ☒ Approved1 ☐ Denied
List Conditions:
Decision-Maker for this Application: ☒ Staff ☐ Governing Board/Council ☐ Other:
Decision is valid for: ☒ 5 years (default) ☐ Other (specify):
1 Wetland Replacement Plan approval is not valid until BWSR confirms the withdrawal of any required wetland bank credits. For project-
specific replacement a financial assurance per MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 and evidence that all required forms have been recorded on
the title of the property on which the replacement wetland is located must be provided to the LGU for the approval to be valid.
LGU Findings – Attach document(s) and/or insert narrative providing the basis for the LGU decision1.
☐ Attachment(s) (specify):
☒ Summary: The LGU and TEP conducted a site visit on 9-19-24 to review the wetland boundaries as
described within the application and flagged on-site. The LGU and TEP recommended that the applicant
review additional aerial photos to verify the boundary of “Wetland 3” and “Wetland 2” due to the lack of crop
stress observed during a year of abnormally high precipitation. The LGU and TEP also requested additional
review of a possible wetland area located just northwest of “SP-19” to confirm the stockpiling of brush in this
area didn’t occur in a wetland. The applicant provided an addendum including new boundaries for “Wetland
BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 2
3” and “Wetland 2” as well as supporting information confirming the area of brush stockpiling didn’t occur in a
historic wetland area. The LGU and TEP concur with the revised wetland boundary as shown on the attached
“Delineated Resources Map”.
1 Findings must consider any TEP recommendations.
Attached Project Documents
☒ Site Location Map ☒ Project Plan(s)/Descriptions/Reports (specify): Delineated Resources Map
Appeals of LGU Decisions
If you wish to appeal this decision, you must provide a written request within 30 calendar days of the date you
received the notice. All appeals must be submitted to the Board of Water and Soil Resources Executive Director
along with a check payable to BWSR for $500 unless the LGU has adopted a local appeal process as identified
below. The check must be sent by mail and the written request to appeal can be submitted by mail or e-mail.
The appeal should include a copy of this notice, name and contact information of appellant(s) and their
representatives (if applicable), a statement clarifying the intent to appeal and supporting information as to why
the decision is in error. Send to:
Appeals & Regulatory Compliance Coordinator
Minnesota Board of Water & Soils Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
travis.germundson@state.mn.us
Does the LGU have a local appeal process applicable to this decision?
☐ Yes1 ☒ No
1If yes, all appeals must first be considered via the local appeals process.
Local Appeals Submittal Requirements (LGU must describe how to appeal, submittal requirements, fees, etc. as applicable)
Notice Distribution (include name)
Required on all notices:
☒ SWCD & LGU TEP Member: Andrew Grean – andrew.grean@usda.gov ☒ BWSR TEP Member: Cade Steffenson
– cade.steffenson@state.mn.us
☒ Wright County Delegated TEP Member: Jeremy Carlson - jeremy.carlson@co.wright.mn.us
☒ DNR Representative: James Bedell – james.bedell@state.mn.us ☐ Watershed District or Watershed Mgmt. Org.:
☒ Applicant: Frattalone Development Company, nickf@frattaloneco.com ☒ Agent/Consultant:
Keller Leet-Otley, keller.leet-otley@kimley-horn.com
Optional or As Applicable:
☒ Corps of Engineers: usace_requests_mn_usace.army.mil ☐ BWSR Wetland Mitigation Coordinator (required for bank plan applications only):
☒ Members of the Public (notice only): Frank Svoboda - fjsvoboda@gmail.co, ☒ Other: Scott Glup, USFWS –
scott_glup@fws.gov
Jeremy Donabauer, jeremydonabauer@hotmail.com
BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 3
Signature: Date: 10-30-24
This notice and accompanying application materials may be sent electronically or by mail. The LGU may opt to send a
summary of the application to members of the public upon request per 8420.0255, Subp. 3.
County Road
7
5
NE
Birch Lake
Black Lake
A
etna
A
v
e
N
E
120th St NE
12 7 t h St NE
C
ounty Road 39 NE
90th St NE
Twin
Lakes
Cedar
Lake
Black Lake
80th St N E
B
r
a
d
d
o
c
k
A
ve
NE
50th St N E
60t h St NE
Co u n t y R o a d 3 7 N E
35th
S
t
N
E
Hig
hw
ay25
N
Mi
s
sis
s
i
p
p
i
R
ive
r
Ce
dar
S
t
Chelsea
R
d
Dun das
R
d
C
h
el
s
ea
R
d
W
90
th
S
t
NE F
a
l
l
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
B
r
iar
w
oo
d
A
v
e
N
E
1
2
7
t
h
S
t
N
E
Co
u
n
t
y
Ro
a
d
75
N
E
P
a
r
k
B
lv
d
S
E
12 0 th St NE
C ount y
R
o
a
d
3
9
N
E
Co
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
5
0
S
E
Monticello
Country Club
Monticello
Paradise
Lake
North Lake
Constance
Lake
Gilchrist Lake
60th St NE 60th St NE
85th St NE
50th St NE
E
i
s
e
l
e
Av
e
NE
Da
ve
r
n
A
v
e
N
E
E
d
m
o
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Ca
me
ron Av e
N
E
Cahill
A
v
e
N
E
C ounty Road 37 NE
Hig
h
w
a
y
2
5
N
State
High
w
a
y
25
N
E
Lake Pulaski
Pulas
ki
R
d
D
a
g
u
e
A
v
e
N
E
Wh
i
t
eta
i
l
Run
40t h
S
t
N
E
E
d
m
o
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Hig
h
w
ay
2
5
N
Big Lake
Mi ssis si p pi Riv er
10
94
J
a
s
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
E
B
r
o
ad
wa
y
St
R iverview
D
r
H
a
r
d
i
n
g
A
v
e
N
E
90th
S
t
N
E
182nd Ave
N
W
Co
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
4
3
N
W
E
a
g
le
L
a
ke
R
d
S
20
0
t
h
S
t
181st
A
ve
County
R
o
ad
3
9
NE
H igh
w
ay
2
5
US Hi g hwa y 10 NWBig Lake
Pelican Lake
J
a
s
on
A
v
e
N
E
Iba
r
r
a
A
v
e
N
E
72 n d
S
t
N
E
F
e
n
n
i
n
g
A
ve
N
E
8 0th
S
t
NE
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
3
7
N
E
School
Lake
3 0 th
S
t NE
35th
S
t NE
k 0 10.5
Miles
Figure 1. Project Location
Frattalone Development Company
Monticello, MN
Legend
Study Area
Wetland 1
0.33 ac
Wetland 2
4.44 ac
Wetland 3
2.19 ac
Wetland 4
22.26 ac
Wetland 5
0.75 ac
Wetland 6
0.60 acSP-7
SP-6
SP-5
SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
SP-1
SP-18
SP-16
SP-19
SP-17
SP-14
SP-9
SP-8
SP-12
SP-13
SP-15
SP-10
SP-11
k 0 500250US Feet
Figure 3. Delineated Resources Map
Frattalone Development Company
Monticello, MN
Legend
Study Area
Sample Points
Delineated Wetland Boundaries
HGM Class
Depression
Lacustrine Fringe
Aerial Imagery Courtesy of NearMap
BWSR NOD Form –September 3, 2024 1
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Notice of Decision
Local Government Unit: Wright SWCD County: Wright
Applicant Name: Pamela Gregorski Applicant Representative: Ashley
Payne, Kilmey-Horn
Project Name: Project Groundhog Wetland Boundary/Type LGU
Project No. (if any):
Date Complete Application Received by LGU: 6-20-25
Date of LGU Decision: 8-18-25
Date this Notice was sent: 8-18-25
WCA Decision Type - check all that apply
☒ Wetland Boundary/Type ☐ Sequencing ☐ Replacement Plan ☐ Bank Plan (not credit purchase)
☐ Exemption ☐ No-Loss (8420.0415)
MN Rules 8420.0420 Part: ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐ F ☐ G ☐ H
Subpart: ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 7 ☐ 9
MN Statutes 103G.2241
Subdivision: : ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 6 ☐ 9
Replacement Plan Impacts (replacement plan decisions only)
Total WCA Wetland Impact Area:
Wetland Replacement Type: ☐ Project Specific Credits - Number of Credits:
☐ Bank Credits – Number of Credits:
Bank Account Number(s):
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendations (attach if any)
☒ Approve ☐ Approve w/Conditions ☐ Deny ☐ No TEP Recommendation
LGU Decision ☐ Approved with Conditions (specify below)1 ☒ Approved1 ☐ Denied
List Conditions:
Decision-Maker for this Application: ☒ Staff ☐ Governing Board/Council ☐ Other:
Decision is valid for: ☒ 5 years (default) ☐ Other (specify):
1 Wetland Replacement Plan approval is not valid until BWSR confirms the withdrawal of any required wetland bank credits. For project-
specific replacement a financial assurance per MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 and evidence that all required forms have been recorded on
the title of the property on which the replacement wetland is located must be provided to the LGU for the approval to be valid.
LGU Findings – Attach document(s) and/or insert narrative providing the basis for the LGU decision1. ☐ Attachment(s) (specify):
☒ Summary: The LGU conducted a site review with the applicant’s representatives on 7-15-25. During the
site review “Wetland 2” (0.99 acre Fresh Wet Meadow) was observed to lack hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology indicators. Based on the observations made during the LGU site review, the applicant’s
representatives provided a revised application with additional documentation supporting the fact that
BWSR NOD Form –September 3, 2024 2
“Wetland 2” does not meet the required criteria for being a wetland. Members of the TEP conducted another
site visit on 7-31-25 and concur with this conclusion. The final wetland boundary figure is included as an
attachment to this decision.
1 Findings must consider any TEP recommendations.
Attached Project Documents
☐ Site Location Map ☒ Project Plan(s)/Descriptions/Reports (specify): Final Wetland Boundary Figure
Appeals of LGU Decisions
If you wish to appeal this decision, you must provide a written request within 30 calendar days of the date you
received the notice. All appeals must be submitted to the Board of Water and Soil Resources Executive Director
along with a check payable to BWSR for $500 unless the LGU has adopted a local appeal process as identified
below. The check must be sent by mail and the written request to appeal can be submitted by mail or e-mail.
The appeal should include a copy of this notice, name and contact information of appellant(s) and their
representatives (if applicable), a statement clarifying the intent to appeal and supporting information as to why
the decision is in error. Send to:
Appeals & Regulatory Compliance Coordinator
Minnesota Board of Water & Soils Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
travis.germundson@state.mn.us
Does the LGU have a local appeal process applicable to this decision?
☐ Yes1 ☒ No
1If yes, all appeals must first be considered via the local appeals process.
Local Appeals Submittal Requirements (LGU must describe how to appeal, submittal requirements, fees, etc. as applicable)
Notice Distribution (include name)
Required on all notices:
☒ SWCD and LGU TEP Member: Andrew Grean, andrew.grean@usda.gov ☒ BWSR TEP
Member: Cade Steffenson, cade.steffenson@state.mn.us
☒ TEP Member (if different than LGU contact): Jeremy Carlson, Jeremy.carlson@co.wright.mn.us
☐ DNR Representative: James Bedell, james.bedell@state.mn.us ☐ Watershed District or Watershed Mgmt. Org.:
☒ Applicant: Pamela Gregorski, pamela.gregorski@cscglobal.com ☒
Agent/Consultant: Ashley Payne, Ashley.payne@kimley-horn.com
Optional or As Applicable:
☒ Corps of Engineers: usace_requests_mn@usace.army.mil ☐ BWSR Wetland Mitigation Coordinator (required for bank plan applications only):
☒ Members of the Public (notice only): Jeremy Donabauer, jeremydonabauer@hotmail.com
Frank Svoboda, fjsvoboda@gmail.com
BWSR NOD Form –September 3, 2024 3
Todd_Boonstra@fws.gov ☐ Other:
Signature: Date: 8-18-25
This notice and accompanying application materials may be sent electronically or by mail. The LGU may opt to send a
summary of the application to members of the public upon request per 8420.0255, Subp. 3.
1L
Legend c::::J Study Area
'P .. ,; "'
'P < .. z
C' m
I NE
(") 0 C: � '<
;u 0 "' C. "' 0
VJ m
......
z a, > <(
0"nty Road 39 NE Cou nty Road 39 NE ...... ......
C: "'
� a, :;;
Birch Lake
90th St NE
Twin
Lakes
Black Lake
60th St NE
us (") 0 e C: � '<
;u 0 "' C. ;;;
z 50th St NE
35th St NE
w z a, > <( 'C 0 f ... ,! d)
North Lake
Cedar
Lake
w z a, > <( "" " 0 'C 'C "'
60th St NE
ab on stance
Lake
w z a, > <(
h f
:c 10' ::r :E ., -< "' u, z I
Lake Pulaski
Kimley >>> Horn 0
85th St NE
County Road 37 NE
Paradise
Lake
0 ., " "' ;
Mo nticel lo '- ....._
Dundas Rd
rn C. 3 0 :, "' 0 :, � ..
w ;z a, ::,. 'l' .! a, ,!!? w
.,, "'
0 ::,
► < ..
z m
► < .. 60th St NE
-;:. rn
z Gilchrist Lake m
50th St NE
0.5
w z
40th St NE
Miles N ;;;
:5 0 0 "'
w z a, > <(
......
c, 80th St NE C: C: C: " I>-
35th St NE
.,/
�sitssiPfJi
/ Cou
72nd S
Pelican Lake
Figure 1. Project Location
Township of Monticello, Wright County
Bergram LLC
Appendix B:
StreamStats Report
StreamStats Report
Offsite drainage area does not actually appear to flow onto the site based on public Lidar. No visible culverts exist at the
site boundary that would convey flows. The roadway elevation at the site boundary is higher than adjacent overflows.
Flow would be captured in multiple different landlocked basins west of MN 25.
Collapse All
Basin Characteristics
Parameter
Code Parameter Description Value Unit
CSL10_85 Change in elevation divided by length between points 10 and 85 percent of distance
along main channel to basin divide - main channel method not known
8.09 feet per mi
DRNAREA Area that drains to a point on a stream 4.35 square
miles
LAKEAREA Percentage of Lakes and Ponds 0.77 percent
LAT_OUT Latitude of Basin Outlet 45.261915 degrees
PFLATLOW Flat lands lower than median elevation from Wolock 2003 unpublished data 22 percent
PMPE Precipitation minus potential evaporation from Wolock 2003 unpublished data 81.9 millimeters
General Disclaimers
This watershed has been edited, computed flows and basin characteristics may not apply. For more information, submit a support request from the
'Help' button in the upper-right of the screen, attach a pdf of this report and request assistance from your local StreamStats regional representative.
Region ID:MN
Workspace ID:MN20251016182031220000
Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude):45.26190, -93.81562
Time:2025-10-16 13:20:51 -0500
10/16/25, 1:26 PM StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/1/3
Peak-Flow Statistics
Peak-Flow Statistics Parameters [Minnesota Peakflow D 2023 5079]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
CSL10_85 Stream Slope 10 and 85 Method 8.09 feet per mi 1.493468411 75.17007505
DRNAREA Drainage Area 4.35 square miles 0.147080646 1870.067115
LAKEAREA Percent Lakes and Ponds 0.77 percent 0 13.46002046
LAT_OUT Latitude of Basin Outlet 45.261915 decimal degrees 43.51441115 46.0944041
Peak-Flow Statistics Flow Report [Minnesota Peakflow D 2023 5079]
PIL: Lower 90% Prediction Interval, PIU: Upper 90% Prediction Interval, ASEp: Average Standard Error of Prediction, SE:
Standard Error, PC: Percent Correct, RMSE: Root Mean Squared Error, PseudoR^2: Pseudo R Squared (other -- see report)
Statistic Value Unit PIL PIU SE ASEp
66.7-percent AEP flood 33.5 ft^3/s 14.5 77.3 51.7 53.8
50-percent AEP flood 47.8 ft^3/s 22.6 101 45.7 47.6
20-percent AEP flood 95 ft^3/s 48.9 185 40.3 42.2
10-percent AEP flood 134 ft^3/s 67.3 267 41.2 43.2
4-percent AEP flood 192 ft^3/s 93.1 396 43.8 46.1
2-percent AEP flood 240 ft^3/s 111 517 46.4 48.9
1-percent AEP flood 292 ft^3/s 129 661 49.8 52.5
0.2-percent AEP flood 428 ft^3/s 168 1090 58.1 61.4
Peak-Flow Statistics Citations
Christopher A. Sanocki and Sara B. Levin2023, Techniques for Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Peak Flows on
Small Streams in Minnesota, excluding the Rainy River Basin, Based on Data through Water Year 2019, U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2023-5079, 15 p. (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20235079)
Flow-Duration Statistics
Flow-Duration Statistics Parameters [Flow duration Region D 2015 5170]
Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit
DRNAREA Drainage Area 4.35 square miles 7.65 2640
PFLATLOW Flat_Lands_Below_Median_Elevation 22 percent 4.88 56.9
PMPE Precip_Minus_Potential_Evap 81.9 millimeters -132 203
Flow-Duration Statistics Disclaimers [Flow duration Region D 2015 5170]
One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with unknown errors.
Flow-Duration Statistics Flow Report [Flow duration Region D 2015 5170]
Statistic Value Unit
0.01 Percent Duration 218 ft^3/s
0.1 Percent Duration 100 ft^3/s
10/16/25, 1:26 PM StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/2/3
Statistic Value Unit
2 Percent Duration 17.9 ft^3/s
5 Percent Duration 8.17 ft^3/s
10 Percent Duration 3.95 ft^3/s
25 Percent Duration 1.14 ft^3/s
50 Percent Duration 0.219 ft^3/s
75 Percent Duration 0.0271 ft^3/s
90 Percent Duration 0.0126 ft^3/s
95 Percent Duration 0.0138 ft^3/s
99 Percent Duration 0.00604 ft^3/s
99.9 Percent Duration 0.000304 ft^3/s
99.99 Percent Duration 0.000335 ft^3/s
Flow-Duration Statistics Citations
Ziegeweid, J.R., Lorenz, D.L., Sanocki, C.A., and Czuba, C.R.,2015, Methods for estimating flow-duration curve and low-flow
frequency statistics for ungaged locations on small streams in Minnesota: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2015–5170, 23 p. (http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155170)
USGS Data Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for
which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer
systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty.
USGS Software Disclaimer: This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the software has been subjected to
rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made
by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty.
Furthermore, the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from its
authorized or unauthorized use.
USGS Product Names Disclaimer: Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
Government.
Application Version: 4.29.3
StreamStats Services Version: 1.2.22
NSS Services Version: 2.2.1
10/16/25, 1:26 PM StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/3/3
Appendix C: Agency
Correspondence
07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office
3815 American Blvd East
Bloomington, MN 55425-1659
Phone: (952) 858-0793
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2025-0122601
Project Name: Monticello Industrial AUAR
Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
This response has been generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system to provide
information on natural resources that could be affected by your project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) provides this response under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 703-712), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Threatened and Endangered Species
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as
proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and
may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirement for obtaining a Technical
Assistance Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
(Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed
habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations
implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. The
Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during
project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be
requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Consultation Technical Assistance
Please refer to refer to our Section 7 website for guidance and technical assistance, including step-by-step
instructions for making effects determinations for each species that might be present and for specific guidance
on the following types of projects: projects in developed areas, HUD, CDBG, EDA, USDA Rural
Development projects, pipelines, buried utilities, telecommunications, and requests for a Conditional Letter of
Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA.
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
2 of 14
1.
2.
We recommend running the project (if it qualifies) through our Minnesota-Wisconsin Federal Endangered
Species Determination Key (Minnesota-Wisconsin ("D-key")). A demonstration video showing how-to
access and use the determination key is available. Please note that the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key is the third
option of 3 available d-keys. D-keys are tools to help Federal agencies and other project proponents determine
if their proposed action has the potential to adversely affect federally listed species and designated critical
habitat. The Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key includes a structured set of questions that assists a project proponent
in determining whether a proposed project qualifies for a certain predetermined consultation outcome for all
federally listed species found in Minnesota and Wisconsin (except for the northern long-eared bat- see below),
which includes determinations of “no effect” or “may affect, not likely to adversely affect." In each case, the
Service has compiled and analyzed the best available information on the species’ biology and the impacts of
certain activities to support these determinations.
If your completed d-key output letter shows a "No Effect" (NE) determination for all listed species, print your
IPaC output letter for your files to document your compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
For Federal projects with a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determination, our concurrence becomes
valid if you do not hear otherwise from us after a 30-day review period, as indicated in your letter.
If your d-key output letter indicates additional coordination with the Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services
Field Office is necessary (i.e., you get a “May Affect” determination), you will be provided additional
guidance on contacting the Service to continue ESA coordination outside of the key; ESA compliance cannot
be concluded using the key for “May Affect” determinations unless otherwise indicated in your output letter.
Note: Once you obtain your official species list, you are not required to continue in IPaC with d-keys,
although in most cases these tools should expedite your review. If you choose to make an effects
determination on your own, you may do so. If the project is a Federal Action, you may want to review our
section 7 step-by-step instructions before making your determinations.
Using the IPaC Official Species List to Make No Effect and May Affect Determinations for Listed
Species
If IPaC returns a result of “There are no listed species found within the vicinity of the project,” then
project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on any federally listed
species under Service jurisdiction. Concurrence from the Service is not required for no
effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated
IPaC species list report for your records.
If IPaC returns one or more federally listed, proposed, or candidate species as potentially present in the
action area of the proposed project – other than bats (see below) – then project proponents must
determine if proposed activities will have no effect on or may affect those species. For assistance in
determining if suitable habitat for listed, candidate, or proposed species occurs within your project area
or if species may be affected by project activities, you can obtain Life History Information for Listed
and Candidate Species on our office website. If no impacts will occur to a species on the IPaC species
list (e.g., there is no habitat present in the project area), the appropriate determination is no effect. No
further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for
your records.
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
3 of 14
3.
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Should you determine that project activities may affect any federally listed, please contact our office
for further coordination. Letters with requests for consultation or correspondence about your project
should include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header. Electronic submission is preferred.
Northern Long-Eared Bats
Northern long-eared bats occur throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin and the information below may help in
determining if your project may affect these species.
Suitable summer habitat for northern long-eared bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats
where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats
such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes
forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches dbh for northern long-
eared bat that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or hollows), as well as linear features such as
fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates
of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when
they exhibit the characteristics of a potential roost tree and are located within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of
forested/wooded habitat. Northern long-eared bats have also been observed roosting in human-made structures,
such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses; therefore, these structures should also be considered potential
summer habitat and evaluated for use by bats. If your project will impact caves or mines or will involve
clearing forest or woodland habitat containing suitable roosting habitat, northern long-eared bats could be
affected. For bat activity dates, please review Appendix L in the Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long-
Eared Bat Survey Guidelines.
Examples of unsuitable habitat include:
Individual trees that are greater than 1,000 feet from forested or wooded areas,
Trees found in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas),
A pure stand of less than 3-inch dbh trees that are not mixed with larger trees, and
A monoculture stand of shrubby vegetation with no potential roost trees.
If IPaC returns a result that northern long-eared bats are potentially present in the action area of the proposed
project, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect this species IF one or more of the
following activities are proposed:
Clearing or disturbing suitable roosting habitat, as defined above, at any time of year,
Any activity in or near the entrance to a cave or mine,
Mining, deep excavation, or underground work within 0.25 miles of a cave or mine,
Construction of one or more wind turbines, or
Demolition or reconstruction of human-made structures that are known to be used by bats based on
observations of roosting bats, bats emerging at dusk, or guano deposits or stains.
If none of the above activities are proposed, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will
have no effect on the northern long-eared bat. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No
Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
4 of 14
species list report for your records.
If any of the above activities are proposed, and the northern long-eared bat appears on the user’s species list,
the federal project user will be directed to either the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat range-wide D-
key or the Federal Highways Administration, Federal Railways Administration, and Federal Transit
Administration Indiana bat/Northern long-eared bat D-key, depending on the type of project and federal
agency involvement. Similar to the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key, these d-keys helps to determine if prohibited
take might occur and, if not, will generate an automated verification letter. Additional information about
available tools can be found on the Service’s northern long-eared bat website.
Whooping Crane
Whooping crane is designated as a non-essential experimental population in Wisconsin and consultation under
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is only required if project activities will occur within a National
Wildlife Refuge or National Park. If project activities are proposed on lands outside of a National Wildlife
Refuge or National Park, then you are not required to consult. For additional information on this designation
and consultation requirements, please review “Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of
Whooping Cranes in the Eastern United States.”
Other Trust Resources and Activities
Bald and Golden Eagles - Although the bald eagle has been removed from the endangered species list, this
species and the golden eagle are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to survey the area for any migratory bird nests. If there is
an eagle nest on-site while work is on-going, eagles may be disturbed. We recommend avoiding and
minimizing disturbance to eagles whenever practicable. If you cannot avoid eagle disturbance, you may seek a
permit. A nest take permit is always required for removal, relocation, or obstruction of an eagle nest. For
communication and wind energy projects, please refer to additional guidelines below.
Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically
authorized by the Service. The Service has the responsibility under the MBTA to proactively prevent the
mortality of migratory birds whenever possible and we encourage implementation of recommendations that
minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Such measures include clearing forested habitat outside the
nesting season (generally March 1 to August 31) or conducting nest surveys prior to clearing to avoid injury to
eggs or nestlings.
Communication Towers - Construction of new communications towers (including radio, television, cellular,
and microwave) creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of
night-migrating birds. However, the Service has developed voluntary guidelines for minimizing impacts.
Transmission Lines - Migratory birds, especially large species with long wingspans, heavy bodies, and poor
maneuverability can also collide with power lines. In addition, mortality can occur when birds, particularly
hawks, eagles, kites, falcons, and owls, attempt to perch on uninsulated or unguarded power poles. To
minimize these risks, please refer to guidelines developed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and
the Service. Implementation of these measures is especially important along sections of lines adjacent to
wetlands or other areas that support large numbers of raptors and migratory birds.
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
5 of 14
▪
▪
▪
Wind Energy - To minimize impacts to migratory birds and bats, wind energy projects should follow the
Service’s Wind Energy Guidelines. In addition, please refer to the Service's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance,
which provides guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and
operating wind energy facilities.
State Department of Natural Resources Coordination
While it is not required for your Federal section 7 consultation, please note that additional state endangered or
threatened species may also have the potential to be impacted. Please contact the Minnesota or Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources for information on state listed species that may be present in your
proposed project area.
Minnesota
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage
Email: Review.NHIS@state.mn.us
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage
Email: DNRERReview@wi.gov
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please feel free to contact our office with
questions or for additional information.
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
Bald & Golden Eagles
Migratory Birds
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office
3815 American Blvd East
Bloomington, MN 55425-1659
(952) 858-0793
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
6 of 14
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code:2025-0122601
Project Name:Monticello Industrial AUAR
Project Type:Mixed-Use Construction
Project Description:The AUAR study area encompasses an area totaling approximately 546
acres on 15 parcels in Monticello Township, Wright County, Minnesota.
Monticello Tech, LLC is proposing to develop the study area from
existing farmland to a technology park or light industrial uses.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@45.26542395,-93.80850254796702,14z
Counties:Wright County, Minnesota
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
7 of 14
1.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
1
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
8 of 14
1.
2.
3.
BIRDS
NAME STATUS
Whooping Crane Grus americana
Population: U.S.A. (AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NC,
NM, OH, SC, TN, UT, VA, WI, WV, western half of WY)
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758
Experimental
Population,
Non-
Essential
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical
habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Proposed
Threatened
Western Regal Fritillary Argynnis idalia occidentalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/12017
Proposed
Threatened
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL
ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES
Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) . Any person or organization who plans or conducts
activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their habitats, should follow
appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate avoidance and minimization
measures, as described in the various links on this page.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
There are Bald Eagles and/or Golden Eagles in your project area.
Measures for Proactively Minimizing Eagle Impacts
For information on how to best avoid and minimize disturbance to nesting bald eagles, please
review the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. You may employ the timing and
2
1
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
9 of 14
activity-specific distance recommendations in this document when designing your project/
activity to avoid and minimize eagle impacts. For bald eagle information specific to Alaska,
please refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity.
The FWS does not currently have guidelines for avoiding and minimizing disturbance to nesting
Golden Eagles. For site-specific recommendations regarding nesting Golden Eagles, please
consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office.
If disturbance or take of eagles cannot be avoided, an incidental take permit may be available to
authorize any take that results from, but is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. For
assistance making this determination for Bald Eagles, visit the Do I Need A Permit Tool. For
assistance making this determination for golden eagles, please consult with the appropriate
Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office.
Ensure Your Eagle List is Accurate and Complete
If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area in IPaC, your list may not be complete and you
may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local
FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information
on Migratory Birds and Eagles, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified
location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to bald or golden eagles on your list, see the "Probability of Presence
Summary" below to see when these bald or golden eagles are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental
Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret
this report.
Probability of Presence ()
Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project
overlaps during that week of the year.
Breeding Season ()
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
10 of 14
▪
▪
▪
▪
1.
2.
3.
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire
range.
Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project area overlaps.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/
media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-
project-action
MIGRATORY BIRDS
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling,
trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the
Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary"
below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
1
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
11 of 14
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9643
Breeds May 20
to Aug 10
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406
Breeds Mar 15
to Aug 25
Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8745
Breeds May 1 to
Jul 20
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679
Breeds
elsewhere
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9561
Breeds
elsewhere
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9398
Breeds May 10
to Sep 10
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9478
Breeds
elsewhere
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to
Aug 31
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9431
Breeds May 10
to Aug 31
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
12 of 14
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental
Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret
this report.
Probability of Presence ()
Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project
overlaps during that week of the year.
Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire
range.
Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project area overlaps.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Canada Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Chimney Swift
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Golden-winged
Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Lesser Yellowlegs
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Pectoral Sandpiper
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
13 of 14
▪
▪
▪
▪
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Rusty Blackbird
BCC - BCR
Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds
Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/
media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-
project-action
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
14 of 14
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:Private Entity
Name:Jacob Ackerman
Address:767 N Eustis St
Address Line 2:Suite 100
City:St. Paul
State:MN
Zip:55114
Email jake.ackerman@kimley-horn.com
Phone:6514568135
Monticello Industrial
MCE #: 2024-00577
Page 1 of 5
Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page
See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details
have not been finalized and the results are not official.
Project Name: Monticello Industrial
Project Proposer: Frattalone
Project Type: Development, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial
Project Type Activities: Tree Removal;Wetland impacts (e.g., dewatering, tiling, drainage, discharge,
excavation, fill, runoff, sedimentation, changes in hydrology)
TRS: T121 R25 S22, T121 R25 S23, T121 R25 S26, T121 R25 S27
County(s): Wright
DNR Admin Region(s): Central
Reason Requested: State EAW
Project Description: The project would involve the construction of an industrial development.
Existing Land Uses: Agricultural
Landcover / Habitat Impacted: Cultivated crops, grassland, potential wetland impacts
Waterbodies Affected: There may be potential impacts to wetlands on site.
Groundwater Resources Affected: N/A
Previous Natural Heritage Review: No
Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No
SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS
Category Results Response By Category
Project Details Comments Tree Removal - Recommendations
Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required
State-Listed Endangered or
Threatened Species
No Comments No Further Review Required
State-Listed Species of Special
Concern
No Comments No Further Review Required
Federally Listed Species No Records Visit IPaC For Federal Review
7/17/2024 10:25 AM
Monticello Industrial
MCE #: 2024-00577
Page 2 of 5
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Ecological & Water Resources
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55155-4025
July 17, 2024
Project ID: MCE #2024-00577
Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
767 Eustis Street, Suite 100
St. Paul, MN 55114
RE: Automated Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Monticello Industrial
See Cover Page for location and project details.
Dear Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn),
As requested, the above project has been reviewed for potential effects to rare features. Given the project
details provided on the cover page, I do not believe the proposed project will negatively affect any known
occurrences of rare features. To ensure compliance with federal law, conduct a federal regulatory review
using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
tool.
Project Type and/or Project Type Activity Comments
The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some
acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed below, all
of Minnesota’s bats, including the federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis), can be found throughout Minnesota. During the active season (approximately April-
November) bats roost underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Tree
removal can negatively impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing
season when females are forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To
minimize these impacts, the DNR recommends that tree removal be avoided from June 1 through
August 15.
The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about
Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources,
Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available,
and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant
communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does
not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant
features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes
available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary.
7/17/2024 10:25 AM
Monticello Industrial
MCE #: 2024-00577
Page 3 of 5
For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the
results are only valid for the project location and the project description provided on the cover page. If
project details change or construction has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for
review before initiating project activities.
The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources.
Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential impacts to these rare
features. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource concerns, you may
contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist.
Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural
resources.
Sincerely,
Jim Drake Jim Drake
Natural Heritage Review Specialist
James.F.Drake@state.mn.us
Links:USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool
DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Contact Info
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html
7/17/2024 10:25 AM
Monticello Industrial
MCE #: 2024-00577
Page 4 of 5
7/17/2024 10:25 AM
Monticello Industrial
MCE #: 2024-00577
Page 5 of 5
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
7/17/2024 10:25 AM
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00610
Page 1 of 4
Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page
See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details
have not been finalized and the results are not official.
Project Name: Monticello Industrial AUAR
Project Proposer: Monticello Tech, LLC
Project Type: Development, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial
Project Type Activities: Wetland impacts (e.g., dewatering, tiling, drainage, discharge, excavation, fill,
runoff, sedimentation, changes in hydrology);Tree Removal;Grading
TRS: T121 R25 S22, T121 R25 S23, T121 R25 S26, T121 R25 S27
County(s): Wright
DNR Admin Region(s): Central
Reason Requested: State EAW
Project Description: The city of Monticello is preparing an AUAR for the Monticello Industrial Development.
The city is proposing two development scenarios. One is for 3,000,000 ...
Existing Land Uses:
Landcover / Habitat Impacted:
Waterbodies Affected:
Groundwater Resources Affected:
Previous Natural Heritage Review: Yes, ERDB#: 2024-00577
Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No
SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS
Category Results Response By Category
Project Details Comments Tree Removal - Recommendations
Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required
State-Listed Endangered or
Threatened Species
Needs Further
Review
State-protected Species - Needs Further
Review
State-Listed Species of Special
Concern
No Comments No Further Review Required
Federally Listed Species No Records Visit IPaC For Federal Review
7/16/2025 05:53 PM
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00610
Page 2 of 4
July 16, 2025
Project Name: Monticello Industrial AUAR
Project Proposer: Monticello Tech, LLC
Project Type: Development, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial
Project ID: MCE #2025-00610
AUTOMATED RESULTS: FURTHER REVIEW IS NEEDED
As requested, the above project has undergone an automated review for potential impacts to rare features.
Based on this review, one or more rare features may be impacted by the proposed project and further
review by the Natural Heritage Review Team is needed. You will receive a separate notification email when
the review process is complete and the Natural Heritage Review letter has been posted.
Please refer to the table on the cover page of this report for a summary of potential impacts to rare features.
For additional information or planning purposes, use the Explore Page in Minnesota Conservation Explorer
to view the potentially impacted rare features or to create a Conservation Planning Report for the proposed
project.
If you have additional information to help resolve the potential impacts listed in the summary results, please
attach related project documentation in the Edit Details tab of the Project page. Relevant information
includes, but is not limited to, additional project details, completed habitat assessments, or survey results.
This additional information will be considered during the project review.
7/16/2025 05:53 PM
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00610
Page 3 of 4
7/16/2025 05:53 PM
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00610
Page 4 of 4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
7/16/2025 05:53 PM
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE-2025-00610
Page 1 of 3
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Ecological & Water Resources
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55155-4025
August 14, 2025
Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Monticello Industrial AUAR,
T121N R25W Sections 22-23 and 26-27; Wright County
Dear Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn),
For all correspondence regarding the Natural Heritage Review of this project please include the project ID MCE-
2025-00610 in the email subject line.
As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been reviewed to determine if the
proposed project has the potential to impact any rare species or other significant natural features. Based on the
project details provided with the request, the following rare features may be impacted by the proposed project:
State-listed Species
•Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species, have been documented in
the vicinity of the proposed project. Blanding’s turtles use upland areas up to and over a mile distant
from wetlands, waterbodies, and watercourses. Uplands are used for nesting, basking, periods of
dormancy, and traveling between wetlands. Factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species
include collisions with vehicles, wetland drainage and degradation, and the development of upland
habitat. Any added mortality can be detrimental to populations of Blanding’s turtles, as these turtles
have a low reproduction rate that depends upon a high survival rate to maintain population levels.
This project has the potential to impact this rare turtle through direct fatalities and habitat
disturbance/destruction due to activities associated with the proposed project. Minnesota’s Endangered
Species Statute (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated Rules (Minnesota Rules, part
6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the take of threatened or endangered species without a
permit. As such, please contact Review.NHIS@state.mn.us to confirm that the following measures will
be implemented:
o Avoid wetland and aquatic impacts during hibernation season, between September 15 and April
15, if the area is suitable for hibernation.
o Limit erosion and sediment control to wildlife friendly erosion control.
o Check bare ground within construction areas for turtles before the use of heavy equipment or
any ground disturbance.
o The Blanding’s turtle flyer must be given to all contractors working in the area.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE-2025-00610
Page 2 of 3
o Report any sightings using the DNR Plant and Animal Observation Form.
o If turtles are in imminent danger, move them by hand out of harm’s way; otherwise, they are to
be left undisturbed. Directions on how to move turtles safely can be found at Helping Turtles
Across the Road.
If the above measures are not feasible, please contact Review.NHIS@state.mn.us as a project-specific
avoidance plan will likely be needed to demonstrate avoidance.
Additional Blanding’s turtle avoidance measures may include, but are not limited to, the following
recommendations:
o Recommendations from List 1 of the Blanding’s turtle fact sheet. If greater protection for turtles
is desired, implement recommendations from List 2.
For examples of wildlife friendly roads, see “Curb Design and Small Animals” (Ch. 1
Species Protection, P. 24) in the Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters
Work Permit manual.
o Avoid hydro-mulch products that contain any materials with synthetic (plastic) fiber additives, as
the fibers can re-suspend and flow into waterbodies.
o Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands. Blanding’s turtles have been known to
nest in residential areas, farm fields, and areas of exposed soil/sand/sediment (including soil
stockpiles and gravel pads). To minimize impacts:
Avoid impacts to potential nesting habitat from June 1 through September 15, or
Exclude Blanding’s turtles from potential nesting habitat from May 15 through July 15.
To exclude turtles from potential nesting habitat: Install a barrier, buried 10 inches,
around suitable nesting habitat.
See the Blanding’s turtle fact sheet for more information regarding nesting.
o Buffer wetlands and waterbodies.
o Disturbed ground should be restored to pre-construction contours and re-vegetated with native
species suitable to the local habitat.
•The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some
acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed nearby, all of
Minnesota’s bats, including the federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis),
can be found throughout Minnesota. During the active season (approximately April-November) bats
roost underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Tree removal can negatively
impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season when females are
forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To minimize these impacts, the DNR
recommends that tree removal be avoided from June 1 through August 15.
•Please visit the DNR Rare Species Guide for more information on the habitat use of state-listed species
and recommended measures to avoid or minimize impacts.
•Please report incidental sightings of state-listed species via the DNR Plant and Animal Observation Form.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE-2025-00610
Page 3 of 3
Federally Protected Species
•To ensure compliance with federal law, conduct a federal regulatory review using the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's (USFWS) online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool.
Environmental Review and Permitting
•Please include a copy of this letter and the MCE-generated Final Project Report in any state or local
license or permit application. Please note that measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the above
rare features may be included as restrictions or conditions in any required permits or licenses.
•Given the potential presence of state protected species, we encourage submission of Natural Heritage
Review requests to ensure avoidance of take for these species and to determine survey needs as
individual projects are planned for the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR).
The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about
Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department
of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available and is the most
complete source of data on Minnesota's native plant communities, rare species, and other rare features.
However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and does not contain the locations of all rare features in the
state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area.
If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review
may be necessary.
For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results
are only valid for the project location and project description provided with the request. If project details
change or the project has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for review within one
year of initiating project activities. Resubmit by selecting Clone Project as Draft on the project page in MCE.
The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources.
Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential impacts to these rare
features. Visit Natural Heritage Review for additional information regarding this process, survey guidance, and
other related information. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource
concerns, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist.
Thank you for consulting us on this matter and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural
resources.
Sincerely,
Molly Barrett
Natural Heritage Review Specialist
molly.barrett@state.mn.us
Cc: Melissa Collins, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central (Region 3)
Cc: Catherine Plank, Assistant Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central (Region 3)
Appendix D:
Greenhouse Gas
Analysis
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report Date Prepared:10/20/2025
x Background Information
Monticello Industrial AUAR - Scenario 1
Subp. 14, Industrial, commercial, institutional facilities
Wright
4/1/2027
2034
50
Grid Average
Portion of Building Electricity Consumption to be Generated On-Site via Renewables or Supplied through the Purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)0%
Portion of Building Natural Gas Consumption to be Supplied from Renewable Sources 0%
Yes
x Summary Results **Results may be incomplete due to missing user inputs**
Project Lifetime 57
Unit tons
Note: NA indicates that emissions were not quantified and/or are not applicable.
HFC leakage
Land use change (operations)
Total
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Manure management
Phase
CO2e Emissions
Construction
Operation
Cumulative Annualized
117,457.85
2,383.50
126,621.97
19,939.55
0.78 44.57
398.93 7.00
2,060.66
41.82
2,221.44
349.82
Material inputs
Transportation of material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Land use change (construction)
Construction waste
Building energy consumption
Coal production
Natural gas and oil products
Industrial processes
Project Name
Project Category (primary)
Project Category (secondary)
Location (County)
Construction Start Date
Operational Year
Operational Lifetime (Years)
Electricity Provider
Paving and Landscaping
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Architectural Coatings
Construction Stage
Building Construction Project?
NA
NA
Duration (Days)
546
328
846
8,463
601
601
Treatment of wastewater on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Enteric fermentation
7,262,072.29
NA
NA
247.18
NA
5,626.18
NA
NA
127,404.78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14,089.12
NA
320,692.54
NA
913.99
NA
NA
138,873.65 7,915,797.78
52,097.45
The results shown below were generated using the Minnesota Climate Calculator. The emissions quantified account for the full greenhouse gas impact of a potential project throughout the construction
and operational phases of the project. This includes emissions from project activities that occur on-site as well as emissions that occur upstream and downstream of the project. The results are based on
user inputs and assumptions; actual project emissions may vary.
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
to
n
s
C
O
2
e
Cumulative Lifetime Emissions
Material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Land use change (construction)
Construction waste
Building energy consumption
HFC leakage
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 1 of 5
x User Inputs
Note: NA indicates that emissions were not quantified and/or activity is not applicable.
Material Inputs
Quantity
375.00
12,068.00
150.00
600,000.00
750.00
0.00
30.00
9,000.00
150.00
Employee Commuting
13.2
Construction Equipment
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction
Architectural
Coatings
Paving and
Landscaping
Air Compressors 0 0 0 0 6 0
Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Concrete/Industrial Saws 8 0 0 0 0 0
Cranes 0 0 0 7 0 0
Excavators 24 0 16 0 0 0
Forklifts 0 0 0 24 0 0
Generator Sets 0 0 0 8 0 0
Graders 0 0 8 0 0 0
Pavers 0 0 0 0 0 16
Paving Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 16
Rollers 0 0 0 0 0 16
Rubber Tired Dozers 16 24 8 0 0 0
Scrapers 0 0 16 0 0 0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 32 16 21 0 0
Welders 0 0 0 8 0 0
Land Use Change
Wetlands, forested
Wetlands, not forested
Forest
Rivers and streams
Brush and grassland
Cropland
Livestock rangeland/pastureland
Lawn/landscaping
Green Infrastructure: Constructed wetlands, paved
Green Infrastructure: Constructed wetlands, vegetated
Green Infrastructure: Constructed green roofs
Green Infrastructure: Constructed permeable pavements
Impervious surface
Stormwater pond (wet sedimentation basin)
Equipment Type
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Fuel Type
Average One-Way Commute Length (miles)
Land Use Type
0.00
0.00 NA
30.75 22.26 NA
Acres
Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Operation
0.00
1.00 NA
444.00 0.00 NA
28.00 25.25 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
36.25
0.00 NA
0.00 32.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
0.00 289.49 NA
11.00 170.00 NA
0.00 10.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
Number of Hours per Day by Construction Stage
Domestic
Unknown
Unknown
82%
11%
0%
2%
2%
3%
Percent of Employees
Single Occupancy Vehicle
Carpool
Motorcycle500
1400
400
Bus
Transit Rail
Bike/Walk
Transportation ModeConstruction Stage
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Material Type
Aluminum
Asphalt
Brick
Concrete
Glass
Insulation (residential)
Insulation (commercial)
Steel
Wood Products
Unit
Unknown
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
100Paving and Landscaping
Grading
Building Construction
Architectural Coatings
Daily Average Number of Employees Commuting
500
100
Demolition
Site Preparation
Diesel
Geographical Sourcing
Unknown
Domestic
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 2 of 5
Number
Number of mature trees removed 15
Number of new trees planted 15
Construction Waste
Material Type Quantity (tons)
Aluminum 0.00
Asphalt 0.00
Brick 6.00
Concrete 18000.00
Glass 22.50
Insulation 3.00
Steel 0.00
Wood Products 7.50
Mixed Waste 0.00
Building Energy Consumption
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Other
Emissions from Coal Production
Mixed Coal
Anthracite Coal
Bituminous Coal
Subbituminous Coal
Lignite Coal
Coal Coke
Emissions from Natural Gas and Oil Products
Natural Gas Assumptions
NA
NA
Industrial Processes
Product Type
Cement
Lime
Limestone Use
Magnesium
Iron and Steel
Ammonia
Aluminum
Nitric Acid
Trees
Natural Gas
Renewable Natural Gas
Propane
Coal Type
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Electricity
NA
NA
NA
Quantity (tons/year)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Renewable Diesel
Fuel Type Incremental Throughput
Building Type
NA
NA
NA
NA
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Emission Factor (kgCO2e/ton)
NA
NA
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
24,460.01 3,619.38
46,860.06
Incremental Production (tons/year)
Cubic Feet/year
Cubic Feet/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
35,534.88 0.00 1,661.56
656,392.90
Unit
Biodiesel 20
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 1
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 4
Residual Fuel Oil No. 5
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6
Leakage and Venting Emissions (kgCO2e/MMBtu)
Percent Reduction in Leakage and Venting Emissions
NA
Energy Intensity (Btu/sq ft/year)
Gasoline
NA
NA
NA
NA
48,219.03 0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Natural Gas Propane
Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)
Kerosene
Kerosene Jet Fuel
Biodiesel 100
18,096.91
30,766.13
229,952.20
233.51
3,659.93
0.00 0.00 0.00
NA
NA
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
0.00 8,191.66
Kerosene or Fuel Oil
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 3 of 5
HFC Leakage
Building Type
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
On-Road Vehicles
Treatment of Waste On-Site
Treatment of Wastewater On-Site
NA
Treatment of Waste Off-Site
Quantity
Number of single family households 0 lb/household/day
Number of employees (commercial)0 lb/employee/day
Number of employees (industrial)1000 lb/employee/day
Number of employees (institutional)0 lb/employee/day
Visitors per year (public venues)0 lb/visitor
Enteric Fermentation and Manure Management
Anaerobic
digester
Anaerobic
lagoon -
liquid
Cattle deep
litter Composting Daily spread Deep pit Dry lot Liquid/
slurry
Pasture,
range,
paddock
Poultry with
litter
Poultry
without
litter
Solid storage
Bulls NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef cows NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef heifers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Steer stockers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Heifer stockers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Feedlot beef NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef calves NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy heifers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy cows NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy calves NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine, <55 lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine 55-330 lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine 330+ lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, layers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, pullets NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, chickens NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, broilers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Turkeys NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0%
Livestock Type Population
Speed Bin (miles/hr)
Fleet Average
0-30
Percent of Building Area Utilized
31-55
100%
100%
100%
100%
Additional VMT (miles/year)
23400000
0
0
NA
56-75
Activity
NA
NA
NA
Product Type
100%
7.00
10.53
Waste Generation Rate Unit
0
Population Served by Treatment Plant
Waste Treatment Practice Quantity of Waste Treated (tons/year)
Production (MT/year)
8.93
3.55
1.72
Percentage of Manure Management System
Landfilled
Combusted -
Percent of manure applied or sold for application to agricultural soils (pasture or cropland) as fertilizer
Percent of Waste
0%
0%
Recycled
Waste Treatment Practice
Composted
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 4 of 5
x Notes
Mitigation Measures
Adaptation Strategies
Land use change (operations)
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Treatment of wastewater on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Building energy consumption
Coal production
Natural gas and oil products
Industrial processes
HFC leakage
Enteric fermentation
Manure management
Land use change (construction)
Material inputs
Construction waste
General Notes
Transportation of material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 5 of 5
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report Date Prepared:10/20/2025
x Background Information
Monticello Industrial AUAR - Scenario 2
Subp. 14, Industrial, commercial, institutional facilities
Wright
4/1/2027
2040
50
Grid Average
Portion of Building Electricity Consumption to be Generated On-Site via Renewables or Supplied through the Purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)0%
Portion of Building Natural Gas Consumption to be Supplied from Renewable Sources 0%
Yes
x Summary Results **Results may be incomplete due to missing user inputs**
Project Lifetime 63
Unit tons
Note: NA indicates that emissions were not quantified and/or are not applicable.
520,974.50
The results shown below were generated using the Minnesota Climate Calculator. The emissions quantified account for the full greenhouse gas impact of a potential project throughout the construction
and operational phases of the project. This includes emissions from project activities that occur on-site as well as emissions that occur upstream and downstream of the project. The results are based on
user inputs and assumptions; actual project emissions may vary.
NA
3,020,465.35 190,289,316.78
Treatment of wastewater on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Enteric fermentation
11,989,982.68
NA
NA
372.73
NA
21,190.94
NA
NA
190,317.19
NA
NA
2,793,425.57
NA
175,985,810.72
23,481.87
NA
1,335,029.14
NA
8,269.44
NA NA
NA
Duration (Days)
546
328
846
8,463
601
601
Operational Year
Operational Lifetime (Years)
Electricity Provider
Paving and Landscaping
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Architectural Coatings
Construction Stage
Building Construction Project?
Project Name
Project Category (primary)
Project Category (secondary)
Location (County)
Construction Start Date
Building energy consumption
Coal production
Natural gas and oil products
Industrial processes
Phase
CO2e Emissions
Construction
Operation
Cumulative Annualized
197,881.21
4,049.70
211,458.70
19,939.55
0.70 43.83
664.89 10.55
3,140.97
64.28
3,356.49
316.50
Material inputs
Transportation of material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Land use change (construction)
Construction waste
HFC leakage
Land use change (operations)
Total
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Manure management
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
to
n
s
C
O
2
e
Cumulative Lifetime Emissions
Material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Land use change (construction)
Construction waste
Building energy consumption
Industrial processes
HFC leakage
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 1 of 5
x User Inputs
Note: NA indicates that emissions were not quantified and/or activity is not applicable.
Material Inputs
Quantity
625.00
47,485.68
250.00
1,000,000.00
1,250.00
0.00
50.00
15,000.00
250.00
Employee Commuting
13.2
Construction Equipment
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction
Architectural
Coatings
Paving and
Landscaping
Air Compressors 0 0 0 0 6 0
Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Concrete/Industrial Saws 8 0 0 0 0 0
Cranes 0 0 0 7 0 0
Excavators 24 0 16 0 0 0
Forklifts 0 0 0 24 0 0
Generator Sets 0 0 0 8 0 0
Graders 0 0 8 0 0 0
Pavers 0 0 0 0 0 16
Paving Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 16
Rollers 0 0 0 0 0 16
Rubber Tired Dozers 16 24 8 0 0 0
Scrapers 0 0 16 0 0 0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 32 16 21 0 0
Welders 0 0 0 8 0 0
Land Use Change
Wetlands, forested
Wetlands, not forested
Forest
Rivers and streams
Brush and grassland
Cropland
Livestock rangeland/pastureland
Lawn/landscaping
Green Infrastructure: Constructed wetlands, paved
Green Infrastructure: Constructed wetlands, vegetated
Green Infrastructure: Constructed green roofs
Green Infrastructure: Constructed permeable pavements
Impervious surface
Stormwater pond (wet sedimentation basin)
Geographical Sourcing
Unknown
Domestic
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
167Paving and Landscaping
Grading
Building Construction
Architectural Coatings
Daily Average Number of Employees Commuting
835
167
Demolition
Site Preparation
Diesel
Unknown
Bus
Transit Rail
Bike/Walk
Transportation ModeConstruction Stage
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Material Type
Aluminum
Asphalt
Brick
Concrete
Glass
Insulation (residential)
Insulation (commercial)
Steel
Wood Products
Unit
Number of Hours per Day by Construction Stage
Domestic
Unknown
Unknown
82%
11%
0%
2%
2%
3%
Percent of Employees
Single Occupancy Vehicle
Carpool
Motorcycle835
2338
668
11.00 233.00 NA
0.00 18.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
0.00 NA
0.00 38.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
0.00 205.26 NA
1.00 NA
444.00 0.00 NA
28.00 25.25 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
36.25
0.00 NA
30.75 29.49 NA
Acres
Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Operation
0.00
Land Use Type
0.00
Fuel Type
Average One-Way Commute Length (miles)
Equipment Type
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 2 of 5
Number
Number of mature trees removed 25
Number of new trees planted 20
Construction Waste
Material Type Quantity (tons)
Aluminum 0.00
Asphalt 0.00
Brick 10.00
Concrete 30000.00
Glass 37.50
Insulation 5.00
Steel 0.00
Wood Products 12.50
Mixed Waste 0.00
Building Energy Consumption
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Other
Emissions from Coal Production
Mixed Coal
Anthracite Coal
Bituminous Coal
Subbituminous Coal
Lignite Coal
Coal Coke
Emissions from Natural Gas and Oil Products
Natural Gas Assumptions
NA
NA
Industrial Processes
Product Type
Cement
Lime
Limestone Use
Magnesium
Iron and Steel
Ammonia
Aluminum
Nitric Acid
3,659.93
0.00 0.00 0.00
937.36
9,332.16
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
0.00 8,191.66
Kerosene or Fuel Oil
Energy Intensity (Btu/sq ft/year)
Gasoline
1,162.63
8.59
16,178.31
1,326.60
48,219.03 0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Natural Gas Propane
Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)
Kerosene
Kerosene Jet Fuel
Biodiesel 100
18,096.91
30,766.13
229,952.20
233.51
1,661.56
656,392.90
Unit
Biodiesel 20
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 1
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 4
Residual Fuel Oil No. 5
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6
Leakage and Venting Emissions (kgCO2e/MMBtu)
Percent Reduction in Leakage and Venting Emissions
NA
24,460.01 3,619.38
46,860.06
Incremental Production (tons/year)
Cubic Feet/year
Cubic Feet/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
35,534.88 0.00
1,804.37
NA
NA
NA
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Emission Factor (kgCO2e/ton)
863.12
NA
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Building Type
0.00
1000000.00
0.00
Quantity (tons/year)
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Renewable Diesel
Fuel Type Incremental Throughput
Trees
Natural Gas
Renewable Natural Gas
Propane
Coal Type
200000.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
Electricity
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 3 of 5
HFC Leakage
Building Type
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
On-Road Vehicles
Treatment of Waste On-Site
Treatment of Wastewater On-Site
NA
Treatment of Waste Off-Site
Quantity
Number of single family households 0 lb/household/day
Number of employees (commercial)0 lb/employee/day
Number of employees (industrial)10000 lb/employee/day
Number of employees (institutional)0 lb/employee/day
Visitors per year (public venues)0 lb/visitor
Enteric Fermentation and Manure Management
Anaerobic
digester
Anaerobic
lagoon -
liquid
Cattle deep
litter Composting Daily spread Deep pit Dry lot Liquid/
slurry
Pasture,
range,
paddock
Poultry with
litter
Poultry
without
litter
Solid storage
Bulls NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef cows NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef heifers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Steer stockers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Heifer stockers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Feedlot beef NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef calves NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy heifers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy cows NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy calves NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine, <55 lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine 55-330 lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine 330+ lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, layers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, pullets NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, chickens NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, broilers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Turkeys NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0%
Percent of Waste
0%
0%
Recycled
Waste Treatment Practice
Composted
Landfilled
Combusted -
Percent of manure applied or sold for application to agricultural soils (pasture or cropland) as fertilizer
8.93
3.55
1.72
Percentage of Manure Management System
NA
56-75
Activity
NA
NA
NA
Product Type
100%
7.00
10.53
Waste Generation Rate Unit
0
Population Served by Treatment Plant
Waste Treatment Practice Quantity of Waste Treated (tons/year)
Production (MT/year)
Percent of Building Area Utilized
31-55
100%
100%
100%
100%
Additional VMT (miles/year)
104000000
0
0
Livestock Type Population
Speed Bin (miles/hr)
Fleet Average
0-30
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 4 of 5
x Notes
Construction waste
General Notes
Transportation of material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Land use change (construction)
Material inputs
Mitigation Measures
Adaptation Strategies
Land use change (operations)
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Treatment of wastewater on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Building energy consumption
Coal production
Natural gas and oil products
Industrial processes
HFC leakage
Enteric fermentation
Manure management
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 5 of 5
Mitigation Measures (Step 5)
Select Emissions Source Phase ID Measure Title Measure Description
Yes Land use change Construction M-1E-01 Create New Open Space with Native
Vegetation and Habitat
Convert previously developed areas to vegetated open spaces. By creating new vegetated areas from previously settled land, the project would
sequester carbon dioxide that would not have been captured without the land conversion. Trees and other vegetation also incorporate carbon into
their biomass during their growth phase (stored carbon). Prior to establishing new vegetation, conduct information gathering to assess the site
history, soil type, hydrology, topography, and wildlife populations to determine appropriate native vegetation that will be well adapted to the local
environment. Establish project goals, including GHG emission reduction and restoration native pollinator and/or native habitat. Other important
goals may include expanding contiguous habitat and wildlife corridors for threatened or endangered species or increasing biodiversity. Create a
detailed planting and management plan that describes actions for site preparation, planting, habitat enhancement, water management, and invasive
species control. Maximize long-term establishment success by conducting regular monitoring. This may involve tracking plant growth, soil conditions,
and wildlife movement. Utilize the monitoring data to perform regular maintenance. Adjust the management plan as needed to keep the site healthy
and ensure attainment of project goal(s).
Yes Land use change Construction M-1E-02 Expand Urban Tree Planting
Require tree planting in urban areas. Planting trees sequesters carbon dioxide while the trees are actively growing, thereby reducing GHGs. The
amount of carbon dioxide sequestered depends on the type of tree and the duration of the active growing period. Urban trees may also provide shade,
which can reduce the urban heat island effect and building cooling demands. Buildings that use less electricity for air conditioning reduce energy
consumption and associated indirect GHG emission. The selection of tree type is critical to minimize the use of additional water. Trees that have high
water demands that are met through GHG-intensive water (such as water transported over long distances) can impact the amount of GHG reductions
achieved by this measure.
No Land use change Construction M-1E-03 Clear Vegetation from Area to be Flooded Reduce the amount of organic material flooded during construction. Flooded areas can result in organic decomposition, which can contribute to
methane emissions.
No Land use change Construction M-1E-04 Land Agreements for Tree Removal
Engage landowners to develop a strategy for composting, chipping, processing, or reusing trees removed from their properties. The strategy should
prioritize cost-effective options that minimize GHG emissions from stored tree carbon. If appropriate, consider retaining stumps or logs on the project
site to improve soil health and support wildlife habitat.
No Land use change Construction M-1E-05 Wetland Restoration
Restore wetlands to improve their function and ability to sequester GHG emissions. For example, rewet drained wetlands, remove non-native plans,
exclude livestock, and plant native wetland species. Because wetlands can also represent a GHG source, ensure the restored wetland and selected
restoration strategies will effectively reduce GHG emissions.
No Land use change Construction M-1E-06 Afforestation Plant trees on previously deforested land.
No Land use change Construction M-1E-07 Establish a Carbon Sequestration Project Establish a carbon sequestration project. Carbon emissions are sequestered by embedding the carbon in a structure that will hold the emissions and
keep them out of the atmosphere. Sequestration can happen through biological, chemical, or physical processes.
Yes Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-01 Require Energy Efficient Appliances Install ENERGY STAR-certified appliances that exceed the energy efficiency of conventional appliances. By committing to more efficient appliances,
the building’s energy use is reduced, thereby reducing GHG emissions.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-02 Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in
Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater
Install water heaters that are less emissions intensive than a natural gas conventional storage tank water heater. Alternatives may include electric
conventional storage tanks, solar water heaters with natural gas backup, or solar water heaters with electric backup. Each alternative reduces GHG
emissions in a slightly different way. An electric storage tank heater displaces natural gas consumption with electricity use, replacing more emissions-
intensive natural gas with less emissions-intensive electricity. A solar water heater with electric backup reduces GHG emissions by displacing natural
gas with zero-emission solar energy when water is heated by the system’s solar collectors and grid electricity when the back-up function is utilized. A
solar water heater with natural gas backup reduces emissions by displacing natural gas with solar energy when water is heated by the solar
collectors.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-03 Limit Wood Burning Devices and Natural
Gas/Propane Fireplaces
Prohibit installation of any wood burning devices (i.e., woodstoves and fireplaces) or natural gas or propane fireplaces. This avoids the combustion of
biomass, natural gas, and propane, thereby reducing associated biogenic and non-biogenic GHG emissions. The most efficient alternatives to wood
burning devices or gas fireplaces are electric fireplace inserts and electric heat pumps.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-04 Install Electric Ranges in Place of Gas
Ranges
Install electric ranges (i.e., cooktop plus oven) in place of gas ranges. An electric range displaces natural gas consumption with electricity use,
replacing a more emissions-intensive fossil fuel-based source of energy with electricity from the grid that is increasingly transitioning to renewable
sources.
Use the filters in the table below to identify potential mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions from the proposed project. Use the column on the far left to select measures you plan to implement.
Select Generate PDF button once you've made your desired selections.
Select All Unhidden Measures Reset all Selected MeasuresGeneratePDF
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-05 Install Electric Heat Pumps
Install electric heat pumps as alternatives to conventional furnaces or air conditioners. Electric heat pumps use electricity to transfer heat between
cool and warm spaces to either provide cooling or heating. When cooling is needed during the summer months, the pumps move warmer inside air to
outside. The pumps operate in reverse during the winter, moving warmer outdoor air into the building to provide heat. Because heat pumps move
warm air instead of generating heat, they are more efficient than conventional heating and cooling systems. When electric heat pumps replace fossil-
fuel heating or cooling sources, they achieve a dual efficiency and decarbonization benefit. The most common types of heat pumps collect heat from
the air (are air-to-air), water (water-to-air), or ground (geothermal-to-air). The performance and emissions reductions achieved by electric heat pumps
depend heavily on the system type, cooling and heating loads, climate zone, season, and other project-specific variables.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-06 Require Energy Efficient Boilers Install boilers with higher energy efficiencies than what is required by regulation. Improving boiler efficiency decreases fuel consumption for the same
amount of energy output, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-07 Install Whole-House Fans
Install whole-house fans in new construction. Whole-house fans draw cooler outdoor air through open windows, exhaust the warmer air into the attic,
and then expel the air outside through attic vents. Whole-house cooling using a whole house fan can substitute for an air conditioner most of the year
in most climates, resulting in a reduction in emissions associated with building energy use. Whole-house fans may be inappropriate in locations near
sources that generate air pollutants during the evening hours, such as major roads and freeways.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-08 Install Cool Roofs and/or Cool Walls
Install cool roofs and/or walls in place of dark roofs and/or conventional walls. Cool roofs have been designed to reflect more sunlight and absorb
less heat than a standard roof, keeping buildings cooler in the summertime and thus reducing air-conditioning loads. Complementary to cool roofs,
cool walls achieve a similar result through using more reflective paints or materials. This reduces the electricity needed to provide cooling but can
potentially increase the energy needed to provide winter heating, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions depending on the project parameters
(e.g., climate, level of implementation, carbon intensity of local electricity provider). However, the winter heating penalty may be small with lower
levels of winter sunlight due to shorter daylight hours and more overcast skies.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-09 Install Green Roofs in Place of Dark Roofs Install green roofs in place of dark roofs. Green roofs consist of a layer of vegetation on top of buildings, which provides natural insulation and climate
control benefits. This reduces the electricity and natural gas needed to provide cooling and heating, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-10 Install Cool Pavements
Install cool pavement in place of dark pavement. Cool pavement helps to lower ambient outdoor air temperatures when compared to dark-colored,
heat-absorbent pavement such as asphalt. This reduces the electricity needed to provide cooling, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions,
depending on the project parameters (e.g., climate, carbon intensity of local utility).
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-11 Improve Insulation Standards
Use building insulation that exceeds minimum code standards. Improving insulation reduces energy demand for both heating and cooling and thus
reduces GHG emissions from reduced energy consumption. Adequate insulation improves buildings’ thermal regulation as it helps avoid extreme
heat gains and losses.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-12 Limit Window-To-Wall Ratio Limit the window-to-wall ratio (WWR) of new buildings. Buildings with fully glazed façades are dependent on heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
and tend to be highly exposed to solar. The optimal WWR for energy efficiency depends on the climate and orientation of the building.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-13 Maximize Solar Shading Maximize building shade during the summer months. Shading is a passive and inexpensive way to reduce summer heat loads, and thus the need for
air conditioning. Examples include vegetation with seasonal variation and envelope elements that reflect natural light.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-14 Optimize Natural Ventilation
Maximize natural building ventilation in new construction. Façade design allows natural ventilation at night to cool the building and reduce peak
daytime temperatures in summer. This in turn reduces the need for air conditioning, which reduces building electricity consumption and associated
emissions.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-15 Obtain Third-party HVAC Commissioning
and Verification of Energy Savings
Require third-party review of heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to ensure proper installation and construction of energy
reduction features. HVAC commissioning and third-party verification of energy savings may be obtained for thermal efficiency components including
HVAC systems, insulation, windows, and water heating.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-16 Require Higher Efficacy Public Street and
Area Lighting
Install higher efficacy public street and area lighting in place of typical or existing lamps. Installing more efficacious lamps, such as light-emitting
diodes, will use less electricity while producing the same amount of light, thereby reducing the associated indirect GHG emissions.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-17 Replace Incandescent Traffic Lights with
LED Traffic Lights
Replace incandescent traffic lights with more energy-efficient light-emitting diode (LED) traffic lights. Installing LEDs reduces electricity demand and
thus results in a reduction in indirect GHG emissions.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-18 Procure Electricity from Lower Carbon
Intensity Power Supply
Procure electricity with a lower carbon intensity than the primary product offered by the local provider (often an investor-owned utility). This would
displace the electricity demand that would ordinarily be supplied by the local electricity provider’s energy mix. Electricity provided by local electricity
providers has varying carbon intensities based on the portfolio of energy sources. Procurement of electricity of a lower carbon intensity would
displace the emissions that would have been produced had the electricity been supplied by the default energy mix and thus results in a reduction in
GHG emissions. Green power supply options include utility green power products, community choice aggregation, shared renewables (e.g.,
community solar), and power purchase agreements.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-19 Require All-Electric Development
Install all-electric appliances and end uses. Using electric instead of natural gas-powered appliances and end uses replaces a more emissions-
intensive fossil fuel source of energy with a less emissions-intensive source of energy, electricity from the grid that is increasingly transitioning to
renewable sources.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-20 Require Zero Net Energy Buildings
Design and construct zero net energy (ZNE) buildings. A ZNE building foremost reduces GHG emissions by reducing energy use through more efficient
design. Further, the building avoids GHG emissions either by using no emissions-generating energy sources or offsetting the building energy
emissions by exporting emission-free energy (typically from onsite renewables).
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-21 Require Renewable-Surplus Buildings
Install onsite renewable energy in an amount that offsets more emissions than the amount generated from the development’s electricity use and
onsite fuel consumption. Installing zero-emission renewable energy displaces emissions from grid electricity that would otherwise be used, thereby
reducing GHG emissions. Implementation of this measure would result in buildings that reduce more GHG emissions than they generate through
surplus generation of energy from renewables, sometimes known as carbon-negative buildings. The amount of renewable energy required for a
building to have net negative GHG emissions is largely determined by the number of emissions from onsite fuel consumption and the carbon intensity
of the local electricity provider.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-22 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy
Systems
Generate electricity from an onsite renewable or zero-emission power system. This displaces the electricity demand that would ordinarily be supplied
by the local electricity provider. Electricity generation provided by local electricity providers have varying carbon intensities based on the portfolio of
energy sources. Some renewable energy systems, such as fuel cells, may not be completely GHG emissions-free, but may still have lower emissions
than the electricity provided by the local electricity provider (unless the electricity provider has a relatively high renewable portfolio), thereby reducing
GHG emissions. Zero-emissions power systems, such as solar panels, result in the greatest magnitude of emissions reductions. Onsite renewable
systems can also provide back-up power as an alternative to diesel generators in the event of grid power outages or demand response events.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-23 Use Renewable Natural Gas or Green
Hydrogen Fuel
Use renewable natural gas (RNG) in buildings instead of traditional natural gas. RNG has much lower carbon emissions and can be used in standard
gas appliances like furnaces and water heaters. Alternatively, consider green hydrogen as a primary fuel source. Use of hydrogen would likely require
some buildings retrofits or updates to appliances.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-24 Encourage Residential Participation in
Existing Demand Response Program(s)
Market and promote the local utility’s manual (i.e., behavioral) demand response program(s) to encourage participation from residents in the project
area. During demand response events, program users shift or conserve electricity, thereby reducing the associated indirect GHG emissions. Methods
of engaging customers in demand response efforts include offering time-based rates, such as time-of-use pricing, critical peak pricing, variable peak
pricing, real-time pricing, and critical peak rebates. Users are encouraged to respond to time-based rates or other forms of financial incentives with
smart phone app, email, phone call, and/or text notifications.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-25 Use Microgrids and Energy Storage
Design, install, and manage a microgrid. Microgrids offer the opportunity to deploy more zero-emission electricity sources, thereby reducing GHG
emissions. The microgrid manager (e.g., local energy management system) can balance generation from non-controllable renewable power sources,
such as solar, with distributed, controllable generation, such as natural gas-fueled combustion turbines. They can also use energy storage and
batteries in electric vehicles to balance energy distribution and usage within the microgrid.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-26 Provide Battery Storage
Strategically deploy battery storage. While energy storage has no direct emissions effect, when deployed strategically, energy storage can make the
grid more flexible, unlocking renewable energy and reducing GHG emissions. When deployed non-strategically, owners of energy storage assets are
more likely to charge their facilities during off-peak periods when power prices are lower, in order to supply power during more expensive peak hours.
Off-peak generation times such as nighttime hours are more likely to be dominated by conventional power sources, which, except for nuclear and
hydropower, are likely to be more emissions intensive.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-27 Utilize a Combined Heat and Power
System
Use combined heat and power (CHP) systems in place of separate heat and power (SHP) systems. For the same level of power output, CHP systems
use less input energy than traditional SHP generation, resulting in lower GHG emissions. In traditional SHP systems, heat created as a by-product is
wasted as it is released into the surrounding environment. CHP systems harvest thermal energy and use it to heat onsite uses or for processes in
proximity, which reduces the amount of natural gas or other fuel that would otherwise be combusted for heating or for use in those processes. CHP
systems also result in a reduced demand for electricity from the grid, which displaces the GHG emissions from the production of electricity from the
grid.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-28 Utilize Biomass Energy
Install new biomass or biofuel electricity generation (or cogeneration). Although the direct combustion emissions for biofuels are generally on-par
with other forms of fossil fuel energy, biofuels have a lower life-cycle carbon intensity due to the uptake of carbon from plants used to produce that
fuel. A reasonable reference point for this carbon intensity would be the average carbon intensity of the electricity in the utility that would receive
power from this new biomass plant.
No Land use change Operation M-2F-01
Implement Management Practices to
Improve the Health and Function of
Natural and Working Lands
Implement management strategies aimed at improving the overall health and functionality of natural and working lands as a mechanism for
increasing carbon sequestration and reducing GHG emissions. Management practices may include those that change ecosystem carbon exchange
rates (e.g., cultivated land soil conservation, use of biochar) and those that involve land cover changes. If land conversion is deemed appropriate,
refer to Measure M-1E-1 for recommended implementation and management strategies.
No Land use change Operation M-2F-02 Wildfire Resilience and Management
Implement fuel treatments in forested areas to minimize the likelihood of severe or catastrophic wildfire behavior, thereby minimizing pyrogenic
carbon emissions during a wildfire event. Fuel treatments have the short-term effect of releasing more carbon emissions as understory, ladder fuels,
and forest fuel loads are burned. However, in the long term, treated stands produce fewer emissions compared to untreated stands because treated
stands produce low to moderate fire severity that does not disturb the carbon stock in the overstory canopy. Untreated stands are far more likely to
experience sever behavior that ignites the canopy and releases the stored carbon in the overstory.
No Land use change Operation M-2F-03 Use Rotational Grazing Regularly move cattle between different grazing areas to promote healthy pasture regrowth before resuming grazing.
No Land use change Operation M-2F-04 Reduce Livestock Stocking Density Decrease the amount of cattle stocked per pasture to reduce grazing pressure, which in turn reduces plant defoliation and soil disturbance, which
can mitigate soil carbon loss. Reducing the stocking density also reduces methane emissions by decreasing the animal population.
No Land use change Operation M-2F-05 Plant Cover Crops Plant cover crops during fallow periods to enhance soil carbon storage.
Adaptation Strategies (Step 6)
Step 1: Select Climate Trends Step 2: Select Project Characteristics
Hazardous waste
Agriculture
Livestock
Critical infrastructure
Waste management
New or upgraded buildings
Subsurface infrastructure
Water management
Construction
Increased impervious surface
New, expanded, or rebuilt transportation route
Selection ID Adaptation Strategies Additional Information
Yes S-1A-01
Clear floodplains and other areas subject to flooding of hazardous
contaminants in advance of a flood event from extreme
precipitation.
Develop a coordination plan to clear hazardous contaminants ahead of and/or after a flood event.
No S-1A-02 Conduct ongoing and pre-event stormwater infrastructure
maintenance.
Clean out the storm drains and culverts; Ensure that all maintenance equipment are readily available and working for extreme events (e.g.,
generators).
Yes S-1A-05 Enhance/develop adaptive stormwater management practices
and technologies.
Implement natural buffers and green infrastructure (e.g., bioswales, tree trench; blue roof; vegetated roof; bioretention; green and blue
roofs; preserve or build natural features/ecosystems; Use certified/qualified green infrastructure contractors and engineers; Maintain and/or
expand the urban tree canopy); Ensure adequate culvert sizing and/or replace undersized culverts; Remove impervious surfaces and/or
install permeable surfaces; Ensure sufficient water storage capacity for extreme flooding; Install underground storage systems to detain
runoff in underground receptacles (e.g., culverts, engineered stormwater detention vaults, or perforated pipes); Build a retention pond to
manage stormwater; Implement enhanced roof access to inspect and maintain roof and drainage system; Install oversized roof drains; use
smart ponds.
No S-1A-06 Incorporate flood-proofing measures into new or upgraded
facilities/assets.
Dry or wet-proof facilities (e.g., apply a waterproof veneer); Waterproof key equipment; Install back-up power; Conduct pre-flood event
sandbagging; Install hard flood protection structures (e.g., floodwall, levees, dikes); Install removable barriers; Have movable assets; Seal
buildings; Place critical equipment in waterproof containers or foundation systems; Consider elevation when selecting the site (e.g., Elevate
the facilities and/or assets to be above the flood level).
No S-1A-07 Flood-proof facilities/assets using natural buffers and green
infrastructure.
Maintain and/or expand the urban tree canopy; Use green roofs; Preserve or build natural features/ecosystems; Use certified/qualified green
infrastructure contractors and engineers.
Yes S-1A-10
Ensure there is adequate redundancy and/or backup energy
resources available to maintain necessary operations during
extreme precipitation events.
Implement renewable energy and smart grid technology to optimize energy distribution and reduce outages; Develop off-grid sources for
redundant power supply; Install easy hookups for temporary power; Install backup generators; Diversify energy sources such as by installing
renewable energy; Install battery storage; Incorporate multiple power supplies; Implement a microgrid with integrated energy storage
systems; Join a community energy project to pool resources; Utilize a combined heat and power (CHP) system; Ensure these systems are
designed to be resilient during a projected extreme flood event.
No S-1A-11 Harden the energy infrastructure systems to withstand extreme
precipitation events.
Bury distribution lines; Elevate critical infrastructure above flood levels; Waterproof or seal equipment; Improve drainage systems around
critical infrastructure.
No S-1A-14 Ensure waste management facilities are prepared for extreme
precipitation events.
Waterproof waste storage (e.g., sealed containers; protective barriers); Improve drainage systems around the facility; Elevate the weigh
station area to allow continued receipt of waste deliveries; Ensure access roads to the facility do not flood; When siting the facility, consider
location (e.g., avoid floodplains; elevate the facility).
No S-1A-15 Ensure water infrastructure can withstand projected increases in
average and extreme precipitation.
Install stormwater outfall pumps/lift stations to drain water from the system if outfalls were to become submerged; Implement strong pumps
for backflow prevention; Ensure adequate capacity for wastewater and stormwater collection or treatment; Increase water treatment
capabilities; Incorporate backup generators and fuels sources, as applicable, in a location safe from flooding, for the water infrastructure
system to provide a sustained minimal level of water services in the event of a power outage.
No S-1A-16 Prepare for worst case scenarios regarding extreme precipitation.
Stockpile response materials and store them near areas that will likely need rapid repairs after an extreme rainfall event (e.g., pre-position
emergency power generation capacity, portable pumps, and debris removal equipment); Implement early warning systems for extreme
weather events.
No S-1A-17 When siting and orienting a facility or asset, consider flood risk
from increased precipitation and extreme precipitation events.Avoid development in erosion zones and floodplains; Select a site at higher elevation.
Yes S-1A-18 Maintain or improve ecosystem health to act as a natural barrier to
increasing precipitation and extreme precipitation events.
Avoid or minimize development on key ecosystem areas (e.g., wetlands, trees) to maintain natural barriers; Revegetate with native and/or
deep rooted plants to improve stormwater drainage and flooding; Develop a plan for future ecosystem health; If there is tree planting, plant
tree species that are adapted to current and/or future climate conditions (see: https://extension.umn.edu/creating-climate-ready-
woodlands/recommended-trees).
No S-1A-19 Incorporate stormwater green infrastructure into site plans to
mimic the water storage of natural systems.
Plan installation of bioswales, tree trenches, bioretention cells, raingardens, etc. sized to better address more frequent intense precipitation
events.
No S-1A-20 Develop post-storm plans for the construction site.Develop a coordination plan to clear roads and drainage systems from debris after extreme precipitation events.
No S-1B-01
Ensure hazardous materials are stored in temperature-controlled
environments to accommodate for high temperatures and
heatwaves.
Insulate storage areas; Install temperature monitoring systems with alarms to alert staff; Conduct regular inspections and maintenance of
storage facilities.
No S-1B-02
Consider alternative pavement surfaces and materials that are
more heat-resistant to reduce heat impacts and surface
temperatures.
Use light-colored asphalt pavement to reduce heat absorption and reflect radiation; Use materials for railway tracks and stations that are
resistant to higher heat to prevent buckling and kinks; Install permeable surfaces especially for low-traffic areas such as roadside parking
(along curbs) and parking lots.
No S-1B-03
Incorporate flexible pavement design to accommodate thermal
expansion and prevent buckling from high temperatures and
heatwaves.
Design roads with additional thermal expansion joints; Incorporate polymer-modified asphalt in the pavement mix; Apply reflective coatings.
No S-1B-05 Retain mature trees as part of design and during construction.Inventory trees; mark boundaries around trees to avoid compaction and damage to trunks and roots.
No S-1B-06 Use cooling technologies to reduce surface temperatures during
periods of high temperatures and/or heatwaves.
Use reflective coating; Use high-reflectivity hardscape; Decrease impervious surfaces and/or install permeable surfaces; Incorporate green
infrastructure (e.g., green roofs); Maintain and/or expand urban tree canopy.
No S-1B-07
Consider and adjust to changes in the distribution and prevalence
of heat-tolerant pests by incorporating changes into pest
management for buildings and infrastructure.
Resist intrusion of termites as hardiness zones move north.
No S-1B-08
Use building construction materials that maintain indoor
temperatures and/or are resilient to increasing temperatures
during high heat conditions and heatwaves.
Update building insulation for higher heat thresholds; Use reflective roofing materials; Install energy efficient windows (e.g., double-glazed
windows); Install green roofs and/or green walls; Use light-colored building materials (e.g., cool roofing and sliding materials); Optimize
natural ventilation.
No S-1B-12
Consider how higher temperatures and heatwaves may increase
decomposition rates and the need to improve waste management
practices.
Install a temperature monitoring system to detect and manage heat build-up; Install waste infrastructure that can withstand higher
temperatures such as landfill liners, odor control strategies for organics composting.
No S-1B-13 Ensure subsurface infrastructure (e.g., pipes, SSTA installation)
can withstand high temperatures and heatwaves.
Install sensors to monitor ground temperatures; Use thermal insulation; Implement cooling systems (e.g., ventilation shafts, cooling pipes);
Install temperature sensors for monitoring.
Yes S-1B-14
Ensure there is adequate redundancy and/or backup energy
resources available to maintain necessary operations during
increased cooling demand and/or an extreme heat event.
Implement renewable energy and smart grid technology to optimize energy distribution and reduce outages; Develop off-grid sources for
redundant power supply; Install easy hookups for temporary power; Install backup generators; Diversify energy sources such as by installing
renewable energy; Install battery storage; Incorporate multiple power supplies; Implement a microgrid with integrated energy storage
systems; Join a community energy project to pool resources; Utilize a combined heat and power (CHP) system.
No S-1B-15 Harden the energy infrastructure systems to withstand projected
increasing temperatures and heatwaves.
Increase tension in transmission lines to reduce sag; Add external coolers to transformers; Use more heat-resistant materials (e.g., high-
temperature conductors); Bury lines/cables.
No S-1B-16 Upgrade the electrical systems to handle increased cooling
demand especially from extreme heat events.Consider renewable energy and smart grid technology to optimize energy distribution and reduce outages.
No S-1B-17
Provide cooling systems for critical infrastructure or equipment
sensitive to overheating during periods of high temperatures
and/or heatwaves.
Install back up air conditioning units; Use battery-powered equipment which is less prone to overheating than gas-powered machinery.
No S-1B-18 Implement cooling strategies for construction equipment
vulnerable to high temperatures.
Provide cooling systems for equipment sensitive to overheating; Use battery-powered equipment which is less prone to overheating than gas-
powered machinery.
No S-1B-19
Increase the frequency of maintenance checks to ensure
construction equipment is functioning optimally in high
temperatures and during heatwaves.
Regularly check fluid levels, tire pressure, and hydraulic systems.
No S-1B-20
Use cooling technologies to reduce heat impact on waste
management systems during periods of high temperatures and/or
heatwaves.
Implement cooling systems for waste facility; Install heat-resistant and sealed containers to store waste; Install green infrastructure on the
facility (e.g., green roof; increased vegetation).
Yes S-1B-21 Maintain or improve ecosystem health to mitigate heat from
increasing temperatures and heatwaves.
Avoid or minimize development on key ecosystem areas (e.g., wetlands, trees) to maintain natural cooling systems; Develop a plan for future
ecosystem health; If there is tree planting, plant tree species that are adapted to current and/or future climate conditions (see:
https://extension.umn.edu/creating-climate-ready-woodlands/recommended-trees).
Use the checkboxes below to identify adaptation strategies relevant to selected climate trends and project characteristics. The list of adapation strategies will filter to show strategies that align with
both the climate trends and project characteristics selected. Ensure Macros are enabled for filters to work (see the User Guide tab for instructions on enabling macros). Use the column on the far
left to select strategies you plan to implement as part of your proposed project. Select Generate PDF button once you've made your desired selections.
Heavier, more damaging rain
Average annual precipitation increasing
Average annual temperature increasing
Increasing risk of extreme heat and heatwaves
Early thawing (cold weather warming)
Increasing risk of drought
Select All Unhidden Strategies Reset all Selected Strategies
Reset Climate Trends Reset Project Characteristics
Generate PDF
No S-1B-22 Provide heat protective measures for construction staff who may
be exposed to heat during work duties.Consider different attire/uniforms, more breaks, more shade, more hydration stations, or telecommuting options.
No S-1C-01 Consider impact of increased freeze/thaw cycles for design and
construction of building and road foundations.
Use frost-resistant materials (e.g., frost-resistant concrete and asphalt) to minimize damage like cracking; Insulate foundations; Construct
deeper foundations; Conduct regular maintenance and monitoring to inspect and repair damage.
No S-1C-02 Consider changing thawing conditions when selecting or
upgrading pipes.
Install PVC water pipes (rather than metal cast iron pipes) which are less expensive and easier to install than iron, to minimize breaks and
ensure structural integrity.
No S-1C-03
Regularly monitor the conditions of the construction site, roadway,
etc. and conduct maintenance to reduce any degradation from
increased temperatures and/or freeze/thaw cycles.
Implement regular monitoring and maintenance of potholes; Track thawing with sensors.
No S-1D-01 For landscaping, use drought-tolerant plants or xeriscaping.Plant more drought-tolerant options (e.g., succulents); Apply mulch around plants; Incorporate hardscaping (e.g., rocks).
Yes S-1D-04 Install water storage to retain rainfall on the land for use to meet
agricultural and irrigation needs. Convert low spots that are currently in crop production but prone to flooding / washout into water storage areas.
No S-1D-05 Incorporate water-efficient practices/technology into the waste
management facility to account for drought conditions.Use greywater for cleaning; Install rainwater harvesting systems; Use alternative water sources (e.g., reclaimed water).
No S-1D-06 Ensure water infrastructure can withstand drought conditions.Build infrastructure needed for aquifer storage and recovery; Diversify sources of water supply.
No S-1D-07 Use technologies and strategies that recycle water for water
management systems to account for drought conditions.
Establish systems to recycle water and use reclaimed water; Plumb buildings for greywater separation and reuse; Install wastewater
treatment technology (e.g., a Living Machine) to recycle wastewater; Install greywater purification and reuse systems; Develop a closed-loop
system.
No S-1D-08 Install water-saving technologies indoors to account for drought
conditions.Use water-efficient household appliances (e.g., low-flow toilets, showerheads, and front-loading washers); Install water meters.
No S-1D-09 Install water-saving technologies outdoors to account for drought
conditions.Install rainwater harvesting tanks; Plant native, deep-rooted, and/or drought-tolerant plants.
Appendix E:
Traffic Study
Traffic Impact Analysis
Monticello Industrial
M ONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 2025
Prepared By:
1 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. 2
1. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 3
2. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4
3. Background Conditions Analysis ..................................................................................... 6
4. Future Conditions Analysis - Scenario 1 ........................................................................ 12
5. Future Conditions Analysis - Scenario 2 ........................................................................ 17
6. Turn Lane Warrant Analysis .......................................................................................... 24
7. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 25
8. Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 29
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 : Level of Service Grading Descriptions .......................................................................7
Table 3-2: Level of Service Grading Criteria ................................................................................7
Table 3-3: Existing Year (2025) Level of Service .........................................................................8
Table 3-4: Opening Year (2030) No-Build Level of Service .........................................................9
Table 3-5: Design Year (2045) No-Build Level of Service..........................................................11
Table 4-1: Trip Generation – Scenario 1 ...................................................................................12
Table 4-2: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Level of Service ...........................................14
Table 4-3: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Level of Service .............................................16
Table 5-1: Site-Generated Traffic Projections – Scenario 2 .......................................................17
Table 5-2: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service ...........................................19
Table 5-3: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Mitigated Level of Service ............................20
Table 5-4: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service .............................................21
Table 5-5: Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service ..............................23
Table 6-1: Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Summary .....................................................................24
3 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
1. INTRODUCTION
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., (Kimley-Horn) was retained to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis for a
proposed industrial development in Monticello, MN, as the site undergoes the Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR) process. The existing site is currently not zoned and will need to be annexed by the city of
Monticello. An aerial view of the study location and surrounding roadway network is presented in Exhibit
1. All exhibits for this report are included in the appendix.
Two development scenarios are included in the AUAR. Scenario 1 consists of a 3 million square-foot
Technology Park while Scenario 2 consists of a 5 million square-foot Industrial Park. As part of this study,
the existing roadway network was analyzed to determine the current operations at the study intersections.
In order to assess the potential impact of the development scenarios on the area roadway network,
site-generated trips were established and added to the background traffic volumes. Future traffic conditions
were evaluated for the approximate Opening Year of the proposed development (2030) and a long term
“Design Year” (2045).
This report presents and documents data collection, summarizes the evaluation of existing and projected
future traffic conditions on the surrounding roadways, and identifies recommendations to address the
potential impact of site-generated traffic on the adjacent roadway network for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.
1.1 Report Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this study is to address traffic and transportation impacts of the proposed development on
surrounding streets and intersections. This traffic impact study was prepared based on criteria set forth by
the AUAR guidelines. The following specific information, per AUAR recommended content, should be
provided:
• A description and map of the existing and proposed roadway system, including state, regional, and
local roads to be affected by the development of the AUAR area. This information should include
existing and proposed roadway capacities and existing and projected background (i.e. without the
AUAR development) traffic volumes;
• Trip generation data – trip generation rates and trip totals – for each major development scenario
broken down by land use zones and/or other relevant subdivisions of the area. The projected
distributions onto the roadway system must be included;
• Analysis of impacts of the traffic generated by the AUAR area on the roadway system, including:
comparison of peak period total flows to capacities and analysis of Level of Service and delay times
at critical points (if any);
• A discussion of structural and non-structural improvements and traffic management measures that
are proposed to mitigate problems.
Note: in the above analyses the geographical scope must extend outward as far as the traffic to be
generated would have a significant effect on the roadway system and traffic measurements and projections
should include peak days and peak hours, or other appropriate measures related to identifying congestion
problems, as well as ADTs (average daily traffic).
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
4
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Kimley-Horn conducted a review of the AUAR area including existing land uses in the surrounding area,
the adjacent street system, current traffic volumes and operating conditions, lane configurations and traffic
controls at nearby intersections, and other key roadway characteristics. This section of the report details
information on the existing conditions. An aerial view of the existing conditions and lane movements are
shown in Exhibit 2.
2.1 Area Land Uses & Connectivity
The land uses of the site and the surrounding area are primarily agricultural, with some residential land
north of 85th Street. The AUAR area is located in Wright County, just south of the City of Monticello’s current
boundary. Minnesota State Highway 25 (MN 25) connects the area to a full interchange with Interstate 94
(I-94) approximately 1.7 miles north of the site. I-94 provides regional east-west connectivity to major
population centers such as the Twin Cities to the east and Saint Cloud to the west.
2.2 Existing Roadway Characteristics
The following provides a description of the public roadways within the AUAR area:
85th Street NE (or CR 106 west of MN 25) is an east-west roadway that serves as the northern boundary
of the AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway with dedicated right- and left-turn lanes at the
intersection with MN 25. 85th Street NE is classified as a major collector, according to the Monticello 2040
Vision + Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing Annual Average Daily
Traffic (AADT) along 85th Street is approximately 1,797 vehicles per day (vpd) west of MN 25, as of 2024.
No AADT data is available east of MN 25. The posted speed limit is 45 mph west of MN 25. There is no
posted speed limit east of MN 25, and therefore the statutory speed limit is 55 mph.
Minnesota State Highway 25 (MN 25) is a generally north-south state highway that runs west of the AUAR
area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway about 1000’ south of 85th Street, where it transitions to a four-lane
divided roadway to the north. There are dedicated left and right turn lanes at the intersections with 85th
street NE and CSAH 37. MN 25 is classified as Principal Arterial - other, according to the Monticello 2040
Vision + Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing Annual Average Daily
Traffic (AADT) along MN 25 is approximately 15,009 vehicles per day (vpd) north of 85th Street, as of 2024.
The posted speed limit is 60 mph.
Edmonson Avenue NE (CR 117) is a north-south roadway that serves as the eastern boundary of the
AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway that connects to the AUAR site via 85th Street NE. There
are no existing turn lanes along this road. Edmonson Avenue NE is classified as a minor collector according
to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. Edmonson Avenue NE has an AADT of 1,808 vpd north of CSAH 37
and 1,930 vpd north of 85th Street NE. The posted speed limit is 55 mph.
CSAH 37 is an east-west County State Aid Highway (CSAH) located south of the AUAR area. It is a two-
lane undivided roadway. CSAH 37 is classified as a major collector south of the AUAR area according to
page 99 of the 2040 Monticello Comprehensive Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application,
the road has an AADT of approximately 4,873 vpd west of Edmonson Avenue as of 2024. The posted
speed limit is 55 mph.
Davidson Avenue NE is a north-south roadway that serves as the western boundary of the AUAR area. It
is a two-lane undivided local roadway with no turn lanes. There is no AADT data available for Davidson
5 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Avenue NE and there is no posted speed limit. The speed limit was assumed to be 45 mph for analysis
purposes.
School Boulevard is a three-lane undivided east-west roadway with one travel lane in each direction and
a shared left turn lane. School Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial, according to the Monticello 2040
Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 5,994 west of Edmonson Avenue and 6,464 west of Fenning Avenue, as
of 2024. The posted speed limit is 40 mph, with a school speed limit of 30 mph enforced when children are
present.
Fallon Avenue is a two-lane undivided north-south roadway. Fallon Avenue is classified as a local road
according to the Monticello 2040 Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 3,847 north of School Boulevard, as of
2024. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
The existing geometry and intersection control for the intersections in the study area that will be included
in this analysis are shown in Exhibit 2.
2.4 Traffic Count Data
Turning movement count data was collected during the AM peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and the PM
peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). Data was collected at each study intersection, as listed below.
• MN 25 & 85th Street NE (Signal)
• Edmonson Avenue NE & 85th Street NE (Side-Street Stop)
• MN 25 & County Road 37 (Signal/Planned Roundabout)
• County Road 37 & Davidson Avenue (Side-Street Stop)
• County Road 37 & Edmonson Avenue (Side-Street Stop)
• School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue (All-Way Stop/Planned Roundabout)
Turning movement counts at the intersections of MN 25 & 85th Street NE and Edmonson Avenue & 85th
Street NE were conducted on Thursday, July 11, 2024. Turning movement counts at MN 25 & County Road
37, County Road 37 & Davidson Avenue, and County Road 37 & Edmonson Drive were conducted on
Wednesday, July 16, 2025. Traffic Volumes for MN 25 & Davidson Avenue were determined using the
traffic counts from surrounding intersections. Count data from 2024 was grown with one year of background
growth to conform with the newer traffic data. TMC data for School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue was
collected when schools were in session on Tuesday, April 8, 2025.
The traffic count data indicates that peak traffic volumes occur within the study area from 7:00 to 8:00 AM
and 4:00 to 5:00 PM on a typical weekday. Existing peak hour traffic volumes are summarized on Exhibit
3. A summary of the traffic count data is provided in the appendix.
2.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
There is currently a shared use path located north of 85th Street NE but no pedestrian or bicycle facilities
within the AUAR Area. The intersection of MN 25 & 85th Street NE has pedestrian crosswalks at the north
and west legs of the intersection.
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
6
3. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
Analysis of the future background conditions was carried out to determine the baseline operating conditions
for the Opening Year (2030) and Design Year (2045) of the proposed AUAR developments. A review of
future traffic growth and planned geometric changes for the study roadways was conducted for the analysis.
3.1 Future Roadway Improvements
A corridor study for Highway 25 between Buffalo and Monticello was completed in 2022. The study identified
multiple short-term and long-term improvements to the roadway within the study area. Some of the short
term improvements identified by this corridor study are planned for construction in 2026. The most notable
of these improvements is the installation of a single-lane roundabout at MN 25 & CSAH 37.
The corridor study also identified the potential removal of access to Davidson Avenue as a potential
improvement. Additionally, a new full-access intersection along MN 25 south of the existing Davidson
Avenue intersection was identified as a long-term improvement. The Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan
identifies a future minor collector roadway passing through the southern portion of the site and connecting
from MN 25 to Edmonson Avenue.
For the sake of analysis, a roundabout at MN 25 & CSAH 37 was assumed to be in place by the Opening
Year (2030). Removal of access from Davidson Avenue and the addition of a new full-access intersection
along MN 25 were assumed under the Opening Year (2030) conditions. For this analysis, through traffic
was not included at this potential roadway connection.
The City of Monticello is preliminarily planning to construct a roundabout at the intersection of School
Boulevard & Fallon Avenue. Because there is no clear timeline for this improvement, it was assumed that
this would be a long term project and would be completed by 2045.
3.2 Future Background Growth
The Wright County Long Range Transportation Plan gives future traffic projections in a broad range of
values for each roadway and therefore it is difficult to determine the level of growth from projected AADT
growth. Furthermore, review of historical AADT data revealed no clear trends in traffic patterns for the
adjacent roadways. Instead, the background growth rate was calculated to align with the City of Monticello’s
anticipated population growth. With a 2019 population of about 13,747 people, the city is anticipated to
grow to a population of 19,738 by 2045, based on the preferred growth scenario outlined in the Monticello
2040 Vision + Plan. This represents about a 1.7% annual growth rate.
A nearby residential development, Haven Ridge, is located east of Fallon Avenue near the study area. This
development includes 59 single-family residences and is currently under construction. Traffic to/from this
development were applied to the School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue intersection to account for
development traffic.
The Future (2030) No-Build traffic projections are presented in Exhibit 4. The Future (2045) No-Build traffic
projections are presented in Exhibit 5.
7 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
3.3 Existing (2025) Capacity Analysis
Synchro/SimTraffic 12th edition capacity software was used to evaluate existing operational conditions at
the signalized and stop-controlled intersections. Operations of the future roundabout at MN 25 & CSAH 37
were evaluated using roundabout analysis software Rodel.
The capacity of an intersection quantifies its ability to accommodate traffic volumes and is expressed in
terms of level of service (LOS), measured in average delay per vehicle. LOS grades range from A to F, with
LOS A as the highest (best traffic flow and least delay), LOS E as saturated or at-capacity conditions, and
LOS F as the lowest (oversaturated conditions).
The LOS grades shown below, which are provided in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM), quantify and categorize the driver’s discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and
travel times experienced as a result of intersection control and the resulting traffic queuing. A detailed
description of each LOS rating can be found in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 : Level of Service Grading Descriptions
Level of Service Description1
A Minimal control delay; traffic operates at primarily free-flow conditions; unimpeded movement within
traffic stream.
B Minor control delay at signalized intersections; traffic operates at a fairly unimpeded level with slightly
restricted movement within traffic stream.
C Moderate control delay; movement within traffic stream more restricted than at LOS B; formation of
queues contributes to lower average travel speeds.
D Considerable control delay that may be substantially increased by small increases in flow; average
travel speeds continue to decrease.
E High control delay; average travel speed no more than 33 percent of free flow speed.
F Extremely high control delay; extensive queuing and high volumes create exceedingly restricted traffic
flow.
1Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.
The range of control delay for each rating (as detailed in the HCM) is shown in Table 3-2. HCM considers
roundabouts to be unsignalized intersections when determining LOS.
Table 3-2: Level of Service Grading Criteria
Level of Service1 Average Control Delay (s/veh) at:
Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections
A 0 – 10 0 – 10
B > 10 – 15 > 10 – 20
C > 15 – 25 > 20 – 35
D > 25 – 35 > 35 – 55
E > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80
F2 > 50 > 80
1Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
2All movements with a Volume to Capacity (v/c) ratio greater than 1 receive a rating of LOS F.
For the purposes of this study, the worst individual movement delay was reported as the overall intersection
delay at side street stop control intersections. The results of capacity analysis for existing conditions are
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
8
summarized in Table 3-3. The results are based on SimTraffic within Synchro, 12th Edition. Copies of the
SimTraffic reports are provided in the appendix.
Based on the analysis, all study intersections operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours.
Under Existing Year (2025) Conditions, some side street movements at MN 25 & 85th Street NE are
anticipated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The long cycle lengths employed during the PM
peak hour ensure very low levels of delay for through movements along MN 25, resulting in overall low
delays at the intersection. LOS E for side street turning movements is not an issue in itself and the
intersection operates with very low delays overall; therefore, no mitigation is recommended. The 95th
percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues are anticipated to be
accommodated within their respective storage bays.
Table 3-3: Existing Year (2025) Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall1 Left Through Right Overall1
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (33) C (25) A (3)
A (8)
E (60) D (53) A (2)
A (9) WB C (30) C (31) A (3) E (55) D (44) A (3)
NB A (4) A (3) A (0) A (4) A (3) A (1)
SB A (6) A (8) A (1) A (7) A (8) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (3) A (7) A (1)
A (8)
A (4) A (5) A (2)
A (9) WB A (4) A (8) A (1) A (4) A (9) A (3)
NB A (0) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
SB A (0) A (0) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37 Signal
EB B (10) B (13) A (4)
B (10)
B (18) B (19) A (5)
B (12) WB B (13) B (13) A (7) B (17) B (19) A (5)
NB B (16) A (9) A (2) C (21) B (12) A (3)
SB C (21) B (10) A (4) C (26) B (13) A (5)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (6) A (5) -
A (6)
A (3) A (3) -
A (4) WB - A (2) A (1) - A (2) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (3) A (0) A (2) A (4) A (0) A (3)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson Avenue
Side
Street Stop
EB A (1) A (2) A (2)
B (11)
A (2) A (3) A (2)
B (13) WB A (1) A (1) A (1) A (1) A (1) A (0)
NB A (5) B (11) A (3) A (9) B (13) A (4)
SB A (3) A (5) A (3) A (5) A (5) A (3)
MN 25 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB - - -
A (3)
- - -
A (4) WB A (4) A (0) A (3) B (15) - A (4)
NB - A (1) A (0) - A (1) A (0)
SB A (1) A (1) - A (3) A (1) -
9 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall1 Left Through Right Overall1
School
Boulevard &
Fallon
Avenue
All-Way
Stop
EB A (7) B (12) A (7)
A (9)
A (6) B (11) A (6)
A (9) WB A (7) B (11) A (6) A (7) B (12) A (7)
NB A (8) A (9) A (6) A (7) A (8) A (4)
SB A (7) A (8) A (5) A (8) A (9) A (5)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
3.4 Opening Year (2030) No-Build Capacity Analysis
The Opening Year (2030) No-Build Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
baseline operating conditions for the study area in the opening year without the addition of the development
traffic. Capacity results for the Opening Year (2030) No-Build conditions are provided in Table 3-4.
Roundabout analysis software Rodel was used to evaluate the traffic operations at the planned MN 25 &
CSAH 37 roundabout. SimTraffic and Rodel analysis reports are provided in the appendix.
Under Opening Year (2030) No-Build conditions, all intersections are anticipated to continue operating at
LOS C or better and all individual movements/approaches at LOS E or better. Delays are generally
anticipated to see very minor changes compared to the Existing (2025) conditions and all intersections are
expected to operate acceptably. The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and all queues are
anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays.
Table 3-4: Opening Year (2030) No-Build Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall1 Left Through Right Overall1
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (33) C (33) A (3)
A (8)
E (64) E (59) A (3)
A (10) WB C (27) C (28) A (3) D (51) D (51) A (3)
NB A (8) A (3) A (0) A (5) A (3) A (1)
SB A (7) A (9) A (1) A (7) A (8) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (3) A (7) A (2)
A (8)
A (5) A (6) A (2)
A (9) WB A (3) A (8) A (1) A (5) A (9) A (2)
NB A (0) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
SB A (0) A (0) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (5)
A (5)
A (5)
A (7) WB A (4) A (6)
NB A (5) A (9)
SB A (5) A (7)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (4) A (5) -
A (5)
A (4) A (3) -
A (5) WB - A (2) A (2) - A (2) A (1)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (4) A (0) A (1) A (5) A (0) A (1)
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
10
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall1 Left Through Right Overall1
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (2) A (2)
B (12)
A (3) A (3) A (2)
B (14) WB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (2) A (1) A (0)
NB A (6) B (12) A (3) A (10) B (14) A (5)
SB A (6) A (6) A (2) A (9) A (5) A (4)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon
Avenue
All-Way
Stop
EB A (7) B (14) A (8)
A (9)
A (7) B (12) A (7)
A (10) WB A (8) B (11) A (6) A (8) B (12) A (7)
NB A (9) A (10) A (7) A (8) A (8) A (5)
SB A (8) A (10) A (6) A (8) A (10) A (6)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
3 .5 Design Year (2045) No-Build Capacity Analysis
The Design Year (2045) No-Build Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
baseline operating conditions for the study area in the long-term without the addition of the development
traffic. Existing geometry and intersection control was assumed for this analysis, with optimized signal
timings. Capacity results for the Design Year (2045) No-Build conditions are provided in Table 3-5.
SimTraffic analysis reports are included in the appendix.
Under Design Year (2045) No-Build conditions, all intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or
better and all movements at LOS E or better. Compared to the Opening Year (2030) No-Build conditions,
delays are anticipated to increase by a few seconds per vehicle at some study area intersections.
All other 95th percentile queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays. The
northbound approach at the MN 25 & CSAH 37 roundabout is anticipated to see longer queues during the
PM peak (23 vehicle lengths, or about 575’), but these queues are not expected to cause any significant
issues downstream.
11 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Table 3-5: Design Year (2045) No-Build Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (32) C (28) A (3)
A (10)
E (68) D (48) A (3)
B (11) WB C (30) C (29) A (3) E (58) D (47) A (3)
NB A (9) A (4) A (1) A (10) A (4) A (1)
SB A (7) B (12) A (2) A (8) B (11) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (3) A (7) A (2)
A (8)
A (5) A (6) A (3)
A (10) WB A (3) A (8) A (2) A (6) A (10) A (3)
NB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (2) A (0)
SB A (1) A (0) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (1)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (5)
A (6)
A (6)
C (16) WB A (5) A (7)
NB A (6) C (25)
SB A (6) B (11)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (1) -
A (2)
A (2) A (1) -
A (2) WB - A (2) A (2) - A (2) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (5) - A (2) A (6) - A (3)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (2) A (2)
B (12)
A (3) A (4) A (2)
C (18) WB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (3) A (2) A (0)
NB A (8) B (12) A (4) B (14) C (18) A (9)
SB A (8) A (6) A (4) B (11) A (6) A (5)
MN 25 &
Future
Roadway
Side
Street
Stop
EB - - -
C (22)
- - -
D (32) WB C (22) - A (4) D (32) - A (6)
NB - A (2) A (1) - A (2) A (0)
SB A (7) A (6) - A (9) A (6) -
School
Boulevard
& Fallon Avenue
Round-
about
EB A (9)
A (7)
A (10)
A (8) WB A (8) A (10)
NB A (7) A (7)
SB A (7) A (9)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
12
4. FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS - SCENARIO 1
This section of the report outlines the proposed development scenario, summarizes site-specific traffic
characteristics, and develops future traffic projections for Scenario 1. The project location is shown in
Exhibit 1.
4 .1 Development Characteristics and Site Access
The Scenario 1 development consists of 3,000,000 square feet of technology park. The studied opening
year of the full development is 2030. Two site access points were assumed: one along 85th Street NE
(“North Access”), and the other along Edmonson Avenue (“East Access”). The exact location of access
points will be determined when a site specific development plan is developed. No turn lanes were assumed
at the access points for the capacity analysis.
4.2 Trip Generation
Proposed development traffic was determined based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’
(ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition. The manual provides peak hour trips rates/equations, inbound-outbound
percentages that can be attributed to the proposed site. Based on a review of industrial land uses provided
in the manual, LUC 160 (Data Center) was determined to be the most appropriate fit for the proposed
Scenario 1.
Table 4-1 provides a summary of trip generation for development Scenario 1. Based on the trip generation
calculation, the proposed Scenario 1 development is anticipated to generate 2,970 daily trips, including 330
total trips during the AM Peak Hour (182 entering and 148 exiting), and 270 total trips during the PM Peak
Hour (81 entering, 189 exiting). Trip generation of trucks is anticipated to be negligible, and all trips are
considered to be passenger vehicle trips.
Table 4-1: Trip Generation – Scenario 1
Land Use Description Intensity /
Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Technology Park – ITE LUC 160 3,000 kSF 2,970 182 148 330 81 189 270
4.3 Directional Distribution
The estimated distribution of site-generated traffic on the surrounding roadway network was developed
based on a review of the roadway network, area development pattern, and access to the proposed
development. The anticipated directional distribution of passenger vehicle site traffic is summarized below.
• 35% to/from the north on MN 25
• 30% to/from the east on School Boulevard
• 20% to/from the east on CSAH 37
• 15% to/from the south on MN 25
13 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Note that the majority of the site traffic is anticipated to come from the east along I-94, but such trips could
use many different routes to access the site, resulting in a relatively even spread of site traffic throughout
the roadway network. The Scenario 1 site trip distribution is shown in Exhibit 6.
The site traffic assignment, representing traffic volumes associated with the proposed development at the
study intersections, is a function of the estimated trip generation (Table 4-1) and the directional distribution
(Exhibit 6). The site trip assignment is shown in Exhibit 8.
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 traffic projections, shown on Exhibit 13, were developed by adding
site-generated traffic for the Technology Center (Exhibit 7) to the Opening Year (2030) No-Build volumes
(Exhibit 4). Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 traffic projections, shown on Exhibit 15, were developed
by adding site-generated traffic for the Technology Center (Exhibit 7) to the Design Year (2045) No-Build
volumes (Exhibit 5).
4.4 Future Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
The area surrounding the site is largely rural with few pedestrian and bicycle facilities. As the surrounding
area develops further, pedestrian connectivity should be a priority.
4.5 Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis
The results of the analysis for the Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 are shown in Table 4-2. Consistent
with the existing conditions analysis, the results are based on Synchro/SimTraffic reports. Copies of the
capacity analysis reports are provided in the appendix.
All study intersections and site accesses are anticipated to operate at LOS A or B during the AM and PM
peak hours. Additionally, all movements are anticipated to continue operating at LOS E or better. Overall,
the study intersections are anticipated to see very little change in delay as a result of the Scenario 1 Build
conditions in the Opening Year (2030). The 95th percentile queueing results were reviewed, and all queues
are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays.
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
14
Table 4-2: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (31) C (22) A (3)
A (9)
E (69) D (44) A (3)
B (10) WB C (31) C (25) A (3) E (57) D (52) A (3)
NB A (1) A (4) A (1) A (6) A (4) A (1)
SB A (8) A (10) A (1) A (6) A (9) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (4) A (9) A (2)
A (9)
A (5) A (8) A (3)
A (10) WB A (4) A (9) A (3) A (5) A (10) A (3)
NB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
SB A (0) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (5)
A (5)
A (5)
A (8) WB A (5) A (6)
NB A (5) A (10)
SB A (5) A (7)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (5) -
A (5)
A (5) A (3) -
A (5) WB - A (2) A (1) - A (2) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (4) A (0) A (2) A (5) A (0) A (1)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (3) A (2)
B (12)
A (3) A (3) A (2)
B (15) WB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (2) A (1) A (0)
NB A (5) B (12) A (3) B (10) B (15) A (5)
SB A (6) A (7) A (3) A (10) A (6) A (5)
85th Street
& North Access
Side
Street Stop
EB - A (2) A (1)
A (5)
- A (1) A (1)
A (6) WB A (3) A (3) - A (3) A (3) -
NB A (5) - A (3) A (6) - A (3)
SB - - - - - -
Edmonson
Avenue &
East
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) - A (3)
A (5)
A (6) - A (3)
A (6) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1) A (1) - A (1) A (1) -
SB - A (1) A (0) - A (1) A (0)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon
Avenue
All-Way
Stop
EB A (7) B (15) A (9)
B (11)
A (8) B (13) A (8)
B (10) WB A (9) B (12) A (7) A (8) B (13) A (8)
NB B (11) B (11) A (8) A (8) A (9) A (6)
SB A (8) A (10) A (6) A (8) B (10) A (6)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
15 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
4.6 Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis
Capacity analysis results for the Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 conditions are provided in Table 4-3.
Consistent with the existing conditions analysis, the results are based on Synchro/SimTraffic reports.
Copies of the capacity analysis reports are provided in the appendix.
Results of the Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 conditions show that all intersections are anticipated to
operate at LOS C or better except for the proposed collector roadway connection to MN 25 which operates
at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Overall, the study area intersections are anticipated to see very little
change in delay as a result of the proposed Scenario 1 development. The 95th percentile queueing results
were reviewed, and all queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays. SimTraffic
reports are included in the appendix.
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
16
Table 4-3: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (33) C (27) A (3)
B (10)
E (67) D (47) A (3)
B (12) WB C (31) C (27) A (3) E (66) E (60) A (3)
NB A (4) A (5) A (1) B (11) A (5) A (0)
SB A (8) B (12) A (2) A (9) B (12) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (9) A (3)
A (9)
A (7) A (9) A (3)
B (10) WB A (5) A (9) A (3) A (6) B (10) A (5)
NB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (2) A (0)
SB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (2) A (1)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (6)
A (6)
A (6)
C (18) WB A (5) A (7)
NB A (5) D (29)
SB A (7) B (12)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (1) -
A (2)
A (2) A (1) -
A (2) WB - A (2) A (2) - A (3) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (6) - A (3) A (6) - A (2)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (3) A (3) A (1)
B (13)
A (4) A (4) A (2)
C (19) WB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (3) A (2) A (0)
NB A (9) B (13) A (4) C (16) C (19) B (11)
SB A (9) A (8) A (4) C (17) A (8) A (7)
MN 25 &
Future Roadway
Side
Street Stop
EB - - -
B (10)
- - -
E (37) WB B (10) - A (3) E (37) - A (8)
NB - A (2) A (1) - A (2) A (0)
SB A (7) A (6) - B (11) A (6) -
85th Street
& North
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB - A (2) A (1)
A (5)
- A (2) A (1)
A (6) WB A (4) A (3) - A (3) A (3) -
NB A (5) - A (3) A (6) - A (3)
SB - - - - - -
Edmonson
Avenue &
East
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (6) - A (3)
A (6)
A (6) - A (4)
A (6) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1) A (1) - A (1) A (1) -
SB - A (1) A (0) - A (1) A (0)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon
Avenue
Round-
about
EB A (9)
A (7)
A (10)
A (8) WB A (9) B (10)
NB A (8) A (7)
SB A (7) A (9)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
17 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
5. FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS - SCENARIO 2
This section of the report outlines the proposed development scenario, summarizes site-specific traffic
characteristics, and develops future traffic projections for Scenario 2. The project location is shown in
Exhibit 1.
5 .1 Scenario 2 Development Characteristics and Site Access
Scenario 2 is anticipated to include up to 5,000,000 sq ft of industrial park space. For this analysis, the
studied Opening Year of the full development is 2030. Three site access points were assumed: one along
85th Street NE (“North Access”), one along Edmonson Avenue (“East Access”), and one along Davidson
Avenue (“West Access”). With the Davidson Avenue connection to MN 25 being removed, it is assumed
that the West Access will be a collector roadway that connects to MN 25, as included in the City’s comp.
The exact location of the access points will be determined when a site specific development plan is
developed.
5 .2 Scenario 2 Trip Generation
Proposed development traffic was based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip
Generation, 11th Edition. The manual provides peak hour trips rates/equations, inbound-outbound
percentages, and truck percentages which were used to estimate the number of daily, peak hour, and truck
trips that can be attributed to the proposed site. Based on a review of industrial land uses provided in the
manual, Land Use Code (LUC) 130 (Industrial Park) was determined to be the most appropriate fit for the
proposed Scenario 2 development.
Table 5-1 provides a summary of trip generation for development Scenario 2. Based on the trip generation
calculation, the proposed development is anticipated to generate 16,850 total daily trips, 2,850 of which are
truck trips. During the AM Peak Hour, Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate 1,500 passenger vehicle trips
(1,287 entering and 213 exiting), and 200 truck trips (90 entering and 110 exiting). During the PM peak
hour, Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate 1,500 passenger vehicle trips (297 entering and 1,203 exiting)
and 200 truck trips (77 entering and 123 exiting).
Table 5-1: Site-Generated Traffic Projections – Scenario 2
Land Use
Description Trip Type Intensity
/ Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Industrial Park -
ITE LUC 130
Passenger
Vehicle
5,000
kSF
14,000 1,287 213 1,500 297 1,203 1,500
Truck 2,850 90 110 200 77 123 200
Total 16,850 1,377 323 1,700 373 1,327 1,700
5 .3 Scenario 2 Directional Distribution
Due to the addition of a west access point along Davidson Avenue, trip distribution differs from Scenario 1.
Additionally, passenger vehicle traffic and truck traffic are expected to exhibit different global distributions.
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
18
Thus, traffic distribution for passenger vehicles and trucks were determined individually, as shown in
Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 10, respectively.
Passenger vehicle site trips were determined by applying trip generation (Table 5-1) to passenger vehicle
distribution (Exhibit 8). Passenger vehicle site trips are shown in Exhibit 9. Truck site trips were determined
by applying trip generation (Table 5-1) to truck distribution (Exhibit 10). Truck site trips are shown in Exhibit
11. The total Scenario 2 site trips are presented in Exhibit 12.
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 traffic projections, shown on Exhibit 14, were developed by adding
total site-generated traffic for the Industrial Park (Exhibit 12) to the Opening Year (2030) No-Build volumes
(Exhibit 4). Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 traffic projections, shown on Exhibit 16, were developed
by adding total site-generated traffic for the Industrial Park (Exhibit 12) to the Design Year (2045) No-Build
volumes (Exhibit 5).
5 .4 Scenario 2 Future Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
The area surrounding the site is largely rural with few pedestrian and bicycle facilities. As the surrounding
area develops further, pedestrian connectivity should be a priority.
5.5 Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis
The results of the analysis for the Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 are shown in Table 5-2. Consistent
with the existing conditions analysis, the results are based on Synchro 12/SimTraffic. Copies of the capacity
analysis reports are provided in the appendix. Adjustments were made to the signal timings to account for
the added site traffic to the development site. Heavy vehicle volumes were included in the analysis for all
Scenario 2 conditions.
Based on the analysis in the Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2, all intersections, apart from MN 25 &
Davidson Avenue, are expected to operate at LOS D or better in the AM and PM peak hours. The
westbound left and right turn movements at MN 25 and Davidson Avenue are expected to operate at LOS
F during the PM peak hour. This is due to high traffic in the northbound and southbound directions on MN
25. Because this is an interim operating condition, mitigation is not recommended at Davidson Avenue
since the connection to MN 25 is planned to be removed in the near future.
The intersection of School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue is anticipated to operate at LOS D during the AM
peak hour with multiple movements operating at LOS E or F. Severe queueing is anticipated to occur during
the AM peak hour, with westbound through/right turn queues exceeding 700’. Overall, the intersection is
operating near capacity, and mitigation is recommended to reduce delays and queueing. A single lane
roundabout is recommended at the intersection to improve traffic operations and safety conditions at the
intersection.
All other individual intersection movements are anticipated to operate at LOS E or better. The 95th percentile
queueing results were reviewed, and all queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage
bays. Traffic analysis reports are included in Appendix I.
19 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Table 5-2: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (33) C (29) A (2)
B (14)
E (68) D (54) A (3)
B (13) WB C (34) C (31) A (5) E (64) D (52) A (7)
NB A (6) A (8) A (2) A (7) A (6) A (1)
SB B (17) B (16) A (3) B (13) B (11) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (8) B (12) A (6)
B (13)
B (13) C (17) A (9)
C (17) WB A (9) B (13) A (7) B (12) B (14) A (7)
NB A (1) A (2) A (0) A (3) A (4) A (1)
SB A (1) A (3) A (1) A (2) A (2) A (0)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (5)
A (6)
A (6)
A (9) WB A (5) A (7)
NB A (7) B (11)
SB A (6) A (9)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (1) -
A (3)
A (2) A (2) -
A (4) WB - A (4) A (2) - A (3) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (8) A (1) A (4) A (9) A (0) A (7)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (4) A (3) A (2)
B (14)
A (4) A (4) A (3)
D (25) WB A (2) A (2) A (1) A (3) A (2) A (1)
NB A (9) B (14) A (4) B (15) C (21) B (11)
SB A (9) A (8) A (5) D (25) B (10) C (17)
MN 25 &
Future
Roadway (West
Access)
Side
Street Stop
EB - - -
C (20)
- - -
F (87) WB C (20) A (0) A (8) F (87) - F (69)
NB - A (2) A (0) - A (4) A (1)
SB A (5) A (1) - A (7) A (1) -
85th Street
& North
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB - A (6) A (4)
C (18)
- A (4) A (2)
C (18) WB A (9) A (7) - A (4) A (4) -
NB C (18) - B (11) C (18) - B (15)
SB - - - - - -
Edmonson
Avenue &
East
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB B (10) - A (4)
B (10)
B (15) - B (12)
B (15) WB - - - - - -
NB A (5) A (5) - A (2) A (3) -
SB - A (5) A (1) - A (2) A (0)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon Avenue
All-Way
Stop
EB A (9) E (44) E (35)
D (35)
A (7) D (29) D (26)
C (18) WB F (56) D (29) C (21) A (9) C (17) B (11)
NB C (19) C (19) B (14) C (20) C (19) C (16)
SB B (11) B (13) A (10) B (12) B (14) A (9)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
20
5.6 Mitigated Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis
An Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Mitigated conditions capacity analysis was conducted to measure the
effectiveness of the proposed mitigation at the intersection of School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue. This
analysis focused on a single-lane roundabout mitigation to provide consistency along the School Boulevard
corridor which has multiple roundabouts.
Results of the capacity analysis are given below in Table 5-3. The analysis indicates that installation of a
roundabout, all approaches at the intersection operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak
hours. All 95th percentile queues are less than 200’. No further mitigation is required.
Table 5-3: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Mitigated Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
School
Boulevard
& Fallon
Avenue
Round-
about
EB A (9)
A (10)
A (10)
A (8) WB B (14) A (9)
NB A (7) A (10)
SB A (8) A (8)
5.7 Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 conditions analysis was conducted to determine the long-term effects of the
proposed Scenario 2 development and determine any resultant mitigation needs at the study intersections.
For the analysis, modifications were made to the signal timings to account for the traffic associated with the
proposed Scenario 2 development. A northbound left turn lane was assumed at School Boulevard & Fallon
Avenue (though a traffic signal was not assumed), in line with the Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1
conditions analysis. Results of the capacity analysis for the Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 conditions
are provided in Table 5-4.
The results of the capacity analysis show the system has increased delay throughout the roadway network
with several movements approaching or at capacity. The intersection of MN 25 & Proposed Collector is
expected to operate at LOS F with the westbound left and right turn movement expected to see more than
100 seconds of delay per vehicle in the PM peak hour. Based on this, separate left and right turn lanes are
expected to be required at a minimum.
The northbound approach at MN 25 & CSAH 37 is anticipated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak
hour with 95th percentile queues in excess of 1,000’. A right-turn bypass should be considered for the
roundabout’s northbound approach to reduce delays and queueing.
The southbound left and right turn movements at CSAH 37 & Edmonson Avenue are anticipated to operate
at LOS F during the PM peak hour with delays exceeding 100 seconds per vehicle. The northbound
approach is also nearing its capacity, with all three movements operating at LOS E. Therefore, it is
recommended that northbound and southbound left turn lanes be installed at this intersection to reduce
delays.
All 95th percentile queues are anticipated to remain within their provided storage bays. Traffic analysis
reports are included in Appendix J.
21 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Table 5-4: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (31) C (24) A (3)
B (16)
E (73) E (55) A (3)
B (15) WB C (29) C (34) A (5) E (64) D (46) A (9)
NB B (13) A (10) A (3) B (13) A (8) A (1)
SB C (26) B (17) A (2) B (17) B (13) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (9) B (12) A (6)
B (14)
C (20) C (20) B (12)
C (20) WB B (10) B (14) B (11) B (12) B (15) A (8)
NB A (2) A (2) A (0) A (3) A (3) A (1)
SB A (1) A (3) A (1) A (3) A (2) A (1)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (6)
A (7)
A (7)
C (24) WB A (6) A (10)
NB A (9) E (36)
SB A (8) C (21)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (4) A (1) -
A (3)
A (3) A (2) -
A (4) WB - A (4) A (3) - A (4) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (7) - A (5) B (12) - A (9)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (3) A (3)
C (18)
A (5) A (5) A (3)
F (90) WB A (2) A (2) A (1) A (4) A (3) A (1)
NB C (16) C (18) A (6) E (45) E (43) E (35)
SB B (13) B (10) A (7) F (90) E (35) F (84)
MN 25 &
Future
Roadway (West
Access)
Side
Street Stop
EB - - -
D (34)
- - -
F (100+) WB D (34) - B (14) F (100+) - F (100+)
NB - A (3) A (1) - A (4) A (1)
SB B (13) A (8) - C (19) A (8) -
85th Street
& North
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB - A (7) A (4)
C (20)
- A (4) A (2)
C (25) WB B (10) A (8) - A (4) A (4) -
NB C (20) - B (11) C (25) - C (20)
SB - - - - - -
Edmonson
Avenue &
East
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB B (14) - A (6)
B (14)
B (14) - B (11)
B (14) WB - - - - - -
NB A (5) A (5) - - A (2) -
SB - A (5) A (1) - A (2) A (0)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon Avenue
Round-
about
EB B (11)
B (13)
B (13)
B (11) WB C (19) B (12)
NB A (8) B (12)
SB A (9) A (10)
Note: The Overall LOS in side street stop-controlled intersections is reported as the worst movement.
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
22
5.8 Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2
In order to determine the impact of the proposed mitigations on the Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2,
a Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 capacity analysis was conducted. The following mitigations
were included in the analysis:
• 250-foot dedicated left turn lanes were added to the northbound and southbound approaches at
Edmonson Avenue & CSAH 37.
• A northbound bypass (for right turns) lane was added to the MN 25 & CSAH 37 roundabout
• A traffic signal was added to the intersection of MN 25 & Future Roadway. Northbound right and
southbound left turn lanes were assumed, along with separate westbound left and right turn lanes.
Results of the Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 capacity analysis are shown in Table 5-5.
The results of the analysis show improvements in delay at all mitigated intersections, particularly in the PM
hour, but the intersection of Edmonson Avenue & CSAH 37 is still anticipated to experience some minor
operational deficiencies with side street delays up to 44 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak hour.
While some long delays are anticipated, none of the movements are anticipated to operate at LOS F.
Therefore, no further mitigation is proposed. However, as the parcels develop, the intersection should be
monitored for a possible change in traffic control which could include all-way stop control, roundabout, or a
traffic signal.
The intersection of MN 25 & Future Roadway is anticipated to operate acceptably with a signal in place,
with all individual movements operating at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hour.
At MN 25 & CSAH 37, the installation of a northbound bypass lane is anticipated to significantly reduce the
anticipated delays at the northbound approach of the intersection during the PM peak hour, improving from
LOS E to LOS A during this period. The intersection is anticipated to see acceptable operations overall,
operating at LOS A and LOS B during the peak hours with all approaches operating at LOS C or better.
23 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Table 5-5: Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (6)
A (6)
A (7)
B (13) WB A (5) A (10)
NB A (5) A (9)
SB A (7) C (21)
Edmonson
Avenue &
CSAH 37
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (3) A (2)
C (19)
A (5) A (5) A (3)
E (44) WB A (2) A (2) A (1) A (4) A (2) A (1)
NB C (16) C (19) A (7) C (24) E (38) C (23)
SB C (15) A (9) A (6) E (44) A (9) A (9)
MN 25 &
Future
Roadway
(West Access)
Signal
EB - - -
B (12)
- - -
B (17) WB C (25) - A (9) C (30) - C (25)
NB - B (12) A (4) - B (16) A (6)
SB B (16) B (11) - C (29) B (15) -
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
24
6. TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS
Warrant analysis was conducted at the two site access points for Opening Year (2030) and Design Year
(2045) of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 to determine the need for major-road left- and right-turn lanes at the
site access points and stop-controlled study intersections. The warrant analysis was carried out using the
methodologies outlined in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457
regarding the need for major-road turn lanes at unsignalized intersections. Results of the analysis are
summarized below in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Summary
Intersection Movement
Turn Lane Warrant Result by Scenario
No-Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2
2030 2045 2030 2045 2030 2045
85th Street NE & North
Access
WBL - - Not Met Not Met Met Met
EBR - - Met Met Met Met
Edmonson Avenue NE &
East Access
NBL - - Not Met Not Met Met Met
SBR - - Not Met Not Met Met Met
MN 25 & Future Roadway NBR - Not Met - Not Met - Met
SBL - Met - Met - Met
Edmonson Avenue & 85th
Street NE
NBR Not Met Not Met Met Met Met Met
NBL Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Met Met
SBR Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Met
SBL Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met
Results of the warrant analysis indicate that multiple turn lanes will be required under Scenario 2 conditions
while three turn lanes will be required under Scenario 1 conditions. A southbound left turn lane along MN
25 at the proposed future collector roadway will be required under the No-Build conditions. Turn lanes
shown to be warranted are included in the recommended mitigation listed in the section below.
25 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A traffic analysis was performed to quantify the impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent
roadway network and study intersections. The proposed site is encompassed by 85th Street, Davidson
Avenue and Edmonson Avenue. No-Build, Build Scenario 1, and Build Scenario 2 were analyzed in the
Opening Year (2030) and Design Year (2045). An Existing Year (2025) analysis was also conducted.
7 .1 Project Characteristics
Two development buildout scenarios were considered; Scenario 1 consists of a 3 million square-foot
Technology Park while Scenario 2 consists of a 5 million square-foot Industrial Park. Scenario 1 is
anticipated to generate 330 and 270 trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Scenario 2 is
anticipated to generate 1,700 trips in both the AM and PM peak hours.
The study area intersections include the following (side street stop controlled unless otherwise noted):
• MN 25 & 85th Street NE (Signal Controlled)
• Edmonson Avenue NE & 85th Street NE
• MN 25 & County Road 37 (Signal Controlled; planned roundabout)
• County Road 37 & Davidson Avenue
• County Road 37 & Edmonson Avenue
• MN 25 & Davidson Avenue (Intersection to be removed in the future)
• School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue (All-way stop; planned roundabout)
The listed intersections were analyzed in the following scenarios:
• Existing Year (2025)
• Opening Year (2030) No-Build
• Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1
• Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2
• Design Year (2045) No-Build
• Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1
• Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2
Additionally, mitigation scenarios were analyzed for each of the scenarios that were shown to require
significant mitigation measures.
7 .2 Existing Year (2025) Capacity Analysis Summary
A capacity analysis was conducted for Existing Year (2025) traffic conditions at the study intersections to
determine baseline existing conditions. Based on the analysis, all intersections currently operate at
acceptable LOS and there are no queuing issues at the study intersections.
7 .3 Opening Year (2030) No-Build Capacity Analysis Summary
A capacity analysis was conducted for the Opening Year (2030) No-Build traffic conditions at the study
intersections to determine baseline conditions for the 2030 analysis year. A roundabout was assumed to
be in place at MN 25 & County Road 37 and the Davidson Avenue connection to MN 25 was assumed to
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
26
be removed by 2030. Based on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS
and there are no queuing issues at the study intersections.
7.4 Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis Summary
Scenario 1 consists of a 3 million square foot technology park and was assumed to be fully operational by
2030. With the addition of Scenario 1 site traffic, the roadway system slightly worsen in terms of delay and
queues. All intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better and all individual movements are
expected to operate at LOS E or better. The roadway system is expected to operate at acceptable LOS
and there are no queuing issues at the study intersections.
Turn lane warrants were analyzed at the study intersections and site access points, and it was determined
that the eastbound right turn movement at Edmonson Avenue & East Access and northbound right turn
movement at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street are anticipated to meet the warrant for turn lanes.
7 .5 Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis Summary
Scenario 2 consists of a 5 million square foot industrial park and was assumed to be fully operational by
2030. With the addition of Scenario 2 traffic, the existing system worsens in terms of LOS and queuing. The
westbound left movement at MN 25 & Davidson Avenue is expected to operate at LOS F due to heavy
traffic with limited openings on MN 25. The movement has low usage with only three (3) vehicles utilizing
the movement in both the AM and PM peak hours. Due to this, mitigation was deemed to be unnecessary
for the movement.
The intersection of School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue is anticipated to operate poorly during the AM peak
hour, and a traffic control change may be necessary. A single-lane roundabout is recommended at the
intersection.
All other intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better and all other individual movements are
expected to operate at LOS E or better. No queuing issues are present in the roadway system.
Turn lane warrants were analyzed at the study intersections and site access points, and it was determined
that left- and right-turn lanes would be required for the north access point, the east access point, and for
the northbound approach of Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street.
7.6 Design Year (2045) No-Build Capacity Analysis Summary
A capacity analysis was conducted for the Design Year (2045) No-Build traffic conditions at the study
intersections to determine baseline conditions for the 2045 analysis year. Background geometric changes
are anticipated to include a single-lane roundabout at MN 25 & CSAH 37, a single-lane roundabout at
School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue, removal of the Davidson Avenue connection to MN 25, and potential
construction of a new collector roadway connection to MN 25 south of the existing Davidson Avenue
intersection.
Based on the analysis, all other intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS and there are
no queuing issues at the study intersections. The intersection of MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed minor
collector) is anticipated to meet the warrant for a southbound left turn lane.
7.7 Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis Summary
In the long-term analysis of Scenario 1, the roadway system slightly worsen in terms of delay and queues.
27 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
All intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better and all individual movements are expected
to operate at LOS E or better. The roadway system is expected to operate at acceptable LOS and there
are no queuing issues at the study intersections.
Turn lane warrants were analyzed at the study intersections and site access points, and it was determined
that only the in addition to the turn lanes required under Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 conditions, a
southbound left turn lane is at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) is anticipated to meet
warrants.
The proposed Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 intersection control and geometry is shown in Exhibit 17.
7.8 Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis Summary
The long-term analysis of Scenario 2 reveals that multiple delay issues are expected. At MN 25 & CSAH
37, long delays are expected during the PM peak at the northbound approach of the roundabout. A
northbound bypass lane is recommended to reduce these delays. At MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed
minor collector) the westbound left and right movements are expected to operate at LOS F. The intersection
is not expected to operate acceptably as a side street stop control under Scenario 2 conditions, and a traffic
signal or roundabout are expected to be required if the intersection is full-access. At the intersection of
Edmonson Avenue & CSAH 37, long side street delays are anticipated due to the addition of site generated
traffic. Installation of northbound and southbound left turn lanes are anticipated to be required to reduce
these delays to a reasonable level.
Turn lane warrants were analyzed at the study intersections and site access points, and it was determined
that in addition to the turn lanes required under the Design Year (2030) Scenario 2 conditions, left- and
right-turn lanes would be required at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) and a southbound right
turn lane would be required at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street.
The proposed Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 intersection control and geometry is shown in Exhibit 18.
7.9 Mitigation Plan
The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic
analysis for the proposed development. The Design Year (2045) geometry proposed for the Scenario 1 and
Scenario 2 build conditions are also shown in Exhibit 17 and Exhibit 18, respectively.
Existing (2025) Conditions
• No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2030) No-Build Conditions
• No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & North Access
• Install a northbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install Side Street Stop control at site access points (one approach lane is acceptable for each).
• As parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install sidewalk and trail connections to connect to
existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
28
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at 85th Street & East Access
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at Edmonson Avenue & North Access
• Install northbound left- and right-turn lanes at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install Side Street Stop control at all site access points (single-lane approaches are acceptable)
• As parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install sidewalk and trail connections to connect to
existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
• Install a single-lane roundabout at School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue
Design Year (2045) No-Build Conditions
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) and install a
side street stop control at the intersection.
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Condition
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) and install a
side street stop control at the intersection.
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install a traffic signal or roundabout at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed minor collector). Install
a northbound right-turn lane at this intersection.
o Alternatively, the intersection could be installed as a right-in/right-out or a three-quarter
access intersection to minimize side street delays.
• Install a southbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NE
• Install northbound and southbound left turn lanes at CSAH 37 & Edmonson Avenue and monitor
the intersection for further mitigation needs.
• Install a northbound bypass (right-turn) lane at the MN 25 & CSAH 37 roundabout.
29 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
8. APPENDIX
Appendix A: Exhibits
Appendix B: Turning Movement Counts
Appendix C: Development Scenario Concepts
Appendix D: Existing Year (2025) Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix E: Opening Year (2030) No-Build Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix F: Design Year (2045) No-Build Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix G: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix H: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix I: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix J: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix K: Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix L: Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
30
Appendix A:
Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Project Location Map
Exhibit 2. Existing Geometry and Intersection Control
Exhibit 3. Existing Year (2025) Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 4. Opening Year (2030) No-Build Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 5. Design Year (2045) No-Build Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 6. Traffic Distribution (Scenario 1)
Exhibit 7. Total Peak Hour Site Trips (Scenario 1)
Exhibit 8. Passenger Vehicle Distribution (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 9. Passenger Vehicle Site Trips (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 10. Truck Traffic Distribution (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 11. Truck Site Trips (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 12. Total Peak Hour Site Trips (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 13. 2030 Build Traffic Volumes (Scenario 1)
Exhibit 14. 2030 Build Traffic Volumes (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 15. 2045 Build Traffic Volumes (Scenario 1)
Exhibit 16. 2045 Build Traffic Volumes (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 17. Proposed 2045 Geometry (Scenario 1)
Exhibit 18. Proposed 2045 Geometry (Scenario 2)
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Intersection to be removed
Future Study Intersection
Future Roadway / Access Point
Proposed Site Boundary
Roundabout to be
installed in 2026.
Davidson Avenue
Connection to be
removed in future.
East Access
West Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 2
EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Stop Control
Signal Control
Single-lane roundabout
to be installed in 2026.
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 3
EXISTING YEAR (2025) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 4
OPENING YEAR (2030) NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
Davidson Avenue
Connection to be
removed by 2030.
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 5
DESIGN YEAR (2045) NO BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
Future Roadway
Future Collector Road
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 6
SCENARIO 1 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
In [Out] Trip Distribution
Global Distribution
Site Location
X% [X%]
X%
East Access
Future Road
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 7
TOTAL PEAK HOUR SITE TRIPS (SCENARIO 1)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Site Location
East Access
Future Road
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 8
PASSENGER VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
In [Out] Trip Distribution
Global Distribution
Site Location
X% [X%]
X%
East Access
West Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 9
PASSENGER VEHICLES SITE TRIPS (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Site Location
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
West Access
EXHIBIT 10
TRUCK TRAFFIC DISTRIBTUION (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
In [Out] Trip Distribution
Global Distribution
Site Location
X% [X%]
X%
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
East Access
EXHIBIT 11
TRUCK SITE TRIPS (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Site Location
West Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 12
TOTAL PEAK HOUR SITE TRIPS (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Site Location
East Access
West Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 13
2030 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 1)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Site Location
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 14
2030 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Site Location
West Access
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 15
2045 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 1)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Site Location
Future Road
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 16
2045 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Site Location
West Access
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 17
PROPOSED 2045 GEOMETRY - SCENARIO 1
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
East Access
Future Road
Planned access removal
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Stop Control
Signal Control
Roundabout
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 18
PROPOSED 2045 GEOMETRY - SCENARIO 2
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
East Access
Planned access removal
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Stop Control
Signal Control
Roundabout
West Access
*See Note
*See Note
*A roundabout may also
be acceptable here.
31 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix B:
Turning Movement Counts
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 18 3 0 0 21 5 5 6 0 16 0 104 1 0 105 6 89 4 0 99 241
7:15 AM 16 2 7 0 25 3 2 2 0 7 0 95 2 0 97 2 119 10 0 131 260
7:30 AM 13 0 3 0 16 7 0 2 0 9 0 96 5 0 101 1 102 8 0 111 237
7:45 AM 19 0 3 0 22 4 2 0 0 6 1 103 2 0 106 5 104 8 0 117 251
Hourly Total 66 5 13 0 84 19 9 10 0 38 1 398 10 0 409 14 414 30 0 458 989
8:00 AM 10 0 5 0 15 3 0 1 0 4 2 105 1 0 108 0 91 11 0 102 229
8:15 AM 15 7 4 0 26 3 0 2 0 5 6 106 1 0 113 0 80 6 0 86 230
8:30 AM 14 0 6 0 20 1 1 2 0 4 0 100 0 0 100 2 80 8 0 90 214
8:45 AM 8 5 1 0 14 4 5 0 0 9 3 77 2 0 82 1 64 7 0 72 177
Hourly Total 47 12 16 0 75 11 6 5 0 22 11 388 4 0 403 3 315 32 0 350 850
*** BREAK ***---------------------
4:00 PM 11 4 4 0 19 3 6 6 0 15 4 138 3 0 145 5 140 19 0 164 343
4:15 PM 10 1 0 0 11 6 12 4 0 22 6 127 3 0 136 3 128 18 0 149 318
4:30 PM 18 5 1 0 24 6 10 3 0 19 7 140 4 0 151 4 134 20 0 158 352
4:45 PM 11 2 5 0 18 2 8 1 0 11 7 158 6 0 171 7 119 21 0 147 347
Hourly Total 50 12 10 0 72 17 36 14 0 67 24 563 16 0 603 19 521 78 0 618 1360
5:00 PM 15 7 3 0 25 4 10 5 0 19 5 118 5 0 128 5 113 19 0 137 309
5:15 PM 2 3 4 0 9 2 9 1 0 12 5 148 5 0 158 4 121 13 0 138 317
5:30 PM 10 5 5 0 20 2 6 3 0 11 4 150 3 0 157 1 111 14 0 126 314
5:45 PM 11 6 1 0 18 1 3 0 0 4 9 99 4 0 112 2 99 10 0 111 245
Hourly Total 38 21 13 0 72 9 28 9 0 46 23 515 17 0 555 12 444 56 0 512 1185
Grand Total 201 50 52 0 303 56 79 38 0 173 59 1864 47 0 1970 48 1694 196 0 1938 4384
Approach % 66.3 16.5 17.2 -- 32.4 45.7 22.0 -- 3.0 94.6 2.4 -- 2.5 87.4 10.1 ---
Total %4.6 1.1 1.2 -6.9 1.3 1.8 0.9 -3.9 1.3 42.5 1.1 -44.9 1.1 38.6 4.5 -44.2 -
Lights 201 50 51 -302 54 79 34 -167 58 1779 47 -1884 43 1617 194 -1854 4207
% Lights 100.0 100.0 98.1 -99.7 96.4 100.0 89.5 -96.5 98.3 95.4 100.0 -95.6 89.6 95.5 99.0 -95.7 96.0
Mediums 0 0 1 -1 2 0 4 -6 1 38 0 -39 5 35 2 -42 88
% Mediums 0.0 0.0 1.9 -0.3 3.6 0.0 10.5 -3.5 1.7 2.0 0.0 -2.0 10.4 2.1 1.0 -2.2 2.0
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 47 0 -47 0 42 0 -42 89
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 -2.4 0.0 2.5 0.0 -2.2 2.0
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 2
07/11/2024 7:00 AMEnding At07/11/2024 6:00 PM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
2014 1854 3868
42 42 84
47 42 89
0 0 0
2103 1938 4041
194 1617 43 0
2 35 5 0
0 42 0 0
0 0 0 0
196 1694 48 0
R T L P
14
5 0 0 5 14
0
Ou
t
17
3 0 0 6 16
7
In
31
8 0 0 11
30
7
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 38 0 0 4 34
T 79 0 0 0 79
L 56 0 0 2 54
P 0 0 0 0 0
1722 1884 3606
38 39 77
42 47 89
0 0 0
1802 1970 3772
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R P
58 1779 47 0
1 38 0 0
0 47 0 0
0 0 0 0
59 1864 47 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
63
3 4 0 0 63
7
In
30
2 1 0 0 30
3
Ou
t
33
1 3 0 0 33
4
20
1 0 0 0 20
1 L
50 0 0 0 50 T
51 1 0 0 52 R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM)
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 18 3 0 0 21 5 5 6 0 16 0 104 1 0 105 6 89 4 0 99 241
7:15 AM 16 2 7 0 25 3 2 2 0 7 0 95 2 0 97 2 119 10 0 131 260
7:30 AM 13 0 3 0 16 7 0 2 0 9 0 96 5 0 101 1 102 8 0 111 237
7:45 AM 19 0 3 0 22 4 2 0 0 6 1 103 2 0 106 5 104 8 0 117 251
Total 66 5 13 0 84 19 9 10 0 38 1 398 10 0 409 14 414 30 0 458 989
Approach % 78.6 6.0 15.5 -- 50.0 23.7 26.3 -- 0.2 97.3 2.4 -- 3.1 90.4 6.6 ---
Total %6.7 0.5 1.3 -8.5 1.9 0.9 1.0 -3.8 0.1 40.2 1.0 -41.4 1.4 41.9 3.0 -46.3 -
PHF 0.868 0.417 0.464 -0.840 0.679 0.450 0.417 -0.594 0.250 0.957 0.500 -0.965 0.583 0.870 0.750 -0.874 0.951
Lights 66 5 13 -84 19 9 9 -37 1 374 10 -385 10 378 29 -417 923
% Lights 100.0 100.0 100.0 -100.0 100.0 100.0 90.0 -97.4 100.0 94.0 100.0 -94.1 71.4 91.3 96.7 -91.0 93.3
Mediums 0 0 0 -0 0 0 1 -1 0 10 0 -10 4 17 1 -22 33
% Mediums 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 -2.6 0.0 2.5 0.0 -2.4 28.6 4.1 3.3 -4.8 3.3
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 14 0 -14 0 19 0 -19 33
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 -3.4 0.0 4.6 0.0 -4.1 3.3
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 4
Peak Hour Data
07/11/2024 7:00 AMEnding At07/11/2024 8:00 AM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
449 417 866
11 22 33
14 19 33
0 0 0
474 458 932
29 378 10 0
1 17 4 0
0 19 0 0
0 0 0 0
30 414 14 0
R T L P
29 0 0 4 25 Ou
t
38 0 0 1 37
In
67 0 0 5 62
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 10 0 0 1 9
T 9 0 0 0 9
L 19 0 0 0 19
P 0 0 0 0 0
410 385 795
17 10 27
19 14 33
0 0 0
446 409 855
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R P
1 374 10 0
0 10 0 0
0 14 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 398 10 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
12
3 1 0 0 12
4
In 84 0 0 0 84
Ou
t
39 1 0 0 40
66 0 0 0 66
L
5 0 0 0 5 T
13 0 0 0 13
R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
4:00 PM 11 4 4 0 19 3 6 6 0 15 4 138 3 0 145 5 140 19 0 164 343
4:15 PM 10 1 0 0 11 6 12 4 0 22 6 127 3 0 136 3 128 18 0 149 318
4:30 PM 18 5 1 0 24 6 10 3 0 19 7 140 4 0 151 4 134 20 0 158 352
4:45 PM 11 2 5 0 18 2 8 1 0 11 7 158 6 0 171 7 119 21 0 147 347
Total 50 12 10 0 72 17 36 14 0 67 24 563 16 0 603 19 521 78 0 618 1360
Approach % 69.4 16.7 13.9 -- 25.4 53.7 20.9 -- 4.0 93.4 2.7 -- 3.1 84.3 12.6 ---
Total %3.7 0.9 0.7 -5.3 1.3 2.6 1.0 -4.9 1.8 41.4 1.2 -44.3 1.4 38.3 5.7 -45.4 -
PHF 0.694 0.600 0.500 -0.750 0.708 0.750 0.583 -0.761 0.857 0.891 0.667 -0.882 0.679 0.930 0.929 -0.942 0.966
Lights 50 12 10 -72 16 36 12 -64 24 545 16 -585 18 509 78 -605 1326
% Lights 100.0 100.0 100.0 -100.0 94.1 100.0 85.7 -95.5 100.0 96.8 100.0 -97.0 94.7 97.7 100.0 -97.9 97.5
Mediums 0 0 0 -0 1 0 2 -3 0 5 0 -5 1 5 0 -6 14
% Mediums 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 5.9 0.0 14.3 -4.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 -0.8 5.3 1.0 0.0 -1.0 1.0
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 13 0 -13 0 7 0 -7 20
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 -2.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 -1.1 1.5
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 6
Peak Hour Data
07/11/2024 4:00 PMEnding At07/11/2024 5:00 PM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
607 605 1212
7 6 13
13 7 20
0 0 0
627 618 1245
78 509 18 0
0 5 1 0
0 7 0 0
0 0 0 0
78 521 19 0
R T L P
47 0 0 1 46 Ou
t
67 0 0 3 64
In
11
4 0 0 4 11
0
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 14 0 0 2 12
T 36 0 0 0 36
L 17 0 0 1 16
P 0 0 0 0 0
535 585 1120
6 5 11
7 13 20
0 0 0
548 603 1151
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R P
24 545 16 0
0 5 0 0
0 13 0 0
0 0 0 0
24 563 16 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
21
0 0 0 0 21
0
In 72 0 0 0 72
Ou
t
13
8 0 0 0 13
8
50 0 0 0 50
L
12 0 0 0 12
T
10 0 0 0 10
R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street Edmonson Ave Edmonson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 2 7 3 0 12 1 5 0 0 6 0 8 1 0 9 1 12 3 0 16 43
7:15 AM 0 4 1 0 5 2 5 1 0 8 1 12 2 0 15 2 8 1 0 11 39
7:30 AM 3 4 0 0 7 3 4 1 0 8 1 20 1 0 22 0 13 1 0 14 51
7:45 AM 3 5 0 0 8 4 4 1 0 9 0 31 1 0 32 0 10 1 0 11 60
Hourly Total 8 20 4 0 32 10 18 3 0 31 2 71 5 0 78 3 43 6 0 52 193
8:00 AM 0 2 1 0 3 5 0 1 0 6 0 16 3 0 19 2 6 0 0 8 36
8:15 AM 1 9 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 2 0 15 0 0 15 0 13 2 0 15 42
8:30 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 1 11 1 0 13 1 13 2 0 16 35
8:45 AM 2 5 1 0 8 1 7 0 0 8 1 13 1 0 15 2 11 1 0 14 45
Hourly Total 3 18 2 0 23 6 13 1 0 20 2 55 5 0 62 5 43 5 0 53 158
*** BREAK ***---------------------
4:00 PM 2 4 2 0 8 3 13 1 0 17 7 20 3 0 30 2 25 2 0 29 84
4:15 PM 2 6 3 0 11 6 9 1 0 16 5 27 4 0 36 5 26 2 0 33 96
4:30 PM 1 4 3 0 8 4 12 2 0 18 3 28 5 0 36 4 32 2 0 38 100
4:45 PM 3 6 1 0 10 5 7 2 0 14 3 27 4 0 34 2 25 5 0 32 90
Hourly Total 8 20 9 0 37 18 41 6 0 65 18 102 16 0 136 13 108 11 0 132 370
5:00 PM 2 12 3 0 17 4 9 4 0 17 2 37 4 0 43 2 22 5 0 29 106
5:15 PM 3 4 4 0 11 4 12 0 0 16 4 26 2 0 32 2 18 4 0 24 83
5:30 PM 1 8 0 0 9 2 3 0 0 5 5 21 2 0 28 1 20 1 0 22 64
5:45 PM 2 7 1 0 10 1 4 1 0 6 1 15 1 0 17 2 13 3 0 18 51
Hourly Total 8 31 8 0 47 11 28 5 0 44 12 99 9 0 120 7 73 13 0 93 304
Grand Total 27 89 23 0 139 45 100 15 0 160 34 327 35 0 396 28 267 35 0 330 1025
Approach % 19.4 64.0 16.5 -- 28.1 62.5 9.4 -- 8.6 82.6 8.8 -- 8.5 80.9 10.6 ---
Total %2.6 8.7 2.2 -13.6 4.4 9.8 1.5 -15.6 3.3 31.9 3.4 -38.6 2.7 26.0 3.4 -32.2 -
Lights 25 87 22 -134 45 97 15 -157 32 321 33 -386 27 259 34 -320 997
% Lights 92.6 97.8 95.7 -96.4 100.0 97.0 100.0 -98.1 94.1 98.2 94.3 -97.5 96.4 97.0 97.1 -97.0 97.3
Mediums 2 2 0 -4 0 3 0 -3 1 5 1 -7 1 7 1 -9 23
% Mediums 7.4 2.2 0.0 -2.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 -1.9 2.9 1.5 2.9 -1.8 3.6 2.6 2.9 -2.7 2.2
Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 -0 1 1 1 -3 0 1 0 -1 5
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 4.3 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 2.9 0.3 2.9 -0.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 -0.3 0.5
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 2
07/11/2024 7:00 AMEnding At07/11/2024 6:00 PM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
Edmonson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
361 320 681
7 9 16
1 1 2
0 0 0
369 330 699
34 259 27 0
1 7 1 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
35 267 28 0
R T L P
15
2 0 1 4 14
7
Ou
t
16
0 0 0 3 15
7
In
31
2 0 1 7 30
4
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 15 0 0 0 15
T 10
0 0 0 3 97
L 45 0 0 0 45
P 0 0 0 0 0
326 386 712
7 7 14
2 3 5
0 0 0
335 396 731
Out In Total
Edmonson Ave [NB]
L T R P
32 321 33 0
1 5 1 0
1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0
34 327 35 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
29
7 9 2 0 30
8
In
13
4 4 1 0 13
9
Ou
t
16
3 5 1 0 16
9
25 2 0 0 27 L
87 2 0 0 89 T
22 0 1 0 23 R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM)
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street Edmonson Ave Edmonson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 2 7 3 0 12 1 5 0 0 6 0 8 1 0 9 1 12 3 0 16 43
7:15 AM 0 4 1 0 5 2 5 1 0 8 1 12 2 0 15 2 8 1 0 11 39
7:30 AM 3 4 0 0 7 3 4 1 0 8 1 20 1 0 22 0 13 1 0 14 51
7:45 AM 3 5 0 0 8 4 4 1 0 9 0 31 1 0 32 0 10 1 0 11 60
Total 8 20 4 0 32 10 18 3 0 31 2 71 5 0 78 3 43 6 0 52 193
Approach % 25.0 62.5 12.5 -- 32.3 58.1 9.7 -- 2.6 91.0 6.4 -- 5.8 82.7 11.5 ---
Total %4.1 10.4 2.1 -16.6 5.2 9.3 1.6 -16.1 1.0 36.8 2.6 -40.4 1.6 22.3 3.1 -26.9 -
PHF 0.667 0.714 0.333 -0.667 0.625 0.900 0.750 -0.861 0.500 0.573 0.625 -0.609 0.375 0.827 0.500 -0.813 0.804
Lights 7 19 4 -30 10 18 3 -31 2 70 5 -77 2 41 6 -49 187
% Lights 87.5 95.0 100.0 -93.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 -100.0 100.0 98.6 100.0 -98.7 66.7 95.3 100.0 -94.2 96.9
Mediums 1 1 0 -2 0 0 0 -0 0 1 0 -1 1 2 0 -3 6
% Mediums 12.5 5.0 0.0 -6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 -1.3 33.3 4.7 0.0 -5.8 3.1
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 4
Peak Hour Data
07/11/2024 7:00 AMEnding At07/11/2024 8:00 AM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
Edmonson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
80 49 129
2 3 5
0 0 0
0 0 0
82 52 134
6 41 2 0
0 2 1 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
6 43 3 0
R T L P
28 0 0 2 26 Ou
t
31 0 0 0 31
In
59 0 0 2 57
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 3 0 0 0 3
T 18 0 0 0 18
L 10 0 0 0 10
P 0 0 0 0 0
55 77 132
2 1 3
0 0 0
0 0 0
57 78 135
Out In Total
Edmonson Ave [NB]
L T R P
2 70 5 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
2 71 5 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
56 2 0 0 58
In 30 2 0 0 32
Ou
t
26 0 0 0 26
7 1 0 0 8 L
19 1 0 0 20
T
4 0 0 0 4
R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street Edmonson Ave Edmonson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
4:15 PM 2 6 3 0 11 6 9 1 0 16 5 27 4 0 36 5 26 2 0 33 96
4:30 PM 1 4 3 0 8 4 12 2 0 18 3 28 5 0 36 4 32 2 0 38 100
4:45 PM 3 6 1 0 10 5 7 2 0 14 3 27 4 0 34 2 25 5 0 32 90
5:00 PM 2 12 3 0 17 4 9 4 0 17 2 37 4 0 43 2 22 5 0 29 106
Total 8 28 10 0 46 19 37 9 0 65 13 119 17 0 149 13 105 14 0 132 392
Approach % 17.4 60.9 21.7 -- 29.2 56.9 13.8 -- 8.7 79.9 11.4 -- 9.8 79.5 10.6 ---
Total %2.0 7.1 2.6 -11.7 4.8 9.4 2.3 -16.6 3.3 30.4 4.3 -38.0 3.3 26.8 3.6 -33.7 -
PHF 0.667 0.583 0.833 -0.676 0.792 0.771 0.563 -0.903 0.650 0.804 0.850 -0.866 0.650 0.820 0.700 -0.868 0.925
Lights 8 28 9 -45 19 36 9 -64 12 117 16 -145 13 101 14 -128 382
% Lights 100.0 100.0 90.0 -97.8 100.0 97.3 100.0 -98.5 92.3 98.3 94.1 -97.3 100.0 96.2 100.0 -97.0 97.4
Mediums 0 0 0 -0 0 1 0 -1 1 2 0 -3 0 4 0 -4 8
% Mediums 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 -1.5 7.7 1.7 0.0 -2.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 -3.0 2.0
Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 -0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 -0 2
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 10.0 -2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.5
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 6
Peak Hour Data
07/11/2024 4:15 PMEnding At07/11/2024 5:15 PM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
Edmonson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
134 128 262
2 4 6
0 0 0
0 0 0
136 132 268
14 101 13 0
0 4 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
14 105 13 0
R T L P
58 0 1 0 57 Ou
t
65 0 0 1 64
In
12
3 0 1 1 12
1
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 9 0 0 0 9
T 37 0 0 1 36
L 19 0 0 0 19
P 0 0 0 0 0
129 145 274
4 3 7
1 1 2
0 0 0
134 149 283
Out In Total
Edmonson Ave [NB]
L T R P
12 117 16 0
1 2 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0
13 119 17 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
10
7 2 1 0 11
0
In 45 0 1 0 46
Ou
t
62 2 0 0 64
8 0 0 0 8 L
28 0 0 0 28
T
9 0 1 0 10
R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 16 27 2 45 13 17 0 30 1 70 12 83 0 78 11 89 247
7:15 AM 21 29 1 51 32 16 0 48 2 67 15 84 1 82 17 100 283
7:30 AM 13 29 2 44 31 19 1 51 0 80 7 87 1 94 15 110 292
7:45 AM 22 29 2 53 45 20 0 65 1 62 6 69 1 93 14 108 295
Hourly Total 72 114 7 193 121 72 1 194 4 279 40 323 3 347 57 407 1117
8:00 AM 15 21 2 38 20 13 5 38 1 80 9 90 1 73 16 90 256
8:15 AM 15 22 0 37 18 17 1 36 0 79 8 87 1 73 18 92 252
8:30 AM 13 30 1 44 29 12 1 42 0 70 11 81 3 68 21 92 259
8:45 AM 19 22 0 41 16 21 1 38 0 63 14 77 1 76 8 85 241
Hourly Total 62 95 3 160 83 63 8 154 1 292 42 335 6 290 63 359 1008
*** BREAK ***-----------------
4:00 PM 20 19 1 40 20 22 2 44 1 138 23 162 0 93 31 124 370
4:15 PM 21 25 1 47 18 37 3 58 0 111 35 146 0 96 27 123 374
4:30 PM 22 11 2 35 16 38 1 55 1 148 62 211 1 102 33 136 437
4:45 PM 29 28 1 58 18 29 4 51 1 127 38 166 1 122 35 158 433
Hourly Total 92 83 5 180 72 126 10 208 3 524 158 685 2 413 126 541 1614
5:00 PM 22 23 1 46 14 29 1 44 1 118 20 139 2 118 24 144 373
5:15 PM 20 18 2 40 15 29 3 47 0 115 26 141 1 78 24 103 331
5:30 PM 27 16 1 44 18 30 0 48 1 94 12 107 3 91 28 122 321
5:45 PM 22 22 0 44 21 29 1 51 3 84 13 100 2 65 22 89 284
Hourly Total 91 79 4 174 68 117 5 190 5 411 71 487 8 352 98 458 1309
Grand Total 317 371 19 707 344 378 24 746 13 1506 311 1830 19 1402 344 1765 5048
Approach %44.8 52.5 2.7 -46.1 50.7 3.2 -0.7 82.3 17.0 -1.1 79.4 19.5 --
Total %6.3 7.3 0.4 14.0 6.8 7.5 0.5 14.8 0.3 29.8 6.2 36.3 0.4 27.8 6.8 35.0 -
Lights 298 355 19 672 336 362 22 720 12 1456 309 1777 18 1352 329 1699 4868
% Lights 94.0 95.7 100.0 95.0 97.7 95.8 91.7 96.5 92.3 96.7 99.4 97.1 94.7 96.4 95.6 96.3 96.4
Buses 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 5 0 8 0 8 0 9 0 9 22
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.4
Trucks 19 16 0 35 4 16 1 21 1 42 2 45 1 41 15 57 158
% Trucks 6.0 4.3 0.0 5.0 1.2 4.2 4.2 2.8 7.7 2.8 0.6 2.5 5.3 2.9 4.4 3.2 3.1
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 2
07/16/2025 7:00 AMEnding At07/16/2025 6:00 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
1776 1699 3475
9 9 18
62 57 119
1847 1765 3612
329 1352 18
0 9 0
15 41 1
344 1402 19
R T L
70
1
19 0 68
2
Ou
t
74
6
21 5 72
0
In
14
4
7
40 5
14
0
2
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 24 1 1 22
T 37
8
16 0 36
2
L 34
4 4 4 33
6
1707 1777 3484
13 8 21
45 45 90
1765 1830 3595
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R
12 1456 309
0 8 0
1 42 2
13 1506 311
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
13
7
5
0 67
14
4
2
In
67
2 0 35
70
7
Ou
t
70
3 0 32
73
5
29
8 0 19
31
7 L
35
5 0 16
37
1 T
19 0 0 19 R
Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
7:15 AM 21 29 1 51 32 16 0 48 2 67 15 84 1 82 17 100 283
7:30 AM 13 29 2 44 31 19 1 51 0 80 7 87 1 94 15 110 292
7:45 AM 22 29 2 53 45 20 0 65 1 62 6 69 1 93 14 108 295
8:00 AM 15 21 2 38 20 13 5 38 1 80 9 90 1 73 16 90 256
Total 71 108 7 186 128 68 6 202 4 289 37 330 4 342 62 408 1126
Approach %38.2 58.1 3.8 -63.4 33.7 3.0 -1.2 87.6 11.2 -1.0 83.8 15.2 --
Total %6.3 9.6 0.6 16.5 11.4 6.0 0.5 17.9 0.4 25.7 3.3 29.3 0.4 30.4 5.5 36.2 -
PHF 0.807 0.931 0.875 0.877 0.711 0.850 0.300 0.777 0.500 0.903 0.617 0.917 1.000 0.910 0.912 0.927 0.954
Lights 67 104 7 178 125 61 4 190 4 274 36 314 3 329 56 388 1070
% Lights 94.4 96.3 100.0 95.7 97.7 89.7 66.7 94.1 100.0 94.8 97.3 95.2 75.0 96.2 90.3 95.1 95.0
Buses 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 6
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 16.7 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5
Trucks 4 4 0 8 1 7 1 9 0 13 1 14 1 12 6 19 50
% Trucks 5.6 3.7 0.0 4.3 0.8 10.3 16.7 4.5 0.0 4.5 2.7 4.2 25.0 3.5 9.7 4.7 4.4
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 4
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 7:15 AMEnding At07/16/2025 8:15 AM
LightsBusesTrucks
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
345 388 733
3 1 4
18 19 37
366 408 774
56 329 3
0 1 0
6 12 1
62 342 4
R T L
14
9 6 0 14
3
Ou
t
20
2 9 3 19
0
In
35
1
15 3 33
3
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 6 1 1 4
T 68 7 0 61
L 12
8 1 2 12
5
461 314 775
3 2 5
13 14 27
477 330 807
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R
4 274 36
0 2 0
0 13 1
4 289 37
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
29
9 0 21
32
0
In 17
8 0 8 18
6
Ou
t
12
1 0 13
13
4
67 0 4 71
L
10
4 0 4 10
8
T
7 0 0 7
R
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
4:15 PM 21 25 1 47 18 37 3 58 0 111 35 146 0 96 27 123 374
4:30 PM 22 11 2 35 16 38 1 55 1 148 62 211 1 102 33 136 437
4:45 PM 29 28 1 58 18 29 4 51 1 127 38 166 1 122 35 158 433
5:00 PM 22 23 1 46 14 29 1 44 1 118 20 139 2 118 24 144 373
Total 94 87 5 186 66 133 9 208 3 504 155 662 4 438 119 561 1617
Approach %50.5 46.8 2.7 -31.7 63.9 4.3 -0.5 76.1 23.4 -0.7 78.1 21.2 --
Total %5.8 5.4 0.3 11.5 4.1 8.2 0.6 12.9 0.2 31.2 9.6 40.9 0.2 27.1 7.4 34.7 -
PHF 0.810 0.777 0.625 0.802 0.917 0.875 0.563 0.897 0.750 0.851 0.625 0.784 0.500 0.898 0.850 0.888 0.925
Lights 89 84 5 178 64 130 9 203 3 497 155 655 4 423 118 545 1581
% Lights 94.7 96.6 100.0 95.7 97.0 97.7 100.0 97.6 100.0 98.6 100.0 98.9 100.0 96.6 99.2 97.1 97.8
Buses 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 6
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.4
Trucks 5 3 0 8 1 3 0 4 0 7 0 7 0 10 1 11 30
% Trucks 5.3 3.4 0.0 4.3 1.5 2.3 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.3 0.8 2.0 1.9
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 6
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 4:15 PMEnding At07/16/2025 5:15 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
595 545 1140
0 5 5
12 11 23
607 561 1168
118 423 4
0 5 0
1 10 0
119 438 4
R T L
24
6 3 0 24
3
Ou
t
20
8 4 1 20
3
In
45
4 7 1 44
6
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 9 0 0 9
T 13
3 3 0 13
0
L 66 1 1 64
492 655 1147
6 0 6
11 7 18
509 662 1171
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R
3 497 155
0 0 0
0 7 0
3 504 155
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
42
9 0 12
44
1
In 17
8 0 8 18
6
Ou
t
25
1 0 4 25
5
89 0 5 94
L
84 0 3 87
T
5 0 0 5
R
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Davidson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
Left Thru App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 0 39 39 34 1 35 2 0 2 76
7:15 AM 1 45 46 44 0 44 7 2 9 99
7:30 AM 0 38 38 55 4 59 5 1 6 103
7:45 AM 2 36 38 66 3 69 5 0 5 112
Hourly Total 3 158 161 199 8 207 19 3 22 390
8:00 AM 1 32 33 39 2 41 4 0 4 78
8:15 AM 0 27 27 35 3 38 2 2 4 69
8:30 AM 1 42 43 45 1 46 2 0 2 91
8:45 AM 2 37 39 33 0 33 1 0 1 73
Hourly Total 4 138 142 152 6 158 9 2 11 311
*** BREAK ***----------
4:00 PM 0 55 55 43 5 48 2 2 4 107
4:15 PM 1 58 59 65 5 70 3 0 3 132
4:30 PM 0 73 73 50 4 54 6 1 7 134
4:45 PM 2 72 74 51 4 55 12 0 12 141
Hourly Total 3 258 261 209 18 227 23 3 26 514
5:00 PM 0 43 43 42 6 48 4 1 5 96
5:15 PM 0 44 44 52 2 54 6 1 7 105
5:30 PM 4 28 32 51 1 52 2 2 4 88
5:45 PM 1 34 35 47 4 51 4 0 4 90
Hourly Total 5 149 154 192 13 205 16 4 20 379
Grand Total 15 703 718 752 45 797 67 12 79 1594
Approach %2.1 97.9 -94.4 5.6 -84.8 15.2 --
Total %0.9 44.1 45.0 47.2 2.8 50.0 4.2 0.8 5.0 -
Lights 15 686 701 726 43 769 64 12 76 1546
% Lights 100.0 97.6 97.6 96.5 95.6 96.5 95.5 100.0 96.2 97.0
Buses 0 0 0 4 1 5 1 0 1 6
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.2 0.6 1.5 0.0 1.3 0.4
Trucks 0 17 17 22 1 23 2 0 2 42
% Trucks 0.0 2.4 2.4 2.9 2.2 2.9 3.0 0.0 2.5 2.6
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 2
07/16/2025 7:00 AMEnding At07/16/2025 6:00 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
Davidson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
58 76 134
1 1 2
1 2 3
60 79 139
12 64
0 1
0 2
12 67
R L
77
0
19 1 75
0
Ou
t
79
7
23 5 76
9
In
15
6
7
42 6
15
1
9
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 45 1 1 43
T 75
2
22 4 72
6
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Out In Total
Fake Approach [NB]
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
14
3
9
4 39
14
8
2
In
70
1 0 17
71
8
Ou
t
73
8 4 22
76
4
15 0 0 15 L
68
6 0 17
70
3 T
Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Davidson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
Left Thru App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total
7:15 AM 1 45 46 44 0 44 7 2 9 99
7:30 AM 0 38 38 55 4 59 5 1 6 103
7:45 AM 2 36 38 66 3 69 5 0 5 112
8:00 AM 1 32 33 39 2 41 4 0 4 78
Total 4 151 155 204 9 213 21 3 24 392
Approach %2.6 97.4 -95.8 4.2 -87.5 12.5 --
Total %1.0 38.5 39.5 52.0 2.3 54.3 5.4 0.8 6.1 -
PHF 0.500 0.839 0.842 0.773 0.563 0.772 0.750 0.375 0.667 0.875
Lights 4 146 150 193 8 201 19 3 22 373
% Lights 100.0 96.7 96.8 94.6 88.9 94.4 90.5 100.0 91.7 95.2
Buses 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 4
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 11.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Trucks 0 5 5 8 0 8 2 0 2 15
% Trucks 0.0 3.3 3.2 3.9 0.0 3.8 9.5 0.0 8.3 3.8
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 4
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 7:15 AMEnding At07/16/2025 8:15 AM
LightsBusesTrucks
Davidson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
12 22 34
1 0 1
0 2 2
13 24 37
3 19
0 0
0 2
3 21
R L
17
2 7 0 16
5
Ou
t
21
3 8 4 20
1
In
38
5
15 4 36
6
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 9 0 1 8
T 20
4 8 3 19
3
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Out In Total
Fake Approach [NB]
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
34
6 3 13
36
2
In
15
0 0 5 15
5
Ou
t
19
6 3 8 20
7
4 0 0 4 L
14
6 0 5 15
1 T
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Davidson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
Left Thru App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total
4:00 PM 0 55 55 43 5 48 2 2 4 107
4:15 PM 1 58 59 65 5 70 3 0 3 132
4:30 PM 0 73 73 50 4 54 6 1 7 134
4:45 PM 2 72 74 51 4 55 12 0 12 141
Total 3 258 261 209 18 227 23 3 26 514
Approach %1.1 98.9 -92.1 7.9 -88.5 11.5 --
Total %0.6 50.2 50.8 40.7 3.5 44.2 4.5 0.6 5.1 -
PHF 0.375 0.884 0.882 0.804 0.900 0.811 0.479 0.375 0.542 0.911
Lights 3 254 257 205 18 223 22 3 25 505
% Lights 100.0 98.4 98.5 98.1 100.0 98.2 95.7 100.0 96.2 98.2
Buses 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 4.3 0.0 3.8 0.4
Trucks 0 4 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 7
% Trucks 0.0 1.6 1.5 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 6
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 4:00 PMEnding At07/16/2025 5:00 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
Davidson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
21 25 46
0 1 1
0 0 0
21 26 47
3 22
0 1
0 0
3 23
R L
28
1 4 1 27
6
Ou
t
22
7 3 1 22
3
In
50
8 7 2 49
9
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 18 0 0 18
T 20
9 3 1 20
5
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Out In Total
Fake Approach [NB]
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
46
5 1 7 47
3
In
25
7 0 4 26
1
Ou
t
20
8 1 3 21
2
3 0 0 3 L
25
4 0 4 25
8 T
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Edmondson Ave Edmondson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 1 36 2 39 12 30 0 42 0 11 5 16 2 11 0 13 110
7:15 AM 2 46 7 55 9 43 0 52 0 7 10 17 2 6 1 9 133
7:30 AM 0 38 4 42 9 49 1 59 6 9 11 26 1 4 4 9 136
7:45 AM 0 34 7 41 8 66 1 75 3 11 14 28 1 5 3 9 153
Hourly Total 3 154 20 177 38 188 2 228 9 38 40 87 6 26 8 40 532
8:00 AM 0 29 5 34 8 34 2 44 4 6 11 21 1 6 3 10 109
8:15 AM 0 27 4 31 4 35 0 39 1 7 5 13 1 5 1 7 90
8:30 AM 1 38 4 43 10 41 0 51 1 10 6 17 4 7 2 13 124
8:45 AM 1 36 3 40 4 29 1 34 5 8 6 19 1 8 1 10 103
Hourly Total 2 130 16 148 26 139 3 168 11 31 28 70 7 26 7 40 426
*** BREAK ***-----------------
4:00 PM 5 55 6 66 14 45 2 61 6 20 7 33 1 14 2 17 177
4:15 PM 1 52 4 57 13 58 2 73 6 23 9 38 0 15 2 17 185
4:30 PM 1 72 3 76 20 50 2 72 5 17 18 40 0 14 4 18 206
4:45 PM 2 73 14 89 16 43 2 61 6 24 9 39 1 10 1 12 201
Hourly Total 9 252 27 288 63 196 8 267 23 84 43 150 2 53 9 64 769
5:00 PM 1 41 5 47 15 42 2 59 6 18 17 41 0 11 3 14 161
5:15 PM 1 44 6 51 14 49 3 66 3 20 9 32 0 15 0 15 164
5:30 PM 0 26 4 30 7 53 0 60 1 16 13 30 3 8 0 11 131
5:45 PM 1 35 2 38 6 42 1 49 3 11 8 22 1 11 1 13 122
Hourly Total 3 146 17 166 42 186 6 234 13 65 47 125 4 45 4 53 578
Grand Total 17 682 80 779 169 709 19 897 56 218 158 432 19 150 28 197 2305
Approach %2.2 87.5 10.3 -18.8 79.0 2.1 -13.0 50.5 36.6 -9.6 76.1 14.2 --
Total %0.7 29.6 3.5 33.8 7.3 30.8 0.8 38.9 2.4 9.5 6.9 18.7 0.8 6.5 1.2 8.5 -
Lights 17 665 77 759 166 685 19 870 52 218 155 425 19 147 26 192 2246
% Lights 100.0 97.5 96.3 97.4 98.2 96.6 100.0 97.0 92.9 100.0 98.1 98.4 100.0 98.0 92.9 97.5 97.4
Buses 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 4 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 8
% Buses 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.3
Trucks 0 17 2 19 3 20 0 23 2 0 3 5 0 2 2 4 51
% Trucks 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.4 1.8 2.8 0.0 2.6 3.6 0.0 1.9 1.2 0.0 1.3 7.1 2.0 2.2
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 2
07/16/2025 7:00 AMEnding At07/16/2025 6:00 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
Edmondson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
254 192 446
0 1 1
0 4 4
254 197 451
26 147 19
0 1 0
2 2 0
28 150 19
R T L
85
9
20 0 83
9
Ou
t
89
7
23 4 87
0
In
17
5
6
43 4
17
0
9
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 19 0 0 19
T 70
9
20 4 68
5
L 16
9 3 0 16
6
390 425 815
2 2 4
7 5 12
399 432 831
Out In Total
Edmondson Ave [NB]
L T R
52 218 155
2 0 0
2 0 3
56 218 158
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
15
2
2
7 43
15
7
2
In
75
9 1 19
77
9
Ou
t
76
3 6 24
79
3
17 0 0 17 L
66
5 0 17
68
2 T
77 1 2 80 R
Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Edmondson Ave Edmondson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 1 36 2 39 12 30 0 42 0 11 5 16 2 11 0 13 110
7:15 AM 2 46 7 55 9 43 0 52 0 7 10 17 2 6 1 9 133
7:30 AM 0 38 4 42 9 49 1 59 6 9 11 26 1 4 4 9 136
7:45 AM 0 34 7 41 8 66 1 75 3 11 14 28 1 5 3 9 153
Total 3 154 20 177 38 188 2 228 9 38 40 87 6 26 8 40 532
Approach %1.7 87.0 11.3 -16.7 82.5 0.9 -10.3 43.7 46.0 -15.0 65.0 20.0 --
Total %0.6 28.9 3.8 33.3 7.1 35.3 0.4 42.9 1.7 7.1 7.5 16.4 1.1 4.9 1.5 7.5 -
PHF 0.375 0.837 0.714 0.805 0.792 0.712 0.500 0.760 0.375 0.864 0.714 0.777 0.750 0.591 0.500 0.769 0.869
Lights 3 147 18 168 37 183 2 222 8 38 39 85 6 25 7 38 513
% Lights 100.0 95.5 90.0 94.9 97.4 97.3 100.0 97.4 88.9 100.0 97.5 97.7 100.0 96.2 87.5 95.0 96.4
Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Trucks 0 7 2 9 1 5 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 18
% Trucks 0.0 4.5 10.0 5.1 2.6 2.7 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.1 0.0 3.8 12.5 5.0 3.4
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 4
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 7:00 AMEnding At07/16/2025 8:00 AM
LightsBusesTrucks
Edmondson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
43 38 81
0 0 0
0 2 2
43 40 83
7 25 6
0 0 0
1 1 0
8 26 6
R T L
20
0 8 0 19
2
Ou
t
22
8 6 0 22
2
In
42
8
14 0 41
4
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 2 0 0 2
T 18
8 5 0 18
3
L 38 1 0 37
80 85 165
0 1 1
4 1 5
84 87 171
Out In Total
Edmondson Ave [NB]
L T R
8 38 39
1 0 0
0 0 1
9 38 40
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
36
6 1 15
38
2
In 16
8 0 9 17
7
Ou
t
19
8 1 6 20
5
3 0 0 3 L
14
7 0 7 15
4
T
18 0 2 20
R
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Edmondson Ave Edmondson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
4:00 PM 5 55 6 66 14 45 2 61 6 20 7 33 1 14 2 17 177
4:15 PM 1 52 4 57 13 58 2 73 6 23 9 38 0 15 2 17 185
4:30 PM 1 72 3 76 20 50 2 72 5 17 18 40 0 14 4 18 206
4:45 PM 2 73 14 89 16 43 2 61 6 24 9 39 1 10 1 12 201
Total 9 252 27 288 63 196 8 267 23 84 43 150 2 53 9 64 769
Approach %3.1 87.5 9.4 -23.6 73.4 3.0 -15.3 56.0 28.7 -3.1 82.8 14.1 --
Total %1.2 32.8 3.5 37.5 8.2 25.5 1.0 34.7 3.0 10.9 5.6 19.5 0.3 6.9 1.2 8.3 -
PHF 0.450 0.863 0.482 0.809 0.788 0.845 1.000 0.914 0.958 0.875 0.597 0.938 0.500 0.883 0.563 0.889 0.933
Lights 9 247 26 282 61 191 8 260 22 84 43 149 2 51 9 62 753
% Lights 100.0 98.0 96.3 97.9 96.8 97.4 100.0 97.4 95.7 100.0 100.0 99.3 100.0 96.2 100.0 96.9 97.9
Buses 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 4
% Buses 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.6 0.5
Trucks 0 5 0 5 2 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 12
% Trucks 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.7 3.2 2.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.6 1.6
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 6
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 4:00 PMEnding At07/16/2025 5:00 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
Edmondson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
101 62 163
0 1 1
0 1 1
101 64 165
9 51 2
0 1 0
0 1 0
9 53 2
R T L
29
7 5 0 29
2
Ou
t
26
7 6 1 26
0
In
56
4
11 1 55
2
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 8 0 0 8
T 19
6 4 1 19
1
L 63 2 0 61
138 149 287
2 1 3
3 0 3
143 150 293
Out In Total
Edmondson Ave [NB]
L T R
22 84 43
1 0 0
0 0 0
23 84 43
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
50
4 3 9 51
6
In 28
2 1 5 28
8
Ou
t
22
2 2 4 22
8
9 0 0 9 L
24
7 0 5 25
2
T
26 1 0 27
R
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
File Name : Fallon Ave & School Blvd
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 4/8/2025
Page No : 1
Fallon Ave & School Blvd
6am to 7pm
vehicles, heavy trucks, peds, bikes
Monticello, MN
Groups Printed- vehicles & peds - heavy trucks & bikes
Fallon Ave
From North From East
Fallon Ave
From South From West
Start Time Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Int. Total
06:00 AM 4 2 1 0 7 4 3 0 0 7 5 3 0 0 8 1 21 5 0 27 49
06:15 AM 0 4 0 0 4 1 4 1 0 6 11 9 3 0 23 2 29 4 0 35 68
06:30 AM 0 2 5 0 7 3 7 8 0 18 11 13 2 0 26 2 30 2 0 34 85
06:45 AM 3 2 5 0 10 9 14 4 0 27 17 9 2 0 28 1 31 8 0 40 105
Total 7 10 11 0 28 17 28 13 0 58 44 34 7 0 85 6 111 19 0 136 307
07:00 AM 2 6 7 0 15 15 23 3 0 41 13 14 2 0 29 4 33 12 0 49 134
07:15 AM 3 8 18 0 29 26 24 4 0 54 20 20 4 0 44 4 44 12 0 60 187
07:30 AM 9 8 25 32 74 29 27 11 0 67 20 30 2 0 52 1 41 37 19 98 291
07:45 AM 6 13 25 4 48 41 51 13 0 105 30 16 2 0 48 2 70 25 3 100 301
Total 20 35 75 36 166 111 125 31 0 267 83 80 10 0 173 11 188 86 22 307 913
08:00 AM 6 15 18 2 41 29 34 10 0 73 24 9 2 0 35 1 66 7 2 76 225
08:15 AM 6 3 8 1 18 8 26 1 0 35 5 9 2 0 16 4 37 5 0 46 115
08:30 AM 5 9 3 0 17 2 23 5 0 30 7 7 3 0 17 1 22 3 0 26 90
08:45 AM 7 6 5 0 18 12 23 1 0 36 6 4 1 0 11 2 26 3 0 31 96
Total 24 33 34 3 94 51 106 17 0 174 42 29 8 0 79 8 151 18 2 179 526
09:00 AM 7 3 8 1 19 3 20 4 0 27 5 7 2 0 14 3 19 4 0 26 86
09:15 AM 7 10 3 0 20 8 22 4 0 34 2 5 1 0 8 0 24 6 0 30 92
09:30 AM 7 6 2 0 15 2 13 5 0 20 3 9 2 1 15 4 20 8 0 32 82
09:45 AM 4 5 5 0 14 8 17 3 0 28 5 9 1 1 16 1 19 7 1 28 86
Total 25 24 18 1 68 21 72 16 0 109 15 30 6 2 53 8 82 25 1 116 346
10:00 AM 14 10 6 0 30 3 20 3 0 26 7 9 1 0 17 3 25 5 1 34 107
10:15 AM 8 9 4 0 21 4 28 0 0 32 8 8 0 3 19 3 24 6 5 38 110
10:30 AM 14 7 6 0 27 9 36 4 0 49 7 10 4 0 21 1 26 12 0 39 136
10:45 AM 11 6 3 0 20 4 31 1 0 36 1 6 4 0 11 1 27 7 0 35 102
Total 47 32 19 0 98 20 115 8 0 143 23 33 9 3 68 8 102 30 6 146 455
11:00 AM 8 5 4 1 18 4 33 3 0 40 3 3 1 0 7 4 22 7 0 33 98
11:15 AM 14 11 8 0 33 5 32 5 0 42 3 7 3 0 13 4 32 14 0 50 138
11:30 AM 12 9 6 0 27 7 37 3 0 47 6 4 1 0 11 4 29 8 0 41 126
11:45 AM 16 10 4 1 31 15 51 9 0 75 2 11 2 0 15 3 34 12 0 49 170
Total 50 35 22 2 109 31 153 20 0 204 14 25 7 0 46 15 117 41 0 173 532
12:00 PM 15 9 5 0 29 6 48 2 0 56 8 9 3 0 20 2 35 11 0 48 153
12:15 PM 11 10 6 0 27 5 42 1 0 48 2 5 5 0 12 1 35 11 0 47 134
12:30 PM 15 8 4 0 27 11 24 1 0 36 10 4 7 0 21 4 36 15 0 55 139
12:45 PM 11 10 5 0 26 9 55 8 0 72 7 9 3 1 20 5 37 10 0 52 170
Total 52 37 20 0 109 31 169 12 0 212 27 27 18 1 73 12 143 47 0 202 596
01:00 PM 13 8 10 0 31 6 39 7 0 52 3 5 1 0 9 2 26 12 0 40 132
01:15 PM 15 7 5 2 29 11 35 7 0 53 5 9 0 0 14 2 42 15 0 59 155
01:30 PM 12 13 9 1 35 7 26 9 0 42 4 5 3 1 13 3 35 10 0 48 138
01:45 PM 14 9 19 2 44 11 39 10 0 60 5 19 5 3 32 4 44 17 0 65 201
Total 54 37 43 5 139 35 139 33 0 207 17 38 9 4 68 11 147 54 0 212 626
02:00 PM 18 4 14 0 36 20 42 9 0 71 5 12 4 1 22 3 39 18 0 60 189
02:15 PM 23 19 15 38 95 32 41 5 0 78 7 11 5 0 23 7 34 18 19 78 274
02:30 PM 14 22 11 2 49 4 44 3 0 51 3 9 3 1 16 0 42 10 2 54 170
02:45 PM 16 15 17 1 49 7 57 15 0 79 8 10 3 0 21 8 39 13 1 61 210
Total 71 60 57 41 229 63 184 32 0 279 23 42 15 2 82 18 154 59 22 253 843
03:00 PM 17 19 15 11 62 24 73 29 0 126 9 12 3 1 25 3 60 14 3 80 293
03:15 PM 17 15 10 3 45 11 66 6 0 83 6 8 7 0 21 3 41 13 0 57 206
03:30 PM 22 20 7 3 52 11 42 11 0 64 5 10 4 0 19 7 30 9 2 48 183
03:45 PM 23 15 4 2 44 9 54 10 0 73 3 12 7 2 24 6 41 7 1 55 196
Total 79 69 36 19 203 55 235 56 0 346 23 42 21 3 89 19 172 43 6 240 878
04:00 PM 21 10 11 3 45 10 63 7 0 80 12 8 6 0 26 8 61 15 1 85 236
04:15 PM 16 19 13 0 48 13 68 14 0 95 9 17 3 1 30 8 47 10 2 67 240
04:30 PM 30 29 11 0 70 9 66 6 0 81 4 9 5 2 20 11 54 5 2 72 243
04:45 PM 17 24 9 3 53 16 66 16 0 98 10 17 5 5 37 3 70 13 1 87 275
Total 84 82 44 6 216 48 263 43 0 354 35 51 19 8 113 30 232 43 6 311 994
wsb
701 Xenia Ave S, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
File Name : Fallon Ave & School Blvd
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 4/8/2025
Page No : 2
Fallon Ave & School Blvd
6am to 7pm
vehicles, heavy trucks, peds, bikes
Monticello, MN
Groups Printed- vehicles & peds - heavy trucks & bikes
Fallon Ave
From North From East
Fallon Ave
From South From West
Start Time Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Int. Total
05:00 PM 23 14 13 1 51 13 54 12 0 79 10 8 6 2 26 6 62 13 1 82 238
05:15 PM 25 20 6 1 52 8 82 16 0 106 7 18 9 1 35 8 59 10 0 77 270
05:30 PM 11 12 6 0 29 8 59 12 0 79 9 11 6 0 26 7 48 9 1 65 199
05:45 PM 9 14 20 2 45 18 78 12 0 108 12 12 6 2 32 7 57 10 2 76 261
Total 68 60 45 4 177 47 273 52 0 372 38 49 27 5 119 28 226 42 4 300 968
06:00 PM 16 13 8 4 41 10 67 12 0 89 6 14 6 0 26 5 46 9 4 64 220
06:15 PM 14 11 9 3 37 11 80 11 0 102 3 11 2 4 20 2 58 12 1 73 232
06:30 PM 15 8 12 2 37 3 47 5 0 55 8 7 5 1 21 12 42 9 0 63 176
06:45 PM 11 9 5 0 25 11 51 6 0 68 6 10 5 1 22 5 49 4 3 61 176
Total 56 41 34 9 140 35 245 34 0 314 23 42 18 6 89 24 195 34 8 261 804
Grand Total 637 555 458 126 1776 565 2107 367 0 3039 407 522 174 34 1137 198 2020 541 77 2836 8788
Apprch %35.9 31.2 25.8 7.1 18.6 69.3 12.1 0 35.8 45.9 15.3 3 7 71.2 19.1 2.7
Total %7.2 6.3 5.2 1.4 20.2 6.4 24 4.2 0 34.6 4.6 5.9 2 0.4 12.9 2.3 23 6.2 0.9 32.3
vehicles & peds 637 554 457 98 1746 564 2106 367 0 3037 407 522 174 19 1122 198 2020 541 60 2819 8724
% vehicles & peds 100 99.8 99.8 77.8 98.3 99.8 100 100 0 99.9 100 100 100 55.9 98.7 100 100 100 77.9 99.4 99.3
heavy trucks & bikes 0 1 1 28 30 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 17 17 64
% heavy trucks & bikes 0 0.2 0.2 22.2 1.7 0.2 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 44.1 1.3 0 0 0 22.1 0.6 0.7
wsb
701 Xenia Ave S, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
File Name : Fallon Ave & School Blvd
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 4/8/2025
Page No : 3
Fallon Ave & School Blvd
6am to 7pm
vehicles, heavy trucks, peds, bikes
Monticello, MN
Fallon Ave
From North From East
Fallon Ave
From South From West
Start Time Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 3 8 18 0 29 26 24 4 0 54 20 20 4 0 44 4 44 12 0 60 187
07:30 AM 9 8 25 32 74 29 27 11 0 67 20 30 2 0 52 1 41 37 19 98 291
07:45 AM 6 13 25 4 48 41 51 13 0 105 30 16 2 0 48 2 70 25 3 100 301
08:00 AM 6 15 18 2 41 29 34 10 0 73 24 9 2 0 35 1 66 7 2 76 225
Total Volume 24 44 86 38 192 125 136 38 0 299 94 75 10 0 179 8 221 81 24 334 1004
% App. Total 12.5 22.9 44.8 19.8 41.8 45.5 12.7 0 52.5 41.9 5.6 0 2.4 66.2 24.3 7.2
PHF .667 .733 .860 .297 .649 .762 .667 .731 .000 .712 .783 .625 .625 .000 .861 .500 .789 .547 .316 .835 .834
Fallon Ave
Fallon Ave
Right
24
Thru
44
Left
86
Peds
38
InOut Total
281 192 473
Ri
g
h
t
12
5
Th
r
u
13
6
Le
f
t
38
Pe
d
s
0
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
40
1
29
9
70
0
Left
10
Thru
75
Right
94
Peds
0
Out TotalIn
90 179 269
Le
f
t
81
Th
r
u
22
1
Ri
g
h
t
8
Pe
d
s
24
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
17
0
33
4
50
4
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
vehicles & peds
heavy trucks & bikes
Peak Hour Data
North
wsb
701 Xenia Ave S, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
File Name : Fallon Ave & School Blvd
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 4/8/2025
Page No : 4
Fallon Ave & School Blvd
6am to 7pm
vehicles, heavy trucks, peds, bikes
Monticello, MN
Fallon Ave
From North From East
Fallon Ave
From South From West
Start Time Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:00 PM
01:00 PM 13 8 10 0 31 6 39 7 0 52 3 5 1 0 9 2 26 12 0 40 132
01:15 PM 15 7 5 2 29 11 35 7 0 53 5 9 0 0 14 2 42 15 0 59 155
01:30 PM 12 13 9 1 35 7 26 9 0 42 4 5 3 1 13 3 35 10 0 48 138
01:45 PM 14 9 19 2 44 11 39 10 0 60 5 19 5 3 32 4 44 17 0 65 201
Total Volume 54 37 43 5 139 35 139 33 0 207 17 38 9 4 68 11 147 54 0 212 626
% App. Total 38.8 26.6 30.9 3.6 16.9 67.1 15.9 0 25 55.9 13.2 5.9 5.2 69.3 25.5 0
PHF .900 .712 .566 .625 .790 .795 .891 .825 .000 .863 .850 .500 .450 .333 .531 .688 .835 .794 .000 .815 .779
Fallon Ave
Fallon Ave
Right
54
Thru
37
Left
43
Peds
5
InOut Total
127 139 266
Ri
g
h
t
35
Th
r
u
13
9
Le
f
t
33
Pe
d
s
0
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
20
7
20
7
41
4
Left
9
Thru
38
Right
17
Peds
4
Out TotalIn
81 68 149
Le
f
t
54
Th
r
u
14
7
Ri
g
h
t
11
Pe
d
s
0
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
20
2
21
2
41
4
Peak Hour Begins at 01:00 PM
vehicles & peds
heavy trucks & bikes
Peak Hour Data
North
wsb
701 Xenia Ave S, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
File Name : Fallon Ave & School Blvd
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 4/8/2025
Page No : 5
Fallon Ave & School Blvd
6am to 7pm
vehicles, heavy trucks, peds, bikes
Monticello, MN
Fallon Ave
From North From East
Fallon Ave
From South From West
Start Time Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 30 29 11 0 70 9 66 6 0 81 4 9 5 2 20 11 54 5 2 72 243
04:45 PM 17 24 9 3 53 16 66 16 0 98 10 17 5 5 37 3 70 13 1 87 275
05:00 PM 23 14 13 1 51 13 54 12 0 79 10 8 6 2 26 6 62 13 1 82 238
05:15 PM 25 20 6 1 52 8 82 16 0 106 7 18 9 1 35 8 59 10 0 77 270
Total Volume 95 87 39 5 226 46 268 50 0 364 31 52 25 10 118 28 245 41 4 318 1026
% App. Total 42 38.5 17.3 2.2 12.6 73.6 13.7 0 26.3 44.1 21.2 8.5 8.8 77 12.9 1.3
PHF .792 .750 .750 .417 .807 .719 .817 .781 .000 .858 .775 .722 .694 .500 .797 .636 .875 .788 .500 .914 .933
Fallon Ave
Fallon Ave
Right
95
Thru
87
Left
39
Peds
5
InOut Total
139 226 365
Ri
g
h
t
46
Th
r
u
26
8
Le
f
t
50
Pe
d
s
0
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
31
5
36
4
67
9
Left
25
Thru
52
Right
31
Peds
10
Out TotalIn
165 118 283
Le
f
t
41
Th
r
u
24
5
Ri
g
h
t
28
Pe
d
s
4
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
38
8
31
8
70
6
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
vehicles & peds
heavy trucks & bikes
Peak Hour Data
North
wsb
701 Xenia Ave S, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
October 2025
32
Appendix C:
Development Scenario Concepts
Development Scenario 1
Development Scenario 2
33 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix D:
Existing Year (2025) SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.4 4.0 1.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.3 3.2
Total Del/Veh (s)33.0 25.1 2.5 30.3 31.4 2.6 3.6 2.5 0.3 5.8 8.3 1.2
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)8.0
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.4 7.0 1.3 3.7 7.7 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.0
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)10.3 13.1 4.0 13.1 13.2 7.4 16.4 8.9 2.4 20.7 10.4 3.8
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)10.2
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.8 4.5 1.5 1.1 3.2 0.0 2.0 2.9
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.2 2.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.2 2.2 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.6 4.9 11.4 3.0 3.3 5.1 2.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)2.7
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.2 0.0 2.9 0.9 0.0 1.4 0.6 0.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)20.8
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 100 34 73 33 12 46 68 2 27 145 41 26
Average Queue (ft)43 2 16 10 1 7 10 0 3 54 4 2
95th Queue (ft)84 15 47 31 5 28 38 1 16 114 30 13
Link Distance (ft)910 3490 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)35 39
Average Queue (ft)18 19
95th Queue (ft)41 42
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: MN 25 & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT LT R L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 120 152 25 16 92 21 22 119 33
Average Queue (ft)51 60 1 1 31 2 2 49 4
95th Queue (ft)92 111 18 8 70 11 11 104 18
Link Distance (ft)1468 4207 1187 3330
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)100 500 500 500 500
Storage Blk Time (%)1 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)25 51
Average Queue (ft)1 13
95th Queue (ft)9 38
Link Distance (ft)4207 4515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)8 24 64 43
Average Queue (ft)0 3 30 19
95th Queue (ft)5 15 49 43
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)25 41
Average Queue (ft)6 4
95th Queue (ft)21 22
Link Distance (ft)1109 220
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.1 0.2 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.4 3.1
Total Del/Veh (s)60.3 52.8 2.4 55.1 43.6 2.7 4.1 2.6 0.5 6.5 7.9 1.6
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)9.0
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.5 4.7 2.0 4.4 9.0 2.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.2
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.2
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)18.2 19.2 4.7 17.2 19.3 5.3 20.9 11.5 3.0 25.6 12.9 5.2
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)12.2
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 3.2 1.6 1.5 4.2 0.0 2.6 2.5
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 3.4 0.3 3.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 3.0 2.1 1.4 1.1 0.3 8.5 13.1 4.2 4.7 4.8 2.6
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.8 3.5 0.7 0.0 2.7 0.6 0.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)24.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 131 55 60 95 33 80 94 8 28 149 128 7
Average Queue (ft)45 11 16 31 6 11 17 0 6 63 12 1
95th Queue (ft)99 37 45 76 22 47 59 4 21 123 55 4
Link Distance (ft)910 3490 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)48 52 25 28
Average Queue (ft)21 26 2 2
95th Queue (ft)46 46 12 15
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: MN 25 & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT LT R L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 143 169 23 16 179 53 16 180 52
Average Queue (ft)62 70 1 2 69 7 1 61 10
95th Queue (ft)115 126 17 9 143 24 8 136 33
Link Distance (ft)1468 4207 1187 3330
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)100 500 500 500 500
Storage Blk Time (%)2 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)19 47
Average Queue (ft)1 16
95th Queue (ft)8 41
Link Distance (ft)4207 4534
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 3 35 80 72
Average Queue (ft)1 0 7 37 28
95th Queue (ft)8 2 26 63 55
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)37 81
Average Queue (ft)9 8
95th Queue (ft)26 42
Link Distance (ft)1096 188
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.5 0.3 0.3 3.7 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)7.3 12.0 7.0 7.1 10.6 5.9 7.5 9.3 6.2 7.2 8.2 5.0
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)8.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)11.0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)48 136 95 122 112 94
Average Queue (ft)9 64 43 52 51 45
95th Queue (ft)35 108 75 93 87 74
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.4 0.3 3.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 11.4 5.8 7.1 11.8 6.7 6.5 8.1 4.3 7.5 8.7 5.3
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)9.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)11.9
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)39 105 48 122 71 105
Average Queue (ft)20 57 24 64 38 51
95th Queue (ft)43 89 45 103 61 82
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
34
Appendix E:
Opening Year (2030) No-Build
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.3 3.9 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.3 3.3
Total Del/Veh (s)33.4 32.6 2.8 26.8 28.4 2.5 7.7 2.7 0.4 6.5 8.9 1.4
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)8.4
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 6.8 1.5 3.3 7.7 1.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)13.5 15.0 4.5 14.7 16.9 5.0 18.7 9.3 2.6 19.8 11.1 4.2
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)11.3
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.3 4.8 1.7 1.5 3.9 0.0 1.4 3.0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.3 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1 2.3 2.0 1.1 0.9 0.1 5.6 11.7 2.6 5.7 5.6 2.0
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.1 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.1 2.2 0.7 0.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)22.5
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 106 39 66 39 6 44 70 12 36 143 96 16
Average Queue (ft)49 7 17 9 0 9 13 0 5 59 7 1
95th Queue (ft)93 29 47 32 3 32 49 8 22 115 44 8
Link Distance (ft)910 3490 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)47 40 8
Average Queue (ft)21 19 0
95th Queue (ft)44 41 4
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: MN 25 & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT LT L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 135 157 16 100 20 17 149 29
Average Queue (ft)60 75 2 36 2 1 58 5
95th Queue (ft)107 132 10 82 12 7 128 19
Link Distance (ft)1468 4207 1187 3330
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)500 500 500 500
Storage Blk Time (%)2 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft)52
Average Queue (ft)15
95th Queue (ft)40
Link Distance (ft)4515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 6 26 53 52
Average Queue (ft)1 0 5 27 23
95th Queue (ft)7 3 20 44 44
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)19 59
Average Queue (ft)7 7
95th Queue (ft)21 35
Link Distance (ft)1109 220
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.4 4.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.4 2.9
Total Del/Veh (s)64.2 59.2 3.2 51.3 51.4 2.7 5.0 3.0 0.5 6.8 8.3 1.7
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)9.6
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.6 5.7 1.5 4.6 9.2 2.4 0.8 1.1 0.1 1.0 0.8 0.1
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.4
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)20.4 20.5 4.6 19.4 19.3 5.7 30.1 12.7 3.5 18.0 13.8 5.6
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)13.3
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 3.0 1.8 1.2 4.6 0.0 1.4 2.5
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.4 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 3.2 1.8 1.6 1.3 0.1 9.8 14.4 5.1 8.7 5.2 3.9
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)4.4
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.7 4.3 0.7 0.0 4.0 1.1 1.0
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)26.4
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 119 59 66 97 36 78 98 5 22 185 110 22
Average Queue (ft)49 12 17 41 7 12 22 0 5 73 10 3
95th Queue (ft)100 40 49 83 21 49 70 2 18 142 47 12
Link Distance (ft)910 3490 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)43 58 37 20
Average Queue (ft)24 29 2 2
95th Queue (ft)44 50 17 13
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: MN 25 & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT LT R L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 136 180 50 18 222 41 10 230 46
Average Queue (ft)72 74 2 2 79 10 1 78 11
95th Queue (ft)119 137 27 11 158 29 6 166 33
Link Distance (ft)1468 4207 1187 3330
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)100 500 500 500 500
Storage Blk Time (%)3 4 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 46
Average Queue (ft)1 18
95th Queue (ft)7 40
Link Distance (ft)4207 4534
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)12 3 41 87 67
Average Queue (ft)1 0 11 42 30
95th Queue (ft)9 2 31 72 53
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)38 124
Average Queue (ft)10 17
95th Queue (ft)27 70
Link Distance (ft)1096 188
Upstream Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.8 0.3 0.4 3.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 13.7 8.4 7.5 10.8 6.3 8.7 9.8 6.6 7.6 9.5 5.7
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)9.6
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)11.8
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)53 139 96 101 143 97
Average Queue (ft)10 72 47 55 56 48
95th Queue (ft)37 119 82 88 100 82
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.4 0.4 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)7.2 12.2 7.2 7.8 12.4 7.3 7.5 8.4 5.1 8.0 9.7 5.6
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)10.0
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)12.5
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)47 120 57 129 80 113
Average Queue (ft)22 61 29 67 41 58
95th Queue (ft)46 98 50 109 67 91
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 18
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 210 513 144 908 0.2312
2 NB MN 25 None 352 205 518 1064 0.3308
3 WB CSAH 37 None 211 386 171 973 0.2170
4 SB MN 25 None 443 214 383 1059 0.4181
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 4.80 4.80 0.80 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 4.66 4.66 1.29 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 4.41 4.41 0.74 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 5.32 5.32 1.87 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 18
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1216 1216
Capacity veh/hr 4004 4004
Average Delay sec/veh 4.88 4.88
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.65 1.65
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 23
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 195 529 277 900 0.2166
2 NB MN 25 None 745 192 532 1071 0.6959
3 WB CSAH 37 None 226 673 264 828 0.2731
4 SB MN 25 None 588 218 681 1057 0.5561
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 4.75 4.75 0.76 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 9.33 9.33 6.02 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 5.54 5.54 1.05 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 6.80 6.80 3.36 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 23
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1754 1754
Capacity veh/hr 3856 3856
Average Delay sec/veh 7.49 7.49
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.65 3.65
35 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix F:
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.2 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.4 3.2
Total Del/Veh (s)30.7 22.2 2.7 30.5 25.0 3.2 1.3 4.0 0.5 7.6 10.0 1.4
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)8.9
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 8.5 2.3 4.3 8.6 2.5 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.0
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.9
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 4.6 1.8 1.1 4.2 0.2 1.6 3.0
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 0.4 3.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.9 2.7 1.8 1.2 1.0 0.2 4.5 11.9 3.2 5.8 6.5 3.1
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)12.5 0.1 2.2 0.9 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.6
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 1.2 3.2 2.6 5.3 3.3 2.8
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 2.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.1 1.3
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)213.8
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft)99 30 72 39 6 74 87 16 82 146 79 19
Average Queue (ft)44 6 25 9 0 14 20 1 21 69 6 2
95th Queue (ft)83 24 59 33 4 43 62 6 56 127 42 9
Link Distance (ft)910 2183 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)56 59 20 4
Average Queue (ft)27 29 1 0
95th Queue (ft)48 49 7 3
Link Distance (ft)2347 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)9 49
Average Queue (ft)1 15
95th Queue (ft)8 40
Link Distance (ft)4207 4515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 31 69 73
Average Queue (ft)1 4 28 30
95th Queue (ft)8 20 52 54
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft)19 32
Average Queue (ft)5 4
95th Queue (ft)18 21
Link Distance (ft)1104 220
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)42 55
Average Queue (ft)3 33
95th Queue (ft)20 50
Link Distance (ft)2347 880
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)57 25
Average Queue (ft)28 3
95th Queue (ft)46 17
Link Distance (ft)825 1968
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.3 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.4 3.0
Total Del/Veh (s)68.7 43.9 2.8 57.1 52.2 3.3 6.1 4.0 0.7 6.2 8.7 1.8
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)10.4
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.9 7.9 2.6 5.3 9.5 3.2 0.9 1.4 0.3 0.8 1.1 0.3
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.9
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 3.0 1.9 1.5 4.5 0.0 1.4 2.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.4 3.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0 3.0 1.9 1.5 1.3 0.3 10.3 14.5 5.0 9.5 5.7 4.8
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)4.5
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)10.5 5.2 0.8 0.1 4.4 0.3 0.7
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1.4 1.1 2.8 2.7 5.6 3.3 3.1
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 3.3 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.3 1.6
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)139.4
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 128 49 108 110 35 97 112 8 37 162 126 16
Average Queue (ft)53 12 35 38 7 20 33 1 11 75 19 2
95th Queue (ft)108 38 84 85 24 63 93 4 29 144 76 8
Link Distance (ft)910 2180 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)54 58 31 24
Average Queue (ft)30 32 3 1
95th Queue (ft)48 48 17 10
Link Distance (ft)2349 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)20 42
Average Queue (ft)1 15
95th Queue (ft)9 38
Link Distance (ft)4207 4534
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)27 9 1 31 84 83
Average Queue (ft)3 0 0 9 42 40
95th Queue (ft)15 6 1 27 74 69
Link Distance (ft)4079 604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR T L
Maximum Queue (ft)55 4 34
Average Queue (ft)12 0 6
95th Queue (ft)34 0 26
Link Distance (ft)1090 364 188
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)20 63
Average Queue (ft)1 35
95th Queue (ft)10 55
Link Distance (ft)2349 1028
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)77 25
Average Queue (ft)33 2
95th Queue (ft)55 11
Link Distance (ft)904 1969
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.5 0.3 0.3 3.6 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.8 15.0 9.4 9.0 11.9 6.7 11.1 11.2 8.2 7.7 9.9 5.6
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)10.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)13.0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)53 196 105 125 155 104
Average Queue (ft)9 80 57 59 65 48
95th Queue (ft)35 146 93 97 115 83
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.5 0.4 0.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)7.5 13.1 8.1 7.8 12.7 7.8 7.7 9.0 5.5 8.4 10.1 5.8
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)10.4
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)12.9
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)47 130 58 142 94 105
Average Queue (ft)20 70 31 68 47 59
95th Queue (ft)45 111 53 113 75 91
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1
Run number 16
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 210 535 144 897 0.2340
2 NB MN 25 None 379 205 540 1064 0.3562
3 WB CSAH 37 None 218 404 180 963 0.2263
4 SB MN 25 None 458 221 401 1056 0.4338
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 4.87 4.87 0.82 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 4.83 4.83 1.45 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 4.50 4.50 0.78 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 5.47 5.47 1.99 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1
Run number 16
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1265 1265
Capacity veh/hr 3981 3981
Average Delay sec/veh 5.01 5.01
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.76 1.76
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96 Run number 7
2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 37
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1
Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 195 557 277 886 0.2200
2 NB MN 25 None 757 192 560 1071 0.7071
3 WB CSAH 37 None 235 681 268 824 0.2853
4 SB MN 25 None 607 227 689 1053 0.5765
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 4.84 4.84 0.83 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 9.75 9.75 7.15 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 5.66 5.66 1.20 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 7.15 7.15 3.98 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 7
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1794 1794
Capacity veh/hr 3833 3833
Average Delay sec/veh 7.80 7.80
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.89 3.89
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
36
Appendix G:
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.3 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.4 2.5
Total Del/Veh (s)33.0 29.4 2.4 33.7 30.7 5.1 5.8 8.4 1.9 16.8 16.3 2.8
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)13.5
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)8.1 11.9 5.5 9.0 13.1 7.4 1.4 1.5 0.3 1.0 2.6 0.7
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 1.1 4.2 2.4 7.7 1.1 3.9 2.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 3.1 0.7 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 2.8 1.5 1.7 1.9 0.6 9.1 13.8 3.6 9.1 8.2 4.9
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)3.2
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)19.8 0.4 7.5 2.2 0.4 5.0 1.0 2.3
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.1 3.7 9.3 7.3 18.0 10.6 7.5
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)10.1 4.4 4.8 5.1 4.8 1.3 3.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)18.1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T R L T T R L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 104 31 101 39 52 12 127 102 46 230 175 185
Average Queue (ft)40 4 33 8 1 1 54 38 10 104 70 65
95th Queue (ft)83 20 79 30 18 6 106 88 29 185 145 140
Link Distance (ft)915 2167 820 820 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 300 500 500 550
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)10
Average Queue (ft)1
95th Queue (ft)5
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)83 130 66 19
Average Queue (ft)43 60 7 1
95th Queue (ft)72 100 35 10
Link Distance (ft)2362 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)40 84
Average Queue (ft)5 34
95th Queue (ft)24 67
Link Distance (ft)2117 4515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)55 32 5 64 88
Average Queue (ft)14 6 0 29 37
95th Queue (ft)40 22 4 51 70
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR R L
Maximum Queue (ft)96 20 121
Average Queue (ft)43 1 48
95th Queue (ft)81 8 93
Link Distance (ft)1104
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)38 93 210
Average Queue (ft)8 48 83
95th Queue (ft)29 82 156
Link Distance (ft)2167 2362 932
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft)95 126 30
Average Queue (ft)47 40 3
95th Queue (ft)79 90 17
Link Distance (ft)825 1968 1807
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.2 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.6 2.8
Total Del/Veh (s)68.4 54.3 2.6 63.5 52.1 7.3 6.6 6.3 1.1 13.3 11.0 1.9
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)12.7
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)13.3 16.6 9.4 11.8 14.0 6.8 2.5 4.3 1.2 1.7 1.9 0.4
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)7.2
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1 1.7 3.1 2.2 9.0 0.2 7.2 3.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.5 3.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 4.2 2.7 2.7 2.0 0.5 15.0 20.9 11.2 25.1 10.4 16.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)8.4
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 1.4 0.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)86.9 69.1 3.8 0.8 7.3 0.7 12.8
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)3.6 2.1 4.1 4.0 17.8 15.0 11.1
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)14.6 11.5 2.0 2.5 2.4 0.4 7.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)26.2
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T R L T T R L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 121 45 174 114 236 32 153 141 30 133 243 222
Average Queue (ft)52 11 74 38 36 7 50 40 2 54 99 35
95th Queue (ft)107 36 141 86 158 22 111 102 14 104 191 134
Link Distance (ft)910 2180 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 300 500 500 550
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)26
Average Queue (ft)3
95th Queue (ft)13
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 153 103 61 36
Average Queue (ft)72 47 13 5
95th Queue (ft)126 82 43 22
Link Distance (ft)2349 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)57 113
Average Queue (ft)5 46
95th Queue (ft)29 81
Link Distance (ft)2117 4534
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)39 1 48 11 118 214
Average Queue (ft)5 0 14 0 50 90
95th Queue (ft)23 1 38 6 93 176
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB NB SB B14
Directions Served LR T L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 471 12 96 11
Average Queue (ft)193 0 37 0
95th Queue (ft)429 7 73 8
Link Distance (ft)1091 1332 188 813
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 42 356
Average Queue (ft)1 9 153
95th Queue (ft)9 34 287
Link Distance (ft)2180 2349 1028
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 256 79
Average Queue (ft)112 11
95th Queue (ft)205 43
Link Distance (ft)904 1969
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.3 0.3 3.5 1.7 1.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)8.7 43.9 35.4 55.7 29.1 20.8 18.7 18.5 13.8 11.4 13.0 9.5
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)34.8
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)37.2
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)52 444 440 751 222 142
Average Queue (ft)8 155 197 199 81 58
95th Queue (ft)33 375 426 706 156 106
Link Distance (ft)1510 1297 966 918
Upstream Blk Time (%)3
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400
Storage Blk Time (%)4 12 1
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 35 3
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 39
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.4 0.4 2.8 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)7.4 29.1 25.5 8.7 16.5 11.0 19.7 18.5 16.4 12.4 13.7 8.6
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)18.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)21.1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)48 331 80 199 226 141
Average Queue (ft)23 138 40 84 104 69
95th Queue (ft)44 267 66 153 189 117
Link Distance (ft)1407 1499 1054 918
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400
Storage Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
Page 1 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 11
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 144 742 139 719 0.2002
2 EB School Blvd None 334 444 442 876 0.3812
3 NB Fallon Ave None 253 260 518 973 0.2600
4 WB School Blvd None 681 200 313 1005 0.6779
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 7.75 7.75 0.72 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 8.89 8.89 1.74 A A
3 NB Fallon Ave None 6.87 6.87 0.97 A A
4 WB School Blvd None 13.71 13.71 5.77 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 11
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1412 1412
Capacity veh/hr 3573 3573
Average Delay sec/veh 9.74 9.74
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.82 3.82
Page 1 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 13
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 235 481 139 857 0.2743
2 EB School Blvd None 457 311 405 946 0.4830
3 NB Fallon Ave None 369 496 272 849 0.4348
4 WB School Blvd None 487 133 732 1040 0.4683
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 7.67 7.67 1.03 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 9.93 9.93 2.48 A A
3 NB Fallon Ave None 9.88 9.88 2.08 A A
4 WB School Blvd None 9.11 9.11 2.32 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 13
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1548 1548
Capacity veh/hr 3691 3691
Average Delay sec/veh 8.32 8.32
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.58 3.58
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 27
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 210 568 144 876 0.2397
2 NB MN 25 None 564 205 573 1025 0.5505
3 WB CSAH 37 None 239 520 249 806 0.2966
4 SB MN 25 None 470 242 517 1038 0.4526
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 5.02 5.02 0.93 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 6.69 6.69 3.41 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 5.43 5.43 1.15 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 5.74 5.74 2.40 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 27
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1483 1483
Capacity veh/hr 3745 3745
Average Delay sec/veh 5.95 5.95
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.45 2.45
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 30
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 195 734 277 789 0.2473
2 NB MN 25 None 806 192 737 1112 0.7251
3 WB CSAH 37 None 305 707 291 786 0.3882
4 SB MN 25 None 714 297 715 1075 0.6640
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 5.56 5.56 0.97 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 10.59 10.59 8.44 B B
3 WB CSAH 37 None 6.66 6.66 1.87 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 9.36 9.36 6.50 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 30
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2020 2020
Capacity veh/hr 3761 3761
Average Delay sec/veh 9.08 9.08
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 5.09 5.09
37 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix H:
Design Year (2045) No-Build
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.4 4.0 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.4 3.1
Total Del/Veh (s)32.2 27.7 2.5 29.7 28.9 2.5 8.8 3.7 0.6 6.5 12.0 1.6
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)9.9
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 7.4 1.6 3.2 7.7 2.1 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.1
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 0.8 2.1 1.8 4.7 2.2 1.7
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 3.1 0.3 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.0 2.2 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.4 7.6 12.4 3.6 8.1 6.0 3.8
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)21.8 4.4 1.6 0.7 7.1 5.5 3.8
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)14.5
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 123 34 74 52 9 81 90 12 38 201 159 23
Average Queue (ft)59 6 19 11 1 12 27 0 5 91 26 1
95th Queue (ft)104 24 50 36 6 48 70 1 21 167 108 9
Link Distance (ft)910 3490 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)54 49 10 5
Average Queue (ft)23 23 1 0
95th Queue (ft)46 45 7 3
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)25 51
Average Queue (ft)1 20
95th Queue (ft)12 46
Link Distance (ft)2117 1313
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)16 1 46 70 59
Average Queue (ft)1 0 7 32 25
95th Queue (ft)7 1 27 53 49
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft)36 42
Average Queue (ft)10 7
95th Queue (ft)32 27
Link Distance (ft)1928
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.3 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.5 2.9
Total Del/Veh (s)68.3 47.6 2.6 58.4 47.1 2.6 9.7 3.7 0.5 8.3 10.9 2.3
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)11.1
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 6.0 2.5 6.4 9.8 2.8 1.1 1.5 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.5
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.8
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)2.0 1.1 2.2 1.6 5.7 2.6 1.8
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.5 3.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.4 3.6 2.3 2.7 1.6 0.4 14.3 18.3 9.1 10.9 6.2 4.9
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)5.5
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.8 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)32.3 6.4 1.6 0.3 9.4 6.0 3.9
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)16.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 131 63 101 132 55 108 114 16 34 216 177 28
Average Queue (ft)63 16 25 46 13 22 37 1 9 103 33 3
95th Queue (ft)119 46 69 104 37 65 88 8 25 177 117 15
Link Distance (ft)912 3490 823 823 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)54 78 27 25
Average Queue (ft)26 33 4 2
95th Queue (ft)47 56 19 13
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 47
Average Queue (ft)1 19
95th Queue (ft)11 42
Link Distance (ft)2117 1923
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L T R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)23 9 58 3 2 121 84
Average Queue (ft)2 0 18 0 0 60 37
95th Queue (ft)12 4 41 2 2 105 66
Link Distance (ft)1804 604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway
Movement WB SB B3
Directions Served LR L T
Maximum Queue (ft)54 43 186
Average Queue (ft)19 13 7
95th Queue (ft)43 38 136
Link Distance (ft)1786 823
Upstream Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.9 0.4 0.4 2.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.5 38.8 32.3 10.9 14.0 9.0 14.4 14.9 11.7 11.7 12.2 8.4
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)20.0
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)22.6
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 185 537 118 139 200 145
Average Queue (ft)23 165 58 69 77 63
95th Queue (ft)115 436 100 116 144 108
Link Distance (ft)1892 1581 1695 1502
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)13 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)2 0 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.0 0.4 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 17.3 12.9 10.0 17.7 12.7 8.8 9.9 6.1 11.6 12.9 9.4
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)14.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)17.1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)58 198 168 242 90 140
Average Queue (ft)26 95 40 99 51 75
95th Queue (ft)50 166 98 180 78 119
Link Distance (ft)2016 1561 1734 1497
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0 4
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 3
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 32
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 271 500 256 915 0.2962
2 NB MN 25 None 453 265 506 1034 0.4382
3 WB CSAH 37 None 281 498 220 916 0.3068
4 SB MN 25 None 570 186 593 1074 0.5309
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 5.17 5.17 1.12 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 5.63 5.63 2.03 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 5.24 5.24 1.17 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 6.38 6.38 2.90 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 32
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1575 1575
Capacity veh/hr 3938 3938
Average Delay sec/veh 5.75 5.75
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.52 2.52
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 34
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 252 683 358 823 0.3063
2 NB MN 25 None 959 248 687 1042 0.9201
3 WB CSAH 37 None 292 866 340 730 0.3999
4 SB MN 25 None 759 282 876 1025 0.7404
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 5.82 5.82 1.24 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 24.95 24.95 23.31 C C
3 WB CSAH 37 None 7.49 7.49 1.89 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 11.13 11.13 7.49 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 34
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2262 2262
Capacity veh/hr 3620 3620
Average Delay sec/veh 15.93 15.93
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C C
Total Delay veh.hrs 10.01 10.01
Page 1 of 2Report dated 31-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 16
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 184 456 176 870 0.2115
2 EB School Blvd None 400 239 401 984 0.4065
3 NB Fallon Ave None 264 306 333 949 0.2783
4 WB School Blvd None 378 254 316 976 0.3872
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 6.89 6.89 0.75 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 8.55 8.55 1.90 A A
3 NB Fallon Ave None 7.19 7.19 1.07 A A
4 WB School Blvd None 8.34 8.34 1.75 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 31-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 16
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1226 1226
Capacity veh/hr 3779 3779
Average Delay sec/veh 6.95 6.95
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.37 2.37
Page 1 of 2Report dated 31-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 19
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 302 500 177 847 0.3567
2 EB School Blvd None 432 320 482 941 0.4589
3 NB Fallon Ave None 161 485 267 855 0.1884
4 WB School Blvd None 508 169 477 1021 0.4976
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 8.76 8.76 1.50 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 9.58 9.58 2.26 A A
3 NB Fallon Ave None 6.68 6.68 0.63 A A
4 WB School Blvd None 9.67 9.67 2.60 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 31-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 19
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1403 1403
Capacity veh/hr 3663 3663
Average Delay sec/veh 8.11 8.11
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.16 3.16
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
38
Appendix I:
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.4 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.5 2.8
Total Del/Veh (s)32.5 26.8 2.6 30.9 26.6 3.2 3.5 5.3 0.6 8.0 11.7 1.9
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)10.2
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)4.8 8.9 2.8 4.9 8.7 2.7 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.1
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 0.7 2.3 1.7 5.6 3.2 1.8
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.5 3.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 2.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.3 8.6 12.9 4.1 9.0 7.5 3.6
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)3.4
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.5 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)10.2 3.2 1.5 0.7 7.2 5.6 3.7
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 1.0 3.7 2.5 5.4 3.2 2.7
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 3.2 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.2 1.5
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)15.0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 138 43 86 51 9 92 106 10 84 194 142 37
Average Queue (ft)60 7 28 11 0 23 32 1 23 86 20 3
95th Queue (ft)114 29 64 36 4 66 81 7 56 157 83 18
Link Distance (ft)910 2179 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)58 53 15 14
Average Queue (ft)32 29 1 1
95th Queue (ft)49 50 8 6
Link Distance (ft)2351 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 60
Average Queue (ft)1 19
95th Queue (ft)8 45
Link Distance (ft)2117 1313
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)22 4 33 64 93
Average Queue (ft)2 0 7 32 36
95th Queue (ft)13 2 24 54 65
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft)26 46
Average Queue (ft)9 9
95th Queue (ft)27 31
Link Distance (ft)1928
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)47 67
Average Queue (ft)4 33
95th Queue (ft)23 56
Link Distance (ft)2351 966
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)74 31
Average Queue (ft)31 4
95th Queue (ft)56 19
Link Distance (ft)1116 1968
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.3 4.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.5 2.8
Total Del/Veh (s)66.8 47.4 2.9 65.8 59.9 3.4 10.7 4.5 0.4 9.2 11.7 2.1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)12.3
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 8.5 3.0 6.4 10.4 4.8 1.4 1.7 0.3 1.3 1.5 0.5
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.5
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 1.1 2.5 2.1 5.8 2.4 1.9
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 3.4 0.5 3.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 3.7 2.4 2.5 1.8 0.3 15.5 19.2 10.7 16.5 7.8 7.4
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)6.2
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.8 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)36.9 8.1 1.6 0.3 10.5 6.2 4.1
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 1.4 3.2 2.8 5.5 3.2 3.1
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 3.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.2 1.5
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)17.7
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 152 51 122 139 44 99 134 12 58 226 195 40
Average Queue (ft)65 16 43 54 12 28 42 1 16 116 51 4
95th Queue (ft)122 44 97 113 32 80 105 7 41 205 152 19
Link Distance (ft)912 2210 823 823 1230 1230
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)65 71 43 33
Average Queue (ft)32 34 5 3
95th Queue (ft)52 56 25 16
Link Distance (ft)2320 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)9 52
Average Queue (ft)0 21
95th Queue (ft)6 45
Link Distance (ft)2117 1923
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)16 9 55 139 118
Average Queue (ft)2 0 18 61 49
95th Queue (ft)11 5 43 111 91
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft)63 44
Average Queue (ft)19 13
95th Queue (ft)47 37
Link Distance (ft)1786
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)16 63
Average Queue (ft)1 35
95th Queue (ft)8 55
Link Distance (ft)2320 1025
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)65 27
Average Queue (ft)34 2
95th Queue (ft)56 14
Link Distance (ft)846 1969
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 13
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 271 685 187 822 0.3299
2 NB MN 25 None 480 265 691 1034 0.4644
3 WB CSAH 37 None 279 516 229 907 0.3076
4 SB MN 25 None 588 284 511 1024 0.5742
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 6.03 6.03 1.49 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 5.88 5.88 2.52 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 5.29 5.29 1.31 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 7.32 7.32 3.97 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 13
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1618 1618
Capacity veh/hr 3786 3786
Average Delay sec/veh 6.32 6.32
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.84 2.84
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 15
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 252 711 358 809 0.3117
2 NB MN 25 None 971 248 715 1042 0.9316
3 WB CSAH 37 None 301 871 343 727 0.4138
4 SB MN 25 None 778 291 881 1021 0.7623
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 5.97 5.97 1.37 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 28.85 28.85 34.09 D D
3 WB CSAH 37 None 7.70 7.70 2.14 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 12.28 12.28 9.77 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 15
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2302 2302
Capacity veh/hr 3599 3599
Average Delay sec/veh 17.98 17.98
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C C
Total Delay veh.hrs 11.50 11.50
39 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix J:
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.4 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.9 2.5
Total Del/Veh (s)31.2 23.9 2.6 28.7 34.1 5.3 13.0 9.7 2.6 26.2 16.9 2.2
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)15.7
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)8.9 11.9 5.9 10.4 14.0 10.6 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.9 2.7 0.5
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 1.3 4.4 2.8 7.2 4.5 3.1
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.8 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.8 3.2 2.6 2.0 2.3 0.8 15.8 17.6 5.8 13.3 10.2 7.3
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)4.3
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access) Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.7 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)33.8 13.5 3.3 1.1 13.2 8.4 7.0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 4.1 10.1 8.2 20.1 11.4 8.2
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.4 5.5 5.1 5.4 4.7 1.4 4.6
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)22.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 121 38 92 47 21 118 132 42 326 248 223 39
Average Queue (ft)54 8 30 13 1 53 57 9 144 130 60 4
95th Queue (ft)100 29 68 41 10 100 107 29 275 211 172 23
Link Distance (ft)910 2179 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 100 153 55 18
Average Queue (ft)44 65 7 1
95th Queue (ft)76 110 34 9
Link Distance (ft)2351 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 110 4 87
Average Queue (ft)8 0 34
95th Queue (ft)51 3 68
Link Distance (ft)2117 4079 1313
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)63 35 12 89 104
Average Queue (ft)18 9 1 35 46
95th Queue (ft)45 28 5 65 84
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access)
Movement WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LR T R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 166 9 9 113
Average Queue (ft)61 0 0 53
95th Queue (ft)122 5 3 98
Link Distance (ft)1928 2309
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)53 138 227
Average Queue (ft)8 54 95
95th Queue (ft)31 103 181
Link Distance (ft)2179 2351 966
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 136 112 36
Average Queue (ft)53 42 4
95th Queue (ft)102 84 20
Link Distance (ft)1116 1968 1807
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 09/11/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.4 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.6 2.6
Total Del/Veh (s)73.1 55.1 3.3 63.6 46.4 9.0 12.8 7.8 1.2 17.2 13.4 2.4
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)14.8
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)19.5 20.3 12.0 12.2 14.9 7.8 2.8 2.9 1.0 2.6 2.1 0.7
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)7.9
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)2.8 2.0 3.5 2.4 11.9 9.2 4.2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 3.1 0.6 3.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.7 4.9 2.9 3.6 2.5 0.5 45.0 42.6 35.4 89.9 35.1 83.7
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)23.1
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access) Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 38.9 38.6 0.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 4.9
Total Del/Veh (s)537.1 509.2 3.8 1.0 18.7 8.4 64.2
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 09/11/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 2.2 4.1 4.0 24.7 20.4 14.6
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)14.1 10.9 1.8 2.4 0.4 7.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.6
Total Del/Veh (s)53.5
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 09/11/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T R L T T R L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 180 60 169 186 273 50 158 166 24 155 245 214
Average Queue (ft)71 16 86 49 56 13 70 72 3 59 135 66
95th Queue (ft)140 46 148 121 200 35 141 143 13 117 227 177
Link Distance (ft)912 2210 823 823 1230 1230
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 300 500 500 550
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)34
Average Queue (ft)5
95th Queue (ft)19
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 238 127 55 46
Average Queue (ft)80 52 8 7
95th Queue (ft)188 96 32 30
Link Distance (ft)2320 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 09/11/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft)73 8 151
Average Queue (ft)8 0 58
95th Queue (ft)43 6 108
Link Distance (ft)2117 4079 1923
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T R L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)43 2 9 60 8 242 463
Average Queue (ft)9 0 0 20 0 98 222
95th Queue (ft)30 2 5 44 3 200 500
Link Distance (ft)4079 604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access)
Movement WB NB SB B3 B3
Directions Served LR T L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 1643 13 119 37 39
Average Queue (ft)946 1 49 1 1
95th Queue (ft)1909 8 99 14 14
Link Distance (ft)1786 1198 823 823
Upstream Blk Time (%) 13
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 09/11/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)14 47 530
Average Queue (ft)1 8 189
95th Queue (ft)8 30 429
Link Distance (ft)2210 2320 1025
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 235
Average Queue (ft)109
95th Queue (ft)197
Link Distance (ft)846
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s) 17.3 19.1 23.4 85.1 85.0 79.9 3.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)137.3 233.2 217.7 172.6 95.8 91.2 14.1 15.8 11.1 16.6 16.3 12.1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 43.9
Total Del/Veh (s)123.8
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)43.9
Total Del/Veh (s)125.4
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 450 1552 450 1348 105 135 137
Average Queue (ft)97 764 364 794 50 65 67
95th Queue (ft)389 1625 578 1707 87 107 110
Link Distance (ft)1504 1292 966 918
Upstream Blk Time (%)14 36
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 200
Storage Blk Time (%)60 61 2
Queuing Penalty (veh)9 216 9
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 235
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s) 153.5 155.4 151.2 2.8 0.7 0.8 2.8 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)226.9 345.4 329.3 14.1 36.7 32.3 20.5 44.4 43.5 26.2 28.9 21.4
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 46.5
Total Del/Veh (s)114.5
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)46.5
Total Del/Veh (s)116.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 450 1446 106 369 225 446 234
Average Queue (ft)251 1167 51 176 69 188 112
95th Queue (ft)614 1802 85 303 203 374 199
Link Distance (ft)1401 1493 1054 918
Upstream Blk Time (%)56
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 200
Storage Blk Time (%)90 0 0 22
Queuing Penalty (veh)38 0 0 12
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 50
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 19
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 271 715 187 803 0.3377
2 NB MN 25 None 665 265 721 1014 0.6556
3 WB CSAH 37 None 300 632 298 785 0.3822
4 SB MN 25 None 597 305 627 1008 0.5924
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 6.24 6.24 1.55 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 8.71 8.71 5.50 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 6.42 6.42 1.75 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 7.74 7.74 4.32 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 19
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1833 1833
Capacity veh/hr 3609 3609
Average Delay sec/veh 7.65 7.65
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.90 3.90
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 22
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 252 886 357 721 0.3493
2 NB MN 25 None 1020 248 890 1083 0.9422
3 WB CSAH 37 None 371 896 365 695 0.5337
4 SB MN 25 None 885 361 906 1041 0.8505
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 7.00 7.00 1.64 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 35.73 35.73 45.00 E E
3 WB CSAH 37 None 9.57 9.57 3.35 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 20.89 20.89 21.74 C C
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 22
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2528 2528
Capacity veh/hr 3540 3540
Average Delay sec/veh 23.83 23.83
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F C C
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C C
Total Delay veh.hrs 16.74 16.74
Page 1 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 18
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 186 850 179 662 0.2810
2 EB School Blvd None 420 502 535 846 0.4966
3 NB Fallon Ave None 329 324 598 939 0.3503
4 WB School Blvd None 768 262 391 972 0.7902
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 9.34 9.34 1.15 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 10.96 10.96 2.81 B B
3 NB Fallon Ave None 8.08 8.08 1.50 A A
4 WB School Blvd None 18.78 18.78 10.21 C C
Page 2 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 18
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1703 1703
Capacity veh/hr 3419 3419
Average Delay sec/veh 12.75 12.75
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F B B
Total Delay veh.hrs 6.03 6.03
Page 1 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 21
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 308 605 181 791 0.3892
2 EB School Blvd None 557 398 515 900 0.6187
3 NB Fallon Ave None 416 605 350 791 0.5257
4 WB School Blvd None 610 176 845 1017 0.5997
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 9.66 9.66 1.74 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 13.06 13.06 4.27 B B
3 NB Fallon Ave None 12.06 12.06 3.01 B B
4 WB School Blvd None 11.60 11.60 3.88 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 21
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1891 1891
Capacity veh/hr 3500 3500
Average Delay sec/veh 10.81 10.81
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F B B
Total Delay veh.hrs 5.68 5.68
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
40
Appendix K:
Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build
Scenario 2 SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.3 3.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.9 2.6
Total Del/Veh (s)33.0 23.0 2.4 32.6 27.9 5.0 7.6 9.5 2.5 22.9 15.8 2.1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.8
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)7.8 11.9 5.9 10.5 14.0 9.8 1.6 1.6 0.2 1.7 2.5 0.6
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 1.4 5.1 2.9 8.0 5.3 3.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.8 3.0 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 3.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 0.7 14.8 16.6 5.2 13.6 8.9 5.0
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)4.1
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access) Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.8 0.2 0.7 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)45.9 10.9 3.2 1.1 14.6 7.9 6.8
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 3.6 10.0 8.0 18.4 10.7 7.8
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)10.6 4.4 4.8 5.5 4.9 1.3 4.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)21.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 149 33 74 47 17 154 130 54 275 238 177 29
Average Queue (ft)64 5 30 11 2 52 62 8 126 116 49 3
95th Queue (ft)120 23 67 36 9 110 122 29 231 199 143 15
Link Distance (ft)910 2179 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)79 127 64 25
Average Queue (ft)43 63 5 1
95th Queue (ft)71 108 32 11
Link Distance (ft)2351 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft)98 15 97
Average Queue (ft)9 1 36
95th Queue (ft)48 9 76
Link Distance (ft)2117 4073 1313
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L T R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft)54 46 3 13 43 76 63 82
Average Queue (ft)16 9 0 1 8 36 18 36
95th Queue (ft)40 32 2 5 30 65 45 70
Link Distance (ft)1797 606 1934
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access)
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB B14
Directions Served L R T R L T T
Maximum Queue (ft)53 114 4 9 148 86 22
Average Queue (ft)10 45 0 0 56 5 1
95th Queue (ft)33 92 3 6 110 56 12
Link Distance (ft)1922 2309 4821 813
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 275 150
Storage Blk Time (%)1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)4 0
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)47 139 206
Average Queue (ft)8 51 80
95th Queue (ft)32 99 146
Link Distance (ft)2179 2351 966
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 111 113 22
Average Queue (ft)47 42 4
95th Queue (ft)84 87 18
Link Distance (ft)1116 1968 1807
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 4
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.3 4.0 2.7 0.7 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.7 2.6
Total Del/Veh (s)66.3 53.8 2.9 64.8 57.3 10.2 12.8 8.3 1.2 17.4 12.7 2.3
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.4
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)16.3 19.1 12.7 11.5 14.7 9.0 2.7 2.8 1.0 1.9 2.0 0.5
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)7.5
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 2.0 3.5 2.8 11.7 8.4 4.2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.6 3.4 3.9 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 5.0 2.7 4.3 2.4 0.4 24.8 54.2 40.4 52.8 9.7 8.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)14.2
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access) Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.8 0.3 0.9 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)321.3 53.3 4.4 1.1 29.1 7.9 20.9
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.7 2.4 3.7 2.9 4.2 3.4
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)14.5 11.3 1.9 2.5 0.4 7.5
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)31.2
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T R L T T R L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 143 67 170 117 308 42 178 178 22 159 210 201
Average Queue (ft)60 18 85 43 87 13 78 75 2 66 128 64
95th Queue (ft)117 49 157 95 265 33 156 151 12 133 203 170
Link Distance (ft)912 2210 823 823 1230 1230
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 300 500 500 550
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)1
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)45
Average Queue (ft)5
95th Queue (ft)21
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 196 117 36 48
Average Queue (ft)80 49 5 5
95th Queue (ft)154 87 23 22
Link Distance (ft)2320 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft)60 6 127
Average Queue (ft)6 0 56
95th Queue (ft)32 5 99
Link Distance (ft)2117 4073 1923
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R L R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft)40 8 60 5 115 266 220 151
Average Queue (ft)7 0 23 0 28 100 84 57
95th Queue (ft)27 5 49 4 98 213 173 108
Link Distance (ft)606 1934
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 300 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%)3 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)1 1 0
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access)
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R T R L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 285 434 4 4 204 66
Average Queue (ft)142 160 0 0 64 0
95th Queue (ft)297 389 3 4 147 0
Link Distance (ft)1780 1198 4808
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 13 7 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)24 5 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)67 79
Average Queue (ft)9 45
95th Queue (ft)40 70
Link Distance (ft)2320 1025
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 233
Average Queue (ft)112
95th Queue (ft)195
Link Distance (ft)846
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 35
41 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix L:
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
29%
157
117
OUTPUT
Value
263
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & East Access NBL - 2045 Scenario 1 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
70%
284
329
OUTPUT
Value
205
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & East Access - 2030 Scenario 2 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
99
36
OUTPUT
Value
55
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & East Access SBR - 2030 Scenario 1 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
117
36
OUTPUT
Value
49
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & East Access SBR - 2045 Scenario 1 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
329
266
OUTPUT
Value
22
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & East Access SBR - 2030 Scenario 2 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
23%
407
165
OUTPUT
Value
268
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NBL - 2030 Scenario 2 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
14%
199
194
OUTPUT
Value
315
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NBL - 2045 No-Build (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
15%
236
182
OUTPUT
Value
310
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NBL - 2045 Scenario 1 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
192
38
OUTPUT
Value
33
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NBR - 2030 Scenario 1 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
199
24
OUTPUT
Value
32
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NBR - 2045 No-Build (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
10%
194
172
OUTPUT
Value
374
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBL - 2045 No-Build (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
10%
202
200
OUTPUT
Value
362
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBL - 2045 Scenario 1 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
9%
224
352
OUTPUT
Value
321
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBL - 2045 Scenario 2 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
180
28
OUTPUT
Value
35
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBR - 2030 Scenario 2 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
202
21
OUTPUT
Value
32
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBR - 2045 Scenario 1 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
224
32
OUTPUT
Value
29
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBR - 2045 Scenario 2 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
60
858
7
OUTPUT
Value
9
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
MN 25 & Future Roadway (Proposed Collector) NBR - 2045 NB (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
60
866
7
OUTPUT
Value
9
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
MN 25 & Future Roadway (Proposed Collector) - 2045 Scenario 1 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
60
726
73
OUTPUT
Value
10
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
MN 25 & Future Roadway (Proposed Collector) NBR - 2045 Scenario 2 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
60
4%
650
593
OUTPUT
Value
326
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
MN 25 & Future Roadway (Proposed Collector) SBL - 2045 No-Build (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
44%
88
123
OUTPUT
Value
239
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
85th Street & North Access - 2045 Scenario 1 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
75%
257
468
OUTPUT
Value
188
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
85th Street & North Access WBL - 2030 Scenario 2 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
114
73
OUTPUT
Value
50
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
85th Street & North Access EBR - 2030 Scenario 1 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
468
363
OUTPUT
Value
17
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
85th Street & North Access EBR - 2030 Scenario 2 (AM Peak)
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Monticello
From: Jacob Rojer, P.E., PTOE
Date:
October 14, 2025
Subject: Monticello Industrial Construction Conditions Analysis (Scenario 1)
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Monticello Industrial development is located west of Edmonson Avenue, east of
Davidson Avenue, and south of 85th Street in Monticello, MN. The site is currently undergoing the AUAR
process with two development scenarios being analyzed: a Technology Park (Scenario 1) and an
Industrial Park (Scenario 2). This memorandum is focused on the construction period of Scenario 1
(Technology Park). The construction period is anticipated to see significantly higher trip generation than
the typical operations of this type of development. No construction analysis was conducted for Scenario
2, as the construction is anticipated to be less trip-intensive than the typical operations of this
development type.
Construction trip generation of the development was approximated, and the trips were assigned to the
network to determine the Peak Construction Conditions (2030) traffic volumes. A capacity analysis was
then conducted for this scenario to determine the impacts of the projected construction traffic on the
roadway network.
EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
The characteristics of the major roadways near the proposed development are given below. Nearby
roadways include County Roads, County State Aid Highways (CSAHs), a US Highway, and local roads.
85th Street NE (or CR 106 West of MN 25) is an east-west roadway that serves as the northern
boundary of the AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway with dedicated right- and left-turn lanes
at the intersection with MN 25. 85th Street NE is classified as a major collector, according to the
Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along 85th Street is approximately 1,797 vehicles per day (vpd)
west of MN 25, as of 2024. No AADT data is available east of MN 25. The posted speed limit is 45 mph
west of MN 25. There is no posted speed limit east of MN 25, and therefore the statutory speed limit is
55 mph.
Minnesota State Highway 25 (MN 25) is a generally north-south state highway that runs west of the
AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway about 1000’ south of 85th Street, where it transitions to
a four-lane divided roadway to the north. There are dedicated left and right turn lanes at the
intersections with 85th street NE and CSAH 37. MN 25 is classified as Principal Arterial - other,
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
according to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application,
the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along 85th Street is approximately 15,009 vehicles
per day (vpd) north of 85th Street, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 60 mph.
Edmonson Avenue NE (CR 117) is a north-south roadway that serves as the eastern boundary of the
AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway that connects to the AUAR site via 85th Street NE. There
are no existing turn lanes along this road. Edmonson Avenue NE is classified as a minor collector
according to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. Edmonson Avenue NE has an AADT of 1,808 vpd north
of CSAH 37 and 1,930 vpd north of 85th Street NE. The posted speed limit is 55 mph.
CSAH 37 is an east-west County State Aid Highway (CSAH) located south of the AUAR area. It is a
two-lane undivided roadway. CSAH 37 is classified as a major collector south of the AUAR area
according to page 99 of the 2045 Monticello Comprehensive Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic
Mapping Application, the road has an AADT of approximately 4,873 vpd west of Edmonson Avenue as
of 2024. The posted speed limit is 55 mph.
Davidson Avenue NE is a north-south roadway that serves as the western boundary of the AUAR
area. It is a two-lane undivided local roadway with no turn lanes. There is no AADT data available for
Davidson Avenue NE and there is no posted speed limit. The speed limit was assumed to be 45 mph
for analysis purposes.
School Boulevard is a three-lane undivided east-west roadway with one travel lane in each direction
and a shared left turn lane. School Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial, according to the Monticello
2040 Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 5,994 west of Edmonson Avenue and 6,464 west of Fenning
Avenue, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 40 mph, with a school speed limit of 30 mph enforced
when children are present.
Fallon Avenue is a two-lane undivided north-south roadway. Fallon Avenue is classified as a local
road according to the Monticello 2040 Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 3,847 north of School
Boulevard, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
STUDY AREA & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
The AUAR traffic study included a Traffic Impact Assessment of the following study intersections:
• MN 25 & 85th Street NE (Signal)
• Edmonson Avenue NE & 85th Street NE (Side-Street Stop)
• MN 25 & County Road 37 (Signal; Future Roundabout)
• County Road 37 & Davidson Drive (Side-Street Stop)
• County Road 37 & Edmonson Drive (Side-Street Stop)
• School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue (All-Way Stop)
There are plans for corridor improvements along MN 25 near the study area, with a corridor study
previously conducted for MN 25 between Buffalo and Monticello. Among the improvements that are
anticipated to occur, MN 25 & CSAH 37 is anticipated to be converted to a single-lane roundabout in
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
2026. Additionally, the Davidson Avenue connection to MN 25 is planned to be removed, but this is not
assumed to occur by the Opening Year (2030) of the planned development.
DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Scenario 1 development would include a 3,000,000 square-foot technology park served
by two access points: a “North Access” located along 85th Street, and an “East Access” located along
Edmonson Avenue.
The Scenario 1 development would have a multi-year construction phase which would generate a
higher number of trips than the normal operating conditions of the development itself. For the sake of
this analysis, it is assumed that construction trips would be split between the two site access points
assumed for the development.
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation during the site’s construction will vary significantly based on factors like the total floor
area of the development, the number of buildings in the development, the number of buildings being
constructed concurrently, and more. Because limited information about the proposed development is
known at this time, trip generation was instead estimated based on data from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, and construction trip generation of
similar sites. Construction conditions of the site should be re-analyzed when site specific characteristics
and knowledge of the site construction plans are available.
Based on known trip generation patterns exhibited by sites similar to the proposed Technology Park of
Scenario 1, it is estimated that the peak construction trip generation could be approximately twice the
peak hour trip generation of typical operations. Furthermore, the vast majority of site trips during the
AM peak are expected to be entering trips while the opposite is true for the PM peak (the majority are
exiting trips). It was estimated that construction trips would exhibit a 90% entering and 10% exiting split
during the AM peak hour and a 10% entering and 90% exiting split during the PM peak hour.
The operational trip generation for Scenario 1 and the estimated Construction trip generation are shown
below in Table 1. The proposed site construction for Scenario 1 is anticipated to generate a peak of
5,940 daily trips, with 660 AM peak hour trips (595 entering and 65 exiting) and 540 PM peak hour trips
(55 entering and 485 exiting).
Table 1 – Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use Description AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Scenario 1 (LUC 160 – Data Center) 192 147 330 81 189 270
Scenario 1 Construction 595 65 660 55 485 540
VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
For the sake of simplicity, the Opening Year (2030) No-Build traffic volumes developed for the TIA were
utilized as the background traffic volumes for the Peak Construction Conditions (2030) traffic volumes.
The Opening Year (2030) No-Build Traffic Volumes are shown in Exhibit 1.
The distribution of traffic to the proposed development was developed based on a review of the nearby
roadway characteristics, existing traffic patterns, and professional engineering judgement. The
following global distribution was determined for trips entering and exiting the proposed development:
• 35% to/from the north on MN 25
• 30% to/from the east on School Boulevard
• 20% to/from the east on CSAH 37
• 15% to/from the south on MN 25
The full site traffic distribution is shown in Exhibit 2. The global traffic distribution was applied to the
construction trip generation to determine the site trip assignment for the Scenario 1 construction
conditions. The total site trip assignment for construction trips is shown in Exhibit 3.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
A capacity analysis was performed to quantify the delay and level of service at the four study
intersections during peak traffic periods. The capacity of an intersection quantifies its ability to
accommodate traffic volumes and is measured in average delay per vehicle. It is expressed in terms of
level of service (LOS) which ranges from A to F, with LOS A as the highest (best traffic flow and least
delay), LOS E as saturated or at-capacity conditions, and LOS F as the lowest (oversaturated
conditions).
The LOS grades shown below, which are provided in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM), quantify and categorize the driver’s discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption,
and travel times experienced as a result of intersection control and the resulting traffic queuing. A
detailed description of each LOS rating can be found in Table 2. The range of control delay for each
rating (as detailed in the HCM) is also shown in Table 2. Because signalized intersections are expected
to carry a larger volume of vehicles and stopping is required during red time, higher delays are tolerated
for the corresponding LOS ratings. HCM guidance states that a roundabout is typically treated as an
unsignalized intersection for determining LOS grades.
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
Table 2 - Level of Service Information
Level of Service
Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description
A 0-10 (Unsignalized);
0-10 (Signalized)
Minimal control delay; traffic operates at primarily free-flow conditions; unimpeded
movement within traffic stream.
B >10-15 (Unsignalized);
>10-20 (Signalized)
Minor control delay at signalized intersections; traffic operates at a fairly unimpeded level
with slightly restricted movement within traffic stream.
C >15-25 (Unsignalized);
>20-35 (Signalized)
Moderate control delay; movement within traffic stream more restricted than at LOS B;
formation of queues contributes to lower average travel speeds.
D >25-35 (Unsignalized);
>35-55 (Signalized)
Considerable control delay that may be substantially increased by small increases in flow;
average travel speeds continue to decrease.
E >35-50 (Unsignalized);
>55-80 (Signalized) High control delay; average travel speed no more than 33 percent of free flow speed.
F >50 (Unsignalized);
>80 (Signalized)
Extremely high control delay; extensive queuing and high volumes create exceedingly
restricted traffic flow.
Capacity analysis was conducted using SimTraffic within Synchro 12 for all signalized and stop-
controlled intersections. Analysis of the future roundabout at MN 25 & CSAH 37 was conducted via
roundabout analysis software Rodel.
Construction Conditions (2030 ) Analysis
The construction traffic assignment was determined by multiplying the construction trip generation by
the construction traffic distribution. The Construction Conditions (2030) traffic volumes were determined
by adding the construction site trips in Exhibit 3 to the 2030 Background traffic volumes in Exhibit 1.
The resultant Construction Conditions (2030) traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 4.
Results of the Construction Conditions (2030) analysis are included below in Table 3. All study
intersections are anticipated to operate at an overall LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours
and all individual movements/approaches at LOS D or better with the exception of two left turn
movements at the signalized MN 25 & 85th Street intersection. The anticipated operating level of the
network with the addition of Construction traffic is acceptable.
Page 6
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
Table 3: Construction Conditions (2030) Delay and LOS
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB E (69) D (44) A (3)
B (10)
C (31) C (22) A (3)
A (9) WB E (57) D (52) A (3) C (31) C (25) A (3)
NB A (6) A (4) A (1) A (1) A (4) A (1)
SB A (6) A (9) A (2) A (8) A (10) A (1)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (8) A (3)
A (10)
A (4) A (9) A (2)
A (9) WB A (5) A (10) A (3) A (4) A (9) A (3)
NB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
SB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (0) A (1) A (0)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (5)
A (5)
A (5)
A (8) WB A (5) A (6)
NB A (5) A (9)
SB A (5) A (7)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (3) -
A (5)
A (5) A (5) -
A (5) WB - A (2) A (2) - A (2) A (1)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (5) A (0) A (1) A (4) A (0) A (2)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (3) A (3) A (2)
B (15)
A (2) A (3) A (2)
B (12) WB A (2) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
NB B (10) B (15) A (5) A (5) B (12) A (3)
SB A (10) A (6) A (5) A (6) A (7) A (3)
85th Street
& North
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB - A (1) A (1)
A (6)
- A (2) A (1)
A (5) WB A (3) A (3) - A (3) A (3) -
NB A (6) - A (3) A (5) - A (3)
SB - - - - - -
Edmonson
Avenue &
East Access
Side
Street Stop
EB A (6) - A (3)
A (6)
A (5) - A (3)
A (5) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1) A (1) - A (1) A (1) -
SB - A (1) A (0) - A (1) A (0)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon
Avenue
All-Way
Stop
EB A (7) C (20) B (13)
B (13)
A (7) B (14) A (9)
B (11) WB B (13) B (14) A (8) A (8) B (13) A (8)
NB B (11) B (12) A (9) A (9) A (10) A (7)
SB A (9) B (10) A (6) A (10) B (11) A (7)
*Worst movement delay reported as overall delay at side street stop controlled intersections.
Page 7
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
CONSTRUCTION TURN LANE WARRANTS
The need for turn lanes during the construction of the site was analyzed based on the methodologies
from NCHRP Report 457. This methodology accounts for the safety and operational need for turn lanes
along the major road at a side street stop controlled intersection. The warrant takes into account the
travel speeds along the major road and the peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection.
Results of the turn lane warrant analysis for the Construction Conditions (2030) are shown below in
Table 4. The turn lane warrant analysis indicates that a right turn lane is warranted at both access
points, and a left turn lane is warranted at the east access point along Edmonson Avenue. Additionally,
a northbound right turn lane is warranted at the intersection of 85th Street & North Access.
Table 4 – Turn Lane Warrant Results
Intersection Movement Turn Lane Warrant Result
Construction Conditions (2030)
85th Street NE & North Access WBL Not Met
EBR Met
Edmonson Avenue NE & East Access NBL Met
SBR Met
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NE
NBR Met
NBL Not Met
SBR Not Met
SBL Not Met
CONCLUSION & RECOM MENDATIONS
The proposed Monticello Industrial development is located at the southwest corner of 85th Street &
Edmonson Avenue in Monticello, MN. The site is currently undergoing the AUAR process with two
development scenarios being analyzed: a Technology Park (Scenario 1) and an Industrial Park
(Scenario 2). A Construction Conditions (2030) analysis was conducted for Scenario 1 since the trip
generation of a Technology Park land use is anticipated to be significantly higher during the construction
phase (which would likely be completed over multiple years) than during typical operations.
Traffic was projected with Opening Year (2030) traffic volumes selected as the background traffic and
the construction site trips layered on top of these volumes. Construction trip generation was estimated
based on ITE trip generation data, and knowledge of developments similar to the proposed Scenario
1. Trips were distributed to the site assuming access points along 85th Street and Edmonson Avenue.
Page 8
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
Under Construction Conditions (2030), all intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS A or B and
all individual movements/approaches at the study intersections operate at LOS D or better with the
exception of two left turn movements at the signalized MN 25 & 85th Street intersection. The overall
network operations are anticipated to remain acceptable without mitigation.
Turn lane warrants were analyzed using NCHRP methodologies for major-road turn lanes at side street
stop-controlled intersections. It was found that left-and right turn lanes are warranted at the access
point along Edmonson Avenue, a right turn lane is warranted at the access point along 85th Street, and
a northbound right turn lane is warranted at the intersection of 85th Street & Edmonson Avenue.
The following mitigation measures are recommended for the Scenario 1 Construction Conditions
(2030):
• Install side street stop control at all access points
• Install left-and right-turn lanes at access point(s) along Edmonson Avenue
• Install right turn lane at access point(s) along 85th Street
• Install a northbound right turn lane at 85th Street & Edmonson Avenue
Note that the findings of this memorandum are preliminary based on assumptions made with limited
information. Further traffic analysis of the construction conditions should be conducted when site
specific information is available. The mitigation listed above is subject to substantial change based on
the characteristics of the proposed site and construction process.
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 1
2030 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 2
SCENARIO 1 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
In [Out] Trip Distribution
Global Distribution
Site Location
X% [X%]
X%
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 3
CONSTRUCTION TRIP ASSIGNMENT
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Site Location
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 4
PEAK CONSTRUCTION (2030) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Site Location
East Access
From:Cody S. Sedbrook
To:Angela Schumann
Cc:Chad D. Hausmann; Sara C. Buermann
Subject:Monticello Industrial Development - AUAR
Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:30:49 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi Angela,
The County does not have any significant comments currently. Access location and design
along CR 117 will be reviewed during the platting process.
Additionally, as the area around CR 117 develops would the City be interested in discussing a
turn back of the roadway similar to Edmonson Ave to the north.
Thank you,
Cody Sedbrook, P.E. • Traffic Engineer
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA: HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
direct: (763) 682-7391 cell: (612) 394-1002
Highway Department Building, 3600 Braddock Ave NE, Buffalo, MN 55313
www.co.wright.mn.us
NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
2510-2521. This E-mail may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. Please reply back to the sender that you have received this message in error, then delete it.
Thank you.
From:Munsell, Anneka (She/Her/Hers) (MDH)
To:Angela Schumann
Cc:Shea, Abby (She/Her/Hers) (MDH); Woodside, John (MDH); Robertson, Steve (MDH); Bell, David (MDH)
Subject:Monticello Industrial AUAR - MDH Comments
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 2:12:59 PM
Attachments:Outlook-MDH on Fac.png
Outlook-MDH on X.png
Outlook-MDH on Lin.png
Outlook-MDH on Ins.png
Outlook-MDH on You.png
Outlook-MDH on Thr.png
Good afternoon,
Staff in the Source Water Protection Unit at the Minnesota Department of Health have
reviewed the Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR and have no comments. We appreciate that the
AUAR includes the corrections and suggestions from MDH during the AUAR Scoping.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input.
Please reach out if you have questions or concerns.
Anneka Munsell PE
Hydrologist | Source Water Protection
Minnesota Department of Health
Office: 651-201-5841
From:Alexander Coady
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: Monticello Industrial Development - Draft AUAR
Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:08:51 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image001.png
I still dont understand why "no data centers in monticello" isn't an option that even remotely
seems to be on the table. I feel like me and a bunch of people have been very clear on not
wanting these things in our town, yet the conversation on how to make data centers work
persists. It makes me feel belittled, unheard, and not well represented by the council, and the
stress has been having a negative impact on my health.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025, 10:57 AM Angela Schumann
<Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote:
On behalf of the City of Monticello, please find below a link to the Draft AUAR and
Mitigation Plan for the Monticello Industrial Development study area. The City of
Monticello approved the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for distribution at the November
10, 2025, City Council Meeting.
Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN
The AUAR process provides local governments with the opportunity to evaluate how
different land uses may impact the community's environment, providing environmental
analysis before major development occurs and helping inform future land use decisions. An
AUAR is not a project approval document; it provides information useful to planning for the
management and mitigation of impacts.
The Monticello Industrial AUAR evaluates two development land use scenarios, a light
industrial park land use scenario as outlined in the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan and
a technology campus (data center) land use scenario. This AUAR study area encompasses
approximately 550 acres on 16 parcels in Monticello Township, Minnesota. The study area
is comprised of land generally located south of 85th St NE, west of Edmonson Ave NE, and
east of Davidson Ave NE, within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
The public is invited to review and provide comment on the Draft AUAR and mitigation
plan. You are receiving this email because you have previously provided comments on the
Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document.
The 30-day comment period began on November 18, 2025. Comments will be accepted
through 4:00 PM on December 18, 2025, and should be addressed to:
angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov.
An Open House on Thursday, November 20, 2025 is also scheduled as an opportunity for
additional public information and feedback on the Monticello Industrial AUAR. The Open
House will be held from 6-8 PM at the Monticello Community Center.
Angela Schumann
From:Scott Nelson
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Detailed Comments on Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR and Mitigation Plan
Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 11:11:21 AM
Hi Angela,
Thank you for distributing the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for the Monticello Industrial
area. I spent time reading through the document in detail and wanted to share several specific
concerns related to nighttime lighting and mechanical noise. These issues appear repeatedly
throughout the AUAR but are not addressed with the level of technical clarity needed to avoid
problems for nearby neighborhoods.
After reviewing Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, as well as the mitigation summaries, I noticed that
lighting requirements are described only in broad terms such as buffering, screening, and site
design. For example, Figures 3 and 4 show extensive new impervious areas, parking fields,
and potential mechanical yards, yet there are no measurable standards referenced for lighting
controls. Without technical specifications, developers could default to high intensity fixtures
similar to the existing commercial sites along the Highway 25 corridor. As you know, lighting
from Walmart, UMC Manufacturing, and Camping World already produces noticeable sky
glow and glare because none of those installations follow dark sky guidelines. Adding 500
acres of industrial or tech campus lighting without precise requirements would compound that
impact and surely drown out our current dark sky view, which allows us the ability to clearly
see stars, the Northern Lights (Like the amazing views we had last week) and even the Milky
Way on clear nights.
If the City intends to minimize residential lighting impacts, the mitigation plan needs
measurable criteria. Examples include:
• Full cutoff fixtures with zero uplight (BUG rating of U0)
• Color temperature limits of 2700K to 3000K
• Pole height limits of 20 to 25 feet unless fully shielded
• Maximum maintained illumination levels for parking areas (0.2 to 0.5 footcandles after
hours)
• Required dimming schedules for non security lighting
• Prohibition on upward directed flag lighting and façade lighting
• Use of backlight shields along property edges and wetlands
These are standard practices for dark night lighting control and can be verified with
photometric plans submitted during site review. Adding these to the mitigation plan would
ensure both scenarios are held to a consistent standard.
I also have concerns about mechanical noise, particularly in Scenario 1. The AUAR notes that
a technology campus may require electrical substations, transmission extensions, large cooling
equipment, and backup generators. However, the document does not include noise contour
modeling, nighttime sound propagation analysis, or equipment performance assumptions.
Minnesota’s industrial noise limits are based on older standards and do not address low
frequency noise, which is the most common source of complaints near data centers. Without
specific controls, low frequency hum from cooling systems or tonal noise from generators
could be audible well beyond the site boundary, especially at night.
To avoid this outcome, the mitigation plan should include:
• A maximum nighttime property line noise limit specifically applied to continuous
mechanical equipment
• Daytime only generator testing requirements
• Sound enclosures or noise walls for generators and mechanical yards
• Low frequency noise controls, such as silencers or vibration isolation
• Placement requirements that keep mechanical yards internal to the site
• Post installation sound verification by an independent acoustical engineer
These types of requirements are common in other cities that have approved data centers, and
they remove ambiguity by defining clear, enforceable expectations.
While I am not exclusively against any of the ideas laid out by the City on face value, I am
very concerned that the lack of clear standards and corrective actions for lighting and noise
will create undue and avoidable disruption for neighboring residents. I am also concerned that
these issues may not be actively monitored or consistently enforced if not fully incorporated
into the mitigation plan. For these reasons, I do not currently approve of the plan as it is
written and cannot support either of the scenarios presented in the draft.
Thank you for considering these comments. I am happy to clarify any of these points or
provide additional technical examples if helpful.
Request:
A full groundwater analysis, including worst-case pumping for both scenarios, must be
completed before AUAR approval.
2. Surface Water & Stormwater Analyses Use
Outdated Data
Although the AUAR acknowledges changing precipitation patterns, it fails to model:
NOAA Atlas 14 updates or projected 2050–2080 storm intensities.
Downstream flooding impacts to County Ditch systems.
Increased runoff from converting ~444 acres of prime farmland (Table 3, p.18) to
impervious surface.
Flooding risk to nearby neighborhoods and planned residential developments.
Worst-case design must be shown; instead, the AUAR defers all critical detail to “future
design phases.”
Request:
Stormwater modeling using future climate projections and complete downstream hydrological
modeling.
3. Traffic & Transportation Impacts Are
Severely Underestimated
The transportation analysis (Tables 24 & 25) is narrowly focused and excludes:
Effects on Highway 25, County Road 39, and school routes.
Freight and heavy truck trips expected under Scenario 2.
Impacts on safety and emergency response times.
Road deterioration, noise, and long-term city maintenance costs.
Given the scale of the development—up to 5 million square feet—the traffic study is
insufficient for an AUAR.
Request:
A regional traffic impact analysis, including freight modeling, school traffic, and long-term
roadway maintenance.
4. Air Quality, Noise, and Health Impacts Are
Not Properly Addressed
The AUAR fails to evaluate:
Backup diesel generator emissions for Scenario 1.
Low-frequency and continuous cooling tower noise typical of data centers.
24/7 truck noise, idling, and loading activity for Scenario 2.
Cumulative health impacts on residents, especially children and elderly populations.
These omissions conflict with the AUAR requirement to evaluate worst-case impacts.
Request:
A Health Impact Assessment, diesel generator emissions modeling, and noise propagation
modeling for both scenarios.
5. Environmental, Habitat, and Farmland
Impacts Are Downplayed
The AUAR acknowledges that approximately 77% of the land is currently farmland of
statewide importance (Table 8, p.36), yet:
No alternatives that preserve agricultural use are considered.
Impacts to wildlife corridors and the planned greenway are dismissed.
Wetland hydrology and ecological connectivity are not studied in depth.
Given the scale of land conversion, this is a major deficiency.
Request:
Inclusion of land conservation alternatives and a full ecological connectivity assessment.
6. Cumulative Impacts Section Is Critically
Incomplete
The AUAR provides only minimal discussion of cumulative effects, failing to analyze:
Combined water, sewer, and power demand with ongoing city growth.
Combined regional traffic volumes.
Multi-source noise, air emissions, and long-term climate impacts.
This violates EQB AUAR guidance, which explicitly requires thorough cumulative analysis.
7. Mitigation Plan Is Vague and Not
Enforceable
The Draft Mitigation Plan (Table 26) lacks:
Quantitative thresholds
Timelines
Monitoring requirements
Assigned financial responsibility
Enforcement mechanisms
State law requires that mitigation in an AUAR be specific, detailed, and binding. This
mitigation plan does not meet that requirement.
8. Failure to Evaluate Reasonable Alternatives
The AUAR only evaluates two high-intensity industrial scenarios. It does not include:
A conservation-based alternative
Low-impact or mixed-use alternatives
Scaled-back development alternatives
Agricultural preservation or parkland alternatives
Minnesota environmental review rules require that an AUAR evaluate reasonable, feasible
alternatives. This AUAR does not.
Conclusion & Request for Action
Based on the concerns detailed above, I respectfully request that the City of Monticello:
Reject the current Draft AUAR as incomplete and inadequate,
Require significant revisions, including independent studies of groundwater,
stormwater, noise, traffic, and health impacts**,
Extend the public comment period after revisions are made,
Evaluate whether a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is warranted,
given the size, intensity, and risks associated with the proposed project.
This AUAR, as drafted, does not provide the community or decision-makers with the
information necessary to ensure the protection of public health, natural resources, and quality
of life for current and future residents.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I request written confirmation that these
concerns will be addressed in the revised AUAR.
Sincerely,
Candace Seidl
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:57 AM Angela Schumann
<Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote:
On behalf of the City of Monticello, please find below a link to the Draft AUAR and
Mitigation Plan for the Monticello Industrial Development study area. The City of
Monticello approved the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for distribution at the November
10, 2025, City Council Meeting.
Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN
The AUAR process provides local governments with the opportunity to evaluate how
different land uses may impact the community's environment, providing environmental
analysis before major development occurs and helping inform future land use decisions. An
AUAR is not a project approval document; it provides information useful to planning for the
management and mitigation of impacts.
The Monticello Industrial AUAR evaluates two development land use scenarios, a light
industrial park land use scenario as outlined in the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan and
a technology campus (data center) land use scenario. This AUAR study area encompasses
approximately 550 acres on 16 parcels in Monticello Township, Minnesota. The study area
is comprised of land generally located south of 85th St NE, west of Edmonson Ave NE, and
east of Davidson Ave NE, within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
The public is invited to review and provide comment on the Draft AUAR and mitigation
plan. You are receiving this email because you have previously provided comments on the
Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document.
The 30-day comment period began on November 18, 2025. Comments will be accepted
through 4:00 PM on December 18, 2025, and should be addressed to:
angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov.
An Open House on Thursday, November 20, 2025 is also scheduled as an opportunity for
additional public information and feedback on the Monticello Industrial AUAR. The Open
House will be held from 6-8 PM at the Monticello Community Center.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:bil keenan
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data ordinance.
Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 12:55:32 PM
Good Morning Angela. I will not be able to attend the early meeting but will slip in for the
later meeting. I read thru the ordinance and it doesnt look all that much different than the
original ideas. 300 feet for a setback is far too low. The City of Monticello has the power,
for now to control this and they are caving to big tech. That should be 1000 feet minimum
and I see they went with the standard decibel levels.
MPCA standard levels are too low, especially based on the type of frequency the noise will be.
Human brains can not block it out, and it is shown to cause health issues.
There is 550 acres available with a proposed 3,000,000 square feet ( which is around 70
acres). That leaves 480 acres as a buffer unless there is future development planned that we
do not know about. 300 feet should not be an option. 1000 feet minimum.
My question is after reading the enviromental study is
there is a woodland low area that has been used as a dumping ground for years. This would be
in the field next to our property I did not see anything about abandoned vehicles and rusted
out 55 gallon drums ( who knows what were in them) in the report. I would think that should
have been disclosed initially. It will get buried by Frattlone and no one will say a thing.
Another question is, I see more and more investors shorting the AI market ( particularly
Nvidia) for a potential bubble bust. Is Monticello concerned about this? The city of Monticello
will be putting a crazy amount of infrastructure in for something that could be gone in 10
years
This whole thing is absolutely disgusting. I am hoping the city council will say no to the
ordinance but I do not feel confident they will. They could at the very least table it for a year
and watch what other cities are doing and the market.
MPCA standard levels are too low, especially based on the type of frequency the noise will be.
Human brains cannot block it out and it is shown to cause health issues.
So much for public input. Very disheartening, but I do not think that anyone is suprised.
My question is after reading the enviromental study is
there is a woodland low area that has been used a dumping ground for years. I did not see
anything about abandoned vehicles and rusted out 55 gallon drums ( who knows what were in
them) in the report. I would think that should have been disclosed initially. It will get
buried by Frattlone and no one will say a thing.
My other question is, I see more and more investors are shorting the AI market ( particularly
Nvidia) for a potential bubble bust. Is Monticello concerned about this? The city of
Monticello will be putting a crazy amount of infrastructure in for something that could be
gone in 10 years.
MPCA standard levels are too low, especially based on the type of frequency the noise will be.
Human brains cannot block it out and it is shown to cause health issues.
From:DL Murdoff
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Greenhouse Gas Gases
Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 3:10:41 PM
Angela,
The greenhouse gas analysis projects that the project could produce 3,013,575 tons of
greenhouse gases per year--equivalent to 2.4% of ALL of Minnesota's current greenhouse gas
emissions.
This amount of greenhouse gas emissions is outrageous! This would result in the addition
of over 3 million tons of greenhouse gases to the environment every year, and it would
occur right here in Monticello. That’s a staggering amount.
To put into perspective, the Sherco power plant produced about 10.5 million tons of
greenhouse gases in 2022. They employed around 300 people (maybe 350).
From my understanding, the data center will create around 40 ongoing jobs (and won’t
really have the upswing of workers coming in for outages like the power plant). So when
you look at it from a greenhouse gas emissions standpoint. The data center creates more
yearly CO2 per employee than a coal power plant. YIKES!!!
Thanks,
Danielle L. Murdoff
My workdays are Tuesdays and Thursdays.
I usually reply within one workday.
Looking forward to connecting.
From:Shannon Bye
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Fwd: Monticello Industrial Development - Draft AUAR
Date:Saturday, December 6, 2025 6:38:29 PM
Attachments:image001.png
----------
The auar introduces two development scenarios but provides no rationale for why these
scenarios bracket the realistic range of impacts.
Scoping requires explaining why alternatives are reasonable, not just describing them.
Your document frequently states that mitigation “will be identified,” but does not outline:
decision criteria for selecting mitigation, responsible parties, performance standards, or
monitoring commitments.
This really weakens its usefulness for determining the scope and depth of analysis, but is that
what you are after? Honestly after last night's 4 hours( I will never get back) I don't know why
I bother. We do this song and dance with everything, and in the end you shove it through.
Same song and dance with Havenridge, despite the efforts of the Army Corps of engineers
recommendations, the supervision of recommendations was not even minimal in the end.
In this instance I am inclined to believe it isn't really about the data farm but opening up a
chunk of twnshp for light industrial use, since the planning scope of other previous plans
wasn't adept enough to realize commercial would tank, and allowing commercial IN the
existing industrial area (fleet farm??)
At any rate here are some expectations to improve your document, not my first rodeo and I
suspect even if you make the changes it will be like usual in that follow up is minimal
regardless of the data collected
Insufficient evaluation of cumulative potential effects
Scenario-based cumulative impacts are not described.
The AUAR must outline how cumulative effects will be assessed relative to:
other planned annexations,
regional industrial growth,
utility system expansions,
transportation improvements,
climate change.
The document only states that cumulative impacts “will be discussed.” The current description
does not identify the full range of realistic development intensities, nor does it justify why the
two selected scenarios represent the outer bounds of potential environmental effects. Expand
on the rationale and the bounding analysis should be included.should include an analysis of
greenway corridor constraints and potential fragmentation effects based on the City’s
adopted Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment.
This scoping phase should identify whether protocol-level surveys, avoidance zones, or
seasonal construction constraints will be required for Blanding's Turtle as noted. Don't see
that coming, hasn't been given much credence for other sites. Yout document does not
describe potential host habitats or whether field surveys are required for butterflies or other
pollinators.
The document describes plans but does not discuss potential plan amendments, conflicts, or
necessary updates to the Comprehensive Plan or Orderly Annexation Agreement. Scoping
must clarify whether Scenario 1's data‑center‑heavy model aligns with land‑use
allowances.
Climate adaptation section commits to addressing climate trends but contains no actual
climate baseline, projections, vulnerability assessment, or preliminary findings. Hows about
you include some actual climate projection baselines and anticipated future conditions to
scope the level of analysis required by the process you are participating in???. The current
language defers all meaningful analysis to the future without identifying methodology,
models, datasets, or thresholds for evaluating climate‑related risk.This undermines the
ability to scope climate-related analysis meaningfully.
The scoping document appears to leave out baseline estimates for criteria pollutants, GHG
emissions, noise contours, and traffic volumes for each scenario. These baselines are
necessary to determine the depth of study required. Furthermore provides no identification
of foreseeable projects, utility expansions, regional development, or transportation
improvements that must be included. Scoping must define the cumulative analysis
boundary.
Stormwater analysis is not yet defined
AUAR guidance requires a detailed stormwater approach, including:
conceptual pond locations,
estimated impervious surface totals,
infiltration feasibility,
rate/volume control strategy,
climate-change-adjusted hydrologic assumptions.
Instead, the document promises these will be “discussed,” offering no specifics.
Wetland analysis is incomplete
While wetlands are mapped, the document does not include:
impact estimates for either scenario,
preliminary avoidance/minimization strategy,
identification of likely mitigation pathways,
whether buffers can be met,
potential hydrologic changes.
does not include an overlay analysis of potential fragmentation, habitat loss, or
hydrologic alteration under either development scenario it also lacks an initial estimate
of total inches removed and expected replacement obligations, THAT is needed to
understand scale of impacts. There is no preliminary assessment of cut/fill needs, soil
export/import, mass grading extents, or erosion‑prone areas. Scenario‑level earthwork
analysis is required to properly scope stormwater and erosion evaluations.
does not provide preliminary estimates of permanent or temporary wetland impacts for
either scenario, nor does it evaluate hydrologic connectivity or down‑gradient effects
to Pelican Lake.
this lacks baseline groundwater level data, anticipated drawdown under each scenario,
or triggers for a water appropriations permit.
no scenario‑level wastewater generation estimates are provided & this will be
preventing scoping of system impacts. The document must include preliminary
flow ranges based on land use intensities.
This is a core requirement for AUAR scoping....The document mentions that water and
wastewater needs “will be evaluated,” but provides no preliminary capacity screening,
including but not limited to:
existing system deficits,
constraints of trunk sewer expansion,
potential need for new wells,
substation/transmission implications for Scenario 1.
Scoping must identify potential constraints, not just promise later evaluation.
Insufficient evaluation of cumulative potential effects: Scenario-based cumulative
impacts are not described. The AUAR must outline how cumulative effects will be assessed relative to:
other planned annexations,
regional industrial growth,
utility system expansions,
transportation improvements,
climate change.
The document only states that cumulative impacts “will be discussed.”
Insufficient evaluation of cumulative potential effects
Scenario-based cumulative impacts are not described.
The AUAR must outline how cumulative effects will be assessed relative to:
other planned annexations,
regional industrial growth,
utility system expansions,
transportation improvements,
climate change.
The document only states that cumulative impacts “will be discussed.”
I would expect that you need to identify scenario-specific triggers, thresholds for additional
environmental review (e.g., fuel storage, wastewater flows), or anticipated timing of permit
submittals. Scoping should identify which permits materially influence the AUAR
analysis, furthermore it lacks an initial compatibility screening, including noise, visual,
traffic, stormwater, and utility conflicts with the planned single‑family area east of
Edmonson Avenue.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:57 AM Angela Schumann
<Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote:
On behalf of the City of Monticello, please find below a link to the Draft AUAR and
Mitigation Plan for the Monticello Industrial Development study area. The City of
Monticello approved the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for distribution at the November
10, 2025, City Council Meeting.
Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN
The AUAR process provides local governments with the opportunity to evaluate how
different land uses may impact the community's environment, providing environmental
analysis before major development occurs and helping inform future land use decisions. An
AUAR is not a project approval document; it provides information useful to planning for the
management and mitigation of impacts.
The Monticello Industrial AUAR evaluates two development land use scenarios, a light
industrial park land use scenario as outlined in the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan and
a technology campus (data center) land use scenario. This AUAR study area encompasses
approximately 550 acres on 16 parcels in Monticello Township, Minnesota. The study area
is comprised of land generally located south of 85th St NE, west of Edmonson Ave NE, and
east of Davidson Ave NE, within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
The public is invited to review and provide comment on the Draft AUAR and mitigation
plan. You are receiving this email because you have previously provided comments on the
Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document.
The 30-day comment period began on November 18, 2025. Comments will be accepted
through 4:00 PM on December 18, 2025, and should be addressed to:
angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov.
An Open House on Thursday, November 20, 2025 is also scheduled as an opportunity for
additional public information and feedback on the Monticello Industrial AUAR. The Open
House will be held from 6-8 PM at the Monticello Community Center.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:Allie VanVleet
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center AUAR
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 8:55:40 PM
City of Monticello,
We have been residents of Monticello for over 5 years and have had many concerns with the
direction the city has been taking over the last few years. We are in strong opposition to the
proposed data center. I am sure you already know the numerous negative outcomes that these
types of facilities have on the surrounding community, but the following are a few of the
reasons we do not want to see this become a reality in our city.
Data centers negatively impact communities through severe noise pollution, increased air and
water pollution, strained energy grids leading to higher utility costs, and high water
consumption, potential health issues, decreased property values, and minimal local job
creation, creating significant environmental and social burdens. These large facilities consume
excessive amounts of resources and are not worth the related risks.
The environmental impacts include:
Water Strain: Data centers use millions of gallons of water daily for cooling, straining
local supplies in water-scarce regions.
Energy Demand: They are massive energy consumers, putting pressure on power grids,
sometimes leading to reliance on fossil fuels, increased emissions,
and higher energy bills for residents.
Air Pollution: Backup diesel generators can cause spikes in harmful air pollutants,
impacting public health.
Community and health impacts include:
Noise Pollution: Constant humming from cooling systems and generators causes sleep
disruption, headaches, and stress for nearby residents.
Health Concerns: Chronic noise and poor air quality can lead to hypertension,
cardiovascular risks, and provoke lung problems.
Property Values: property value of the surrounding area is driven down.
Economic impacts include:
Utility Costs: Data centers can drive up electricity rates for all consumers.
Job Disparity: While they consume resources, they create few local, high-paying jobs
compared to their scale.
Land Use: They displace other potential developments, such as housing, and can strain
local infrastructure.
We ask that the city council listen to the people who are raising a family here and call this city
their home rather than lining pockets with money that this type of facility claims to offer. We
have heard nothing but opposition for this facility from those in our community and ask that
this data center is denied entrance to ruining our home.
Thank you,
Steven and Allie VanVleet
From:Angela Schumann
To:Anne Mueller
Subject:FW: Auar
Date:Thursday, December 11, 2025 10:58:58 AM
From: Gwen&Wayne Johnson
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 10:56 AM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Auar
Hello Angela, I have read through the auar. Although the document seems pretty
thorough for the most part. The one thing I don’t see addressed is amount of chemical
being used on the land now that may be eliminated with the change in land use.
I would be referring to farm herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers.
As you are aware intensive farming practices require considerable amounts of all of
these products on a regular basis.
The current farmer running a large portion of this land is a very efficient operator. He
sometimes double crops areas of the farm which requires double applications of all of
the above chemicals. He also grows specialty crops which generally require higher
amounts of insecticides.
Although many of the current farm chemicals are not considered pfas, a few are. Some
of the main chemicals such as glyphosphates are not considered pfas, although it has
been proven they remain molecularly intact long enough to create health concerns.
Being that there are currently thousands of pounds of various chemicals currently being
distributed on this parcel that would be mostly eliminated in the auar scenarios. It
seems this would have very realistic effect on the surrounding community and the
environment.
I imagine that the amount of chemicals the operator uses on this parcel may not be
required to be of public record.
Thank you,
Wayne Johnson
From:
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comment on the Monticello Draft AUAR
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 1:32:00 PM
Hello,
I am submitting this comment because after reviewing the Draft AUAR, it’s clear that the
document does not go far enough in protecting residents, groundwater, wetlands, wildlife, or
the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The AUAR reads more like a framework to
make development easier than a document that seriously evaluates worst-case impacts or holds
future projects to a high standard.
The area covered by this AUAR includes sensitive wetlands, wells, groundwater protection
zones, and wildlife habitat. It also sits near existing neighborhoods that will be directly
affected by noise, lighting, traffic, and industrial activity. Given the scale of the two scenarios
—up to 3 million square feet of “technology campus” buildings or up to 5 million square feet
of industrial development—the protections outlined in the AUAR are not nearly strong enough
or detailed enough to ensure long-term environmental safety and quality of life.
Major Concerns:
1. Groundwater and Aquifer Protection
The AUAR acknowledges that part of the site lies within a Drinking Water Supply
Management Area but still allows high-risk options like rapid infiltration basins and
large-volume water use without requiring rigorous hydrogeological testing before
approval. A “study later” approach is not acceptable in an area tied directly to
community drinking water.
2. Wetland Impacts
The document allows for wetland impacts under both scenarios with vague promises of
“replacement through banking credits.” Replacing wetlands on paper does not protect
the local ecosystem or stormwater function of the site. Local wetland preservation
should be the default expectation, not an optional mitigation tactic.
3. Traffic and Roadway Stress
The AUAR’s traffic analysis is too general and does not realistically address truck
volumes, noise, congestion, or safety risks—especially under the industrial scenario.
Residents should not be left to deal with the consequences of heavy industrial traffic
because the initial environmental review used optimistic estimates.
4. Noise and Air Impacts
The AUAR repeatedly delays noise and air-quality studies until individual projects are
proposed. This undermines the purpose of an AUAR, which is supposed to evaluate
cumulative, worst-case impacts. Backup generators, cooling systems, and heavy
equipment could have major long-term effects on surrounding homes, yet the AUAR
provides no enforceable limits.
5. Weak Enforcement Language
Much of the mitigation plan uses soft language like “should,” “may,” or “is expected
to.” None of these guarantee that impacts will actually be prevented. Developers could
technically meet the AUAR requirements while still creating substantial harm.
Stronger Measures That Should Be Added Before Approval:
1. Mandatory full hydrogeological impact assessment before any approval
No project should move forward without clear evidence that groundwater, private wells,
and the City’s aquifer will not be harmed.
2. No use of infiltration basins for industrial or data-center wastewater
This practice introduces unnecessary risk in a DWSMA zone. Wastewater must be
treated and sent through the municipal system only.
3. Zero net loss of local wetlands
All wetlands on the site should be protected in place. Banking credits should not
substitute for local environmental functions.
4. Binding noise limits and generator-testing restrictions
The AUAR should establish strict noise thresholds, limits on hours of operation, and
requirements for noise-reducing design features before any project is allowed.
5. Comprehensive traffic impact plan with enforceable truck routes
Heavy truck traffic should be restricted from residential roads, and a full traffic impact
study should be required before any project approval—not after.
6. A stronger greenway and wildlife-protection requirement
The AUAR should guarantee continuous habitat corridors, larger buffers around
wetlands, and mandatory wildlife-friendly design.
7. Independent environmental monitoring paid for by developers
Annual third-party audits should be required to ensure developers follow stormwater,
groundwater, noise, and air-quality commitments.
8. Shorter AUAR validity period
The AUAR should expire sooner than typical to prevent outdated assumptions from
allowing harmful future projects.
In summary, this AUAR does not go far enough to protect Monticello residents or the
environment. The scale of development being considered demands stronger, clearer, and
enforceable mitigation measures. Without these changes, the AUAR creates more risk than
reassurance. I urge the city to adopt stricter requirements before finalizing this document.
Monticello Industrial AUAR Schedule
TASK START END
City Council Meeting to Authorize Distribution to EQB
WSB submits Draft AUAR Order and Scoping Document to EQB
Draft AUAR Order and Scoping Document published in EQB Monitor
30-day public comment period 8/5/2025 9/4/2025
KH prepares Final AUAR Order and Scoping Document 9/4/2025 9/19/2025
City Reviews/KH revises Final AUAR Order and Scoping Document 9/19/2025 9/26/2025
KH revises 9/26/2025 10/3/2025
Submit AUAR Order and Scoping Document to City (1 week prior to mtg)
City adopts AUAR Order + Scoping Document at City Council meeting
WSB submits Final AUAR Order and Scoping Document to EQB
Final AUAR Order and Scoping Document published in EQB Monitor
120-day AUAR preparation process 10/13/2025 2/10/2026
City/Client reviews 2nd draft of Draft AUAR 9/24/2025 10/8/2025
KH revises Draft AUAR 10/8/2025 10/18/2025
City reviews/KH revises 3rd draft of Draft AUAR 10/18/2025 10/30/2025
Planning Commission Review of Draft AUAR (in PPT form & provide copy of Draft AUAR)
City Council Authorization to submit Draft AUAR to EQB (final draft shared at meeting)
WSB submits Draft AUAR to EQB
Draft AUAR published in EQB Monitor
30-day public comment period 11/18/2025 12/18/2025
Public Open House (est. date)
Joint session with PC and CC to collect AUAR comments
KH prepares Final AUAR and responses to comments 12/18/2025 12/22/2025
Meeting with city to discuss comments
City reviews Final AUAR (1 week)12/22/2025 12/29/2025
WSB submits Final AUAR to state agencies and EQB Monitor
10-business day Final AUAR objection period (state agencies and the Met Council)1/6/2026 1/21/2025
Submit Final AUAR to City
City adopts the Final AUAR at City Council meeting
WSB submits notice of adoption of Final AUAR to EQB and EQB distribution list
Notice of adoption of Final AUAR published in EQB Monitor
1/27/2025
2/3/2025
AUAR Order
7/28/2025
10/8/2025
AUAR and Mitigation Plan
11/3/2025
11/18/2025
12/30/2025
1/26/2025
1/21/2025
10/14/2025
10/21/2025
11/10/2025
11/11/2025
7/29/2025
8/5/2025
10/13/2025
12/22/2025
Nov 18-20
TBD (during comment period)
Updated December 2015 Page 1
Quick Reference: Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Quick Reference: Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
The AUAR process is a hybrid of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) review processes. Responsible Governmental Units (RGU) can use an AUAR as a
planning tool to understand how different development scenarios will affect the environment of their
community before the development occurs. The process is designed to look at the cumulative impacts of
anticipated development scenarios within a given geographic area. The AUAR document uses a list of
questions adapted from the EAW form, but provides a level of analysis of typical urban area impacts
comparable to an EIS. Environmental analysis information from an AUAR can be used to inform local
planning and zoning decisions. This quick reference guide is meant to provide a brief overview of the AUAR
process and the steps required to successfully complete an AUAR. For more detailed guidance on properly
preparing an AUAR, please see the Recommended Content and Format Guide on the Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) website.
Please note that this quick reference guide is not intended to substitute for Minnesota Rules 4410. It is
designed to help RGUs and others implement the environmental review process more effectively and
efficiently. The guide does not alter the rules or change their meaning; if any inconsistencies arise between
this guide and the rules, the rules take precedent. Please contact EQB Staff with any questions at
Env.Review@state.mn.us or 651-757-2873.
RGU distributes draft
order for review for
comments. Notice is
published in the EQB
Monitor
(4410.3610 Subp. 5a B)
Government units and
interested persons have
30 days to submit
comments to RGU
(4410.3610 Subp. 5a C)
RGU considers
comments when
finalizing order for
review and adopts final
order within 15 days of
end of comment period
(4410.3610 Subp. 5a D
& E)
RGU distributes final
order and record of
decision to EQB and all
commenters within 10
days of decision
(4410.3610 Subp. 5a E)
Additional First Steps in AUAR Process for Certain Specific Large Projects
(Minnesota Rules 4410.3610, Subpart 5a)
Note: If you do not have a large project that meets the criteria described below, please see the AUAR
Process Steps on page two.
The 2009 Minnesota Rule amendments added additional required steps at the beginning of the AUAR
process if the review will cover any specific projects that meet mandatory Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) requirements or comprise at least 50 percent of the geographic area to be reviewed. These steps
include a public comment period on the scope of the AUAR review, specifically on the development
scenarios and relevant issues to be covered. These steps must occur before a final order for review can be
adopted.
Updated December 2015 Page 2
Quick Reference: Alternative Urban Areawide Review
RGU adopts an order for
review in preparation
for the AUAR
(4410.3610 Subp. 3 or
4410.3610 Subp. 5a E)
RGU develops draft AUAR
and mitigation plan
(4410.3610 Subp. 4 & 5 A)
AUAR Process Steps
(Minnesota Rules 4410.3610, Subparts 3-5)
RGU distributes
AUAR draft and
mitigation plan for
comments. Notice is
published in the EQB
Monitor
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 A)
Reviewers have 30 days
from publication date in
EQB Monitor to submit
written comments to
RGU. Government units
may request a 15 day
extension
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 B)
RGU revises draft AUAR
and mitigation plan based
on comments and
distributes final documents
to state agencies and Met
Council
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 C & D)
State Agencies and the Met
Council have 10 days from
receipt of final AUAR
documents to file an objection
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 D)
Negotiations between RGU
and objecting agency
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 F & G)
EQB action required
to determine adequacy
of AUAR documents
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 H)
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
No
t
Re
s
o
l
v
e
d
RGU adopts final
AUAR and mitigation
plan. Notice is
published in the EQB
Monitor
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 E)
Resolved
Unless the AUAR includes additional first steps due to a large specific project as detailed on page one, the
first step of the AUAR process is the adoption of an order for review by the RGU. The draft and final
AUAR, along with the mitigation plan, are prepared and distributed for comments to ensure adequate
review. A process for appeal to the EQB can be invoked by state agencies and the Metropolitan Council.
Updated December 2015 Page 3
Quick Reference: Alternative Urban Areawide Review
RGU completes a draft
update of the AUAR and
mitigation plan
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 D-H
& Subp. 7)
AUAR Update Process Steps
(Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subpart 7)
RGU distributes AUAR
draft and mitigation
plan update for
comments. Notice is
published in the EQB
Monitor
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 D
& Subp. 7)
Reviewers have 10
days from publication
date in EQB Monitor
to submit written
comments to RGU.
State Agencies and the
Met Council have 10
days from receipt of
final AUAR
documents to file an
objection
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 D)
Negotiations between RGU
and objecting agency
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 F & G)
EQB action required
to determine adequacy
of AUAR documents
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 H)
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
No
t
Re
s
o
l
v
e
d
RGU adopts final
AUAR and mitigation
plan. Notice is
published in the EQB
Monitor
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 E)
Resolved
Inadequate
Minnesota Rules provide guidance on the circumstances that require an AUAR update. Regardless of
any significant changes, the AUAR must be updated every five years until all of the development in
the area has been approved. An AUAR update is generally a faster process than starting a new AUAR
since the update process does not require a complete revision of the AUAR document. Instead, the
update process requires that the AUAR document, along with the mitigation plan, be updated to the
extent necessary to reflect the changes that have occurred in the area included in the review. The
updated documents are distributed in a manner similar to a final AUAR except that the documents
must be sent to all parties listed on the EAW distribution list and a notice must be published in the
EQB Monitor. The process for appeal to the EQB can still be invoked by state agencies and the
Metropolitan Council as in the normal AUAR process.
Guidance and Submittal Requirements
for Rapid Infiltration Basin Wastewater
Treatment Systems
March 2005
Wq-wwtp5-64
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents
i.
List of Figures and Tables
ii.
Purpose and Scope
1
Acknowledgments
1
I. Introduction 3
II. The Permitting Process. 4
III. Nitrogen Analysis and Considerations 4
IV. Preliminary RIB Design 6
V. Requirements for Site, Soils and Hydrogeologic Site Evaluation 8
VI. Determining Hydraulic Loading Rates 8
VII. Ground Water Mounding 10
VIII. Operational Criteria 10
IX. Engineering Design Report Submittal Requirements 12
X. Example Problem 12
XI. Summary and Conclusions 15
References 15
Appendix I (The Permitting Process) 17
Appendix II (Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation) 19
Appendix III (Site Soils Evaluation) 23
Appendix IV (Hydrogeologic Report Requirements) 29
Appendix V (Limited Hydrogeologic Report Requirements) 33
Appendix VI (Engineering Report Requirements 35
List of Figures and Tables
Figure Number Page
1 Photograph of a Rapid Infiltration Basin System 4
2 Simplified RIB Permitting Process Flow Chart 4
Table Number
1 Suggested Loading and Resting Cycles 11
2 Phosphorous Impact Evaluation 26
iii
Purpose and Scope of this Document
The purpose of this guidance document is to assist the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) and consulting technical staff (engineers, soil scientists, and geologists) in the design,
permitting and operation of Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) wastewater dispersal systems
(systems). This document presents discussions on the various technical requirements, and
provides an overview of what is required to obtain an MPCA permit for an RIB system.
Acknowledgments
This guidance was written by Neal Wilson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Senior
Hydrogeologist. The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of the following
individuals in the preparation of this document: Stephanie Handeland, EuDale Mathiason,
Brad Nordberg, Sally Patrick, Gene Soderbeck, Steve Stark, and Mark Wespetal.
1
Rapid Infiltration Basins
I. Introduction
What are Rapid infiltration Basins?
Rapid Infiltration Basins (RIBs) are permeable earthen basins, designed and operated to treat and
disperse municipal wastewater. RIBs are typically operated in conjunction with either a primary
wastewater pond, or a primary and secondary wastewater pond system.
How do they operate?
A RIB system is managed by repetitive cycles of flooding, infiltration and drying. Rapid
infiltration of wastewater is based on a relatively high rate of wastewater infiltration into the soil
followed by rapid percolation, either vertically or laterally away. The best soils for rapid
infiltration are relatively coarse textured, with moderate to rapid permeabilities (1).
Particulates, BOD, trace metals and suspended solids are removed at least in part at or near the
soil surface. Pathogen removal by RIB systems may be as high as 99.99%, with less attenuation
occurring in coarser sands and gravel. Limited studies indicate that some degree of treatment
may be afforded to volatile organic compounds by RIBs, by volatilization, sorption and
degradation.
Nitrification-denitrification is the primary nitrogen removal process. Total nitrogen removal
efficiencies for RIB systems are approximately 50% (2), and more nitrogen may be removed by
using special management practices. Air temperatures between 86°F-95°F are the optimal
temperatures for nitrogen removal with the microbiologically mediated processes greatly slowing
around 55°F, and stopping at or near freezing temperatures. Aerobic bacteria deplete soil oxygen
during flooding periods, so resting/re-aerating the system is required for the system to properly
function.
A RIB drying cycle is typically five to ten times longer than the wetting cycle and in Minnesota
RIB systems are usually not operated in the winter (120-150 days). These criteria need to be
considered when proposing RIB hydraulic loading rates.
3
Figure 1: Rapid Infiltration Basins.
II. The Permitting Process
The following flow chart describes the typical sequence for obtaining an MPCA State Disposal
System (SDS) Permit for a RIB. More detailed information on the permitting process is included
in Appendix A.
Figure 2: Simplified RIB Permitting Process
Meet and discuss
proposed project
with MPCA staff
Submit to the
MPCA a
Preliminary
Proposal/Facilities
Plan
Submit to the
MPCA Site
(Engineer,
Permit writer,
Hydrogeologist
Evaluation, Soils,
Hydrogeologic
Workplans
Submit to and
MPCA approval of
Site Evaluation,
Soils and
Hyfdrogeologic
Reports
MPCA review, Submit to the MPCA Plans MPCA review of
Plans and
Specifications and
permitting
documents
approval of
Preliminary
Proposal/Facilities
Plan
and Specifications and a
complete permit application
with supporting documents
(see Appendix 1)
Facility
constructed,
brought into
operations
Conduct
basin-by-basin
flooding tests
1 year Certification
Report, and Final O&M Plan
approved by MPCA
MPCA
Permit
issued
Permit flow
limits modified
as needed
4
III. Nitrogen Management Options
Although there are several constituents of concern in wastewater one of the main constituents of
concern that influences RIB system design is nitrate-nitrogen. In terms of nitrogen treatment and
system design there are two options for obtaining an MPCA SDS Permit as described below.
Irrespective of which track is selected at least a preliminary phosphorous setback evaluation will
be required (see bottom of Appendix II).
Option One
If the effluent going to the RIBs (verified by on-going effluent monitoring) contains a maximum
of 10 mg/L total nitrogen and there is adequate (a minimum of 100’) separation between the
RIBs and the property line/and or the nearest receptor (surface water or potable water supply
well) then only a limited hydrogeologic investigation, and no ground-water monitoring will be
required. The requirements for a limited hydrogeologic investigation are included in Appendix
V.
Option Two
If the conditions described in Option One above cannot be met then a complete hydrogeologic
investigation and ground-water monitoring will be required. If the hydrogeologic evaluation
demonstrates little potential for ground water impacts (e.g., the RIBs are in a ground-water
discharge zone, no proximal water supply wells etc.) then a limit of 10 mg/L for nitrate-N will be
assigned to down-gradient monitoring wells. If the hydrogeologic evaluation determines that the
ground water has the potential for being impacted by the RIBs then a limit of 5 mg/L will be
assigned to down-gradient monitoring wells.
To reflect ambient conditions where existing ground water nitrate nitrogen concentrations are
already elevated nitrate-N limits will be set at the mean of a minimum of three up-gradient
ground water samples. In order to set limits an up-gradient well will have to have been sampled
at least three times prior to public noticing the permit. Due to discharge flow dynamics more
monitoring wells will usually be required the further the monitoring wells are placed from
the RIBs.
Normally RIBs should be located as far hydraulically up-gradient from the property line as
possible. Any amount of land may be used as a treatment zone between the RIBs and the
property line, but this land must not be used in any manner other than as an undeveloped
treatment zone.
Several nitrogen reduction methods may be employed at the same site to reduce ground water
impacts from RIBs. Nitrogen reduction methods include:
(1) initially locating the system where natural soil and/or ground water conditions promote
denitrification (anoxic and reducing conditions with some dissolved organic carbon);
(2) locating the RIB system near a downgradient wetland, river or stream that captures, and
has the ability to further attenuate the discharge plume;
(3) the RIBs being located as far up-gradient as possible, with the downgradient
property maintained as green space;
5
(4) the RIBs designed as long as practical and perpendicular to the ground water
contour;
(5) (clean) stormwater infiltration downgradient of an RIB;
(6) for suitable soils and shallower ground water using hybrid poplar trees to evapotranspirate
the discharge;
(7) installation of downgradient recovery wells for non-potable (E.G. irrigation) use;
(8) selecting loading and resting cycles that promote denitrification; and
(9) control of downgradient land to the ground water discharge point which prohibits
the installation and use water supply wells.
IV. Preliminary RIB Design
Suitable Locations
A RIB system located on a relatively level site with deep, uniform, unsaturated moderately
permeable soils, a deep water table, and is adjacent to a ground water discharge area should
increase the performance of the system and reduce associated environmental impacts. Areas with
steep slopes, shallow water tables, are adjacent to wetlands, or are in soils that are too coarse or
too fine may make siting RIBs more difficult, or may reduce the performance of the RIB system.
Unsuitable Locations
Systems that are within wellhead protection areas, are proposed to be located in areas with
shallow bedrock, are above sole-source aquifers, are located on a flood plain, or are in karst areas
are most likely not suitable locations for RIB systems.
Number of RIBs
The minimum number of RIBs in a system is 3, but the number of basins can vary from 3-17
depending on whether continuous wastewater discharge is required. Individual basin size can
range from 0.5-5 acres for small to medium-sized systems, to 5-20 acres for larger systems. The
EPA has provided guidance on the number of basins needed, based on the projected number and
duration of loading and resting cycles (3).
Dimensions
To maximize land use basins should adjoin, and be square or rectangular in shape. Long, narrow
basins with their length perpendicular to ground water flow direction may reduce ground water
mounding. The potential that basins will cause unacceptable mounding in adjacent basins needs
to be evaluated during system design.
Dikes
Each basin should be constructed at least 12 inches deeper than the maximum design wastewater
depth (4). Dikes need to be compacted to prevent seepage through them, and should be sloped
so storm water runoff is routed away from the site. Extra freeboard is not recommended for
routine wastewater containment (5). Dikes must be protected from erosion both during and after
construction to keep fines from washing in and reducing basin infiltration.
6
Solutions for Less Favorable Soil Conditions
Whenever possible basins should not be constructed on backfilled materials, and soil compaction
during construction must be minimized. At sites where the infiltration rate is slow (finer,
structureless soils) then more and larger basins with lower loading rates may be required.
At sites with coarser soils, the soils may not provide uniform basin loading, or the soil based
treatment (aerobic/anaerobic conditions) necessary to protect ground water. In Section 4.7.3. on
page 48 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document Process Design
Manual, Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow it states “In all cases, uniform
wastewater application over the entire basin surface is necessary”. In more coarse soils to ensure
uniform distribution “The distribution system might range from a network of pipes and troughs
to sprinklers in the extreme case”.
At RIB sites where the infiltration rate is too fast several options may be considered including
the following:
• Having smaller basins and multiple inlets;
• Carefully removing and stockpiling approximately 12” of the basin soil and then blending
finer textured soils (silt, 5%-10%) into the stockpiled soil, and then placing this reworked
soil on top of a Geotextile material laid out in the basins;
• Placing a Geotextile material that sufficiently slows down infiltration directly on top of
the RIBs (possibly using sandbags as anchors), and then placing 12” of clean sand on top
of the reduced hydraulic conductivity Geotextile material;
• Installing a (very) level matrix of troughs made of concrete or pipe cut lengthwise that is
installed and kept level so uniform distribution within the RIBs is maintained. A part of
the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan will require that the operator must
routinely observe drainage, and re-level the drainage channels as necessary;
• Installing a matrix of pressure-distributed distribution lines (i.e. drain tile) with the
orifices sized and positioned optimally (sideways or upright) so as to ensure uniform
loading and reduced basin scouring;
• Spraying into the basins using a fixed set (overhead or vertical uprights) sprinkler system;
or
• Finding a more suitable site, or selecting an alternative treatment technology.
It should be noted that these are only some examples of possible solutions that may or may not
work at a particular site. Other solutions may be possible, and calculations and bench and/or
field testing of the selected design should be considered to ensure system viability, uniform
distribution of the effluent, and optimally so that the predicted dosing periods would be long
enough to induce anaerobic conditions for at least some portion of the load/rest cycle.
V. Requirements for Site Suitability, Soils, and Hydrogeologic Site
Investigation
Irrespective of which of the two nitrogen management options that are selected the permittee
must undertake a Site Suitability Investigation, a Soils Investigation, and some form of a
Hydrogeologic Investigation. The scope of the Hydrogeologic Investigation will depend on
which of the two nitrogen management options is selected. The purpose of these investigations
7
is to characterize the area where the system is proposed to be installed, and to characterize the
site soils for design purposes.
Soils are critical for the treatment process. The person who prepares the soils report must certify
by signature that they have expertise in Soil Science (defined by education and experience,
especially soil morphology). They should have also have taken the Onsite Sewage Treatment
Workshop Soils class or equivalent. Under some circumstances the person who designates
where the soil pits are to be located may differ from the individual who actually logs the soil pits.
If this occurs, then it must be noted in the Soils Report.
When designing the system a minimum of three feet of soil must exist between the bottom of the
RIBs and the actual ground water mound height (including the capillary fringe). For systems
where mounding may be an issue (based on the mounding analyses) piezometers must be
installed, and on-going measurements must be made in the piezometers to ensure that at
minimum three feet of separation is maintained during operation.
Appendices II, III and IV respectively provide more detailed discussions on what is required for
the Site, Soils, and Hydrogeologic Investigations.
VI. Determining Hydraulic Loading Rates
The sequence for determining annual and individual hydraulic loading rates for RIB systems is
as follows:
1. adequately characterize the site soils;
2. estimate annual and daily loading rates; and
3. verify the estimations with empirically-derived (actual) basin-by-basin flooding tests after the
basins are constructed.
Hydraulic loading rates are estimated primarily on soil texture, consistence and structure of the
most hydraulically limiting soil horizon above the seasonal high water table. A combination of
these three soil properties will determine the most limiting soil horizon, and infiltration rates
below the system.
Laboratory sieve and permeability measurements, and/or preferably in-situ measurements using
a double ring infiltrometer or equivalent method (6) of the most transmissive (i.e. quantity) and
the most hydraulically limiting (MHL) horizons especially on less favorable sites should be
undertaken for estimating hydraulic loading rates (see example on page 12, section IX).
When working with RIBs the terms vertical hydraulic conductivity (K ), horizontal hydraulic
conductivity (K ) and saturated hydraulic conductivity (K ) are used. Vertical hydraulic
conductivity is used to estimate the rate of flow of water into and through the soil, in other words
a “soil acceptance rate”. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity is used for mounding analysis.
Mounding occurs when infiltrated wastewater (which is moving in a vertical direction)
encounters the water table and cannot flow “away” from the application site fast enough.
v
h sat
The direction of this saturated flow or subsurface drainage has to be in a lateral direction “away”
from the application site. Therefore some combination of K and K are used for mounding
analysis. The further from the center of the mound, the more the ground water is controlled by
v h
8
K . Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K ) is a field-derived K . Saturated hydraulic
conductivity typically represents the fastest rate that clean water will move through the soil, and
wastewater infiltration rates are usually lower than the K .
h sat v
sat
Field-scale flooding basin tests (test areas at least 75 ft ) should also be considered for design
purposes. This is because field-scale flooding measurements are typically more accurate than
laboratory-derived permeabilities or double ring infiltrometer measurements for estimating
hydraulic acceptance rates and ultimately system performance. The primary purpose of a
flooding basin test is to define K . Basin flooding tests are conducted by flooding the basin(s)
at an estimated rate, to determine a rate such that no standing water is present at the end of the
loading period. The EPA has provided guidelines that should be used for conducting flooding
basins tests (7).
2
v
Depending on suspended and dissolved solids the performance of RIBs may decrease with time.
The EPA’s allowable hydraulic loading rate (incorporating a safety factor) is approximately an
order of magnitude less than the actual “effective” hydraulic conductivity (8).
To expedite permit issuance annual basin hydraulic loading limits will be set at ten percent of the
measured in-situ infiltration rates (9). Laboratory and in-situ measurements are estimates of
hydraulic performance. The final annual loading rates will be obtained by taking ten percent of
the effective infiltration rate(s) obtained by basin-by-basin flooding tests, conducted after the
permit is issued and the RIBs are built. These final loading rates will be included in the revised
Final O & M plan that must be submitted for MPCA review and approval at the completion of
the performance certification period (twelve months after initiation of operations).
Individual loading cycle application rates (as opposed to annual rates) are usually set at less than
50% of the observed infiltration rate to allow for reduced infiltration caused by organic matter
and solids in the wastewater (10). This should also be addressed in the O & M Plan.
VII. Ground Water Mounding
Accurate soils and hydrogeologic information is needed to estimate the RIB system’s
performance. To reduce mounding and to provide maximum treatment the long axes of the
RIBs should be aligned perpendicular to ground water flow direction. Therefore the direction
of ground water flow should be determined in the areas proposed for the basins, prior to them
being built.
Hydraulic acceptance rates are not mounding calculations. Mounding calculations need to be
determined based on hydraulic loading rates, aquifer thickness, K and K , and depth to the
seasonal high water table to ensure that an adequate aerated treatment zone is maintained. As
per the EPA “The capillary fringe above ground water mounds should never be closer than 2 feet
to the bottom of the infiltration basin. This corresponds to a water table depth of about 3 to 7
feet, depending on soil texture” (11).
h v
Under certain circumstances such as systems located in coarse soils with a deep water table a
more formal mounding analyses may not be necessary. However the closer the water table is to
9
the base of the RIBs, the more variable the soils, the higher the proposed loading rates and the
lower the K , the more important mounding calculations become and corresponding, the more
conservative the assumptions used should be when making the calculations. The EPA estimation
(12) and the Finnemore and Hantzsche method (13) are acceptable methods for estimating
mounding (see bottom of Appendix II).
h
Mounding calculations are estimates. Depending on the potential for mounding estimated from
the mounding analyses piezometers will need to be installed between or immediately adjacent to
the RIBs. An enforceable part of the MPCA permit will state that even with mounding, the
ground water surface as measured in the piezometers will need to be kept 3 feet or lower than the
bottom of the RIBs. Therefore the surveyed elevation(s) of the bottom of the RIBs need to be
obtained for operational and comparative use later.
During construction, marginal overlying soils may be carefully removed from the proposed RIB
site(s) to expose less hydraulically restrictive horizons. Unfortunately by doing so, it may bring
the base of the RIB closer to the acceptable three feet separation distance of the (mounded) water
table. When constructing RIBs the equipment that is used must minimize soil compaction.
VIII. Operational Criteria
Depending on site conditions and effluent strength loading and resting cycles may be selected to
either maximize infiltration, or to maximize nitrogen removal. A regular drying period is
necessary for system performance. To maximize infiltration the drying periods should be long
enough to re-aerate the soil, to dry and oxidize the filtered solids. To maximize nitrogen removal
the entire basin needs to be flooded, and the application period must be long enough for the soil
bacteria to deplete soil oxygen, resulting in anaerobic/denitrifying conditions. Table 1
summarizes EPA suggested loading and resting cycles.
10
Table 1
Suggested Loading and Resting Cycles
Objective Pond
Discharge
Application
Period
(days)
Drying Period
Primary 1-2 5-7
Secondary 1-3 4-5
Maximize
Infiltration
Rates
Primary 1-2 10-14
Secondary 7-9 10-15
Maximize
Nitrogen
Removal
These wet/dry cycles are usually expressed as ratios. For example a load/rest cycle of load for
one day and rest for five days would have a load/rest ratio of 0.2. For maximizing nitrogen
removal from a secondary pond a load/rest ratio of 0.5 to 1 may be suggested. Loading and
resting cycles are adjusted based on site-specific factors that include soil conditions and influent
constituent of concern concentrations. The EPA six-step method may be used to estimate
nitrogen removal based on wastewater strength, and various load/rest cycles (15).
From the MPCA’s perspective the most important operational criteria may be summarized as
follows:
A. Unless otherwise specified RIBs will not be operated in the winter (between
120-150 days);
B. A minimum of three feet must be maintained between the top of the ground
water mound and the bottom of the RIBs. If piezometers are required then the prescribed
separation distance between the ground water and the bottom of the RIB system must be
routinely observed and noted in the on-going operator’s reports;
C. To the greatest extent possible flooded conditions should be maintained for the entire
loading period to provide the anaerobic conditions necessary for denitrification;
D. For each RIB all standing water at the end of the flooding period must infiltrate within
the first one third of the drying period;
E. The entire basin cross-sectional area must be uniformly loaded;
F. Effluent limits and/or ground water limits in monitoring wells need to be met; and
G. No springs, seeps or overland flow will be allowed hydraulically downgradient of the
RIBs.
Depending on soil conditions (no soil horizons that restrict vertical root growth) and the depth to
ground water (less than ten feet) a dense stand of hybrid poplar trees planted hydraulically down-
gradient of the RIBs may evapotranspirate much of the effluent from the system. The local Soil
and Water Conservation District may be able to assist with the cost of planting and maintaining
the trees. Due primarily to problems observed with reduced infiltration Reed Canary grass
should not be grown in the RIBs to add a transpirational component.
11
IX. Engineering Design Report Submittal Requirements
The purpose of the Engineering Design Report is to ensure that the system will meet or exceed
MPCA and accepted engineering standards for design, construction, operation, and maintenance.
The requirements for the Engineering Design Report are found in Appendix VI.
With the Engineering Design Report a detailed draft O & M Plan needs to be submitted with the
permit application. The O & M Plan (a manual) must include the following:
• system maintenance (basin maintenance performed when the basins are dry);
• proposed system yearly loading rate;
• specify the number and duration of individual loading and resting cycles;
• specify the order in which the RIBs will be loaded;
• describe how uniform distribution of the effluent over the entire basin floors will be
undertaken and documented for each event;
• a Mitigation Plan; and
• a Sampling and Analysis Plan (for sampling the system, piezometers, and monitoring
wells as required).
A Final O & M Plan must be submitted to the MPCA for review and approval at least 60 days
prior to initiation of operation of the system. A revised Final O & M Plan that includes revised
basin-by-basin loading rates must be submitted for review and approval at the end of the
performance certification period (twelve months after initiation of operation). The revised Final
O & M Plan must be complete enough to be used as a textbook for start-up training and plant
start-up, including suggested operational criteria to be used as a guideline in attaining optimum
treatment efficiency as soon as possible. More guidance on O & M Plans may be found at the
following Internet address:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/wastewater.html#operation
X. Example Problem
The following are examples of two soil profiles within a prospective site, and the associated
analyses in terms of providing a preliminary estimate on hydraulic acceptance rates. The most
hydraulically limiting (MHL) horizon in the profile is determined, and the vertical hydraulic
conductivity (K ) of that horizon is used for estimating hydraulic acceptance rates: vProfile A
0’-1’ silty sand topsoil (SM/OL)
1’-2’ clayey sand (SC), K = 4 x 10 cm/s ---MHL --- v
6−
2’-7.5’ poorly graded sand with gravel (SP), saturated/mottles at 7.0’
7.5’-14’ lean clay, lean clay with sand (CL) --base of the water table aquifer---
14’-16’silt (ML)
As per the EPA RIB guidance “Fine-textured soils, and even sandy soils with a significant silt or
clay content (>10%) are not desirable” (16). This is because of their low in-situ permeabilites,
and possibly the re-suspension and clogging of soil pores by fines. Therefore the SC soils as
described in the boring log are “not desirable” for RIBs.
12
If the clayey sand is removed (excavated) from this location then only about 5’ of unsaturated
sand would be available to transmit the relatively large volume of water away from the RIB,
without causing unacceptable mounding, or seeps or springs to emerge (daylight) downgradient
of the proposed RIBs.
If the site is still being considered then mounding calculations need to be run with the SP
hydraulic conductivity using 5’ of sand over clay (assuming that the SM is excavated).
Alternatively the RIB should be constructed elsewhere. Ground water depth and aquifer
thickness must be accounted for when running mounding calculations.
Profile B
0’-2.5’ medium sand (SP)
2.5’-4.5’ sand, some silt (SP/SM)
4.5-7.5’ fine silty sand (SM), K = 1.9 x 10 cm/sec ---MHL--- v
3−
7.5’-25’+ fine to medium grained sand (SP), saturated/mottles 10 feet below grade
Based on the boring log the hydraulic conductivity from 4.5’-7.5’ needs to be used for estimating
hydraulic loading rates. Alternatively removing the top 7.5’ of soils would expose the
underlying, much more permeable sands, but this may bring the top of the basin too close to the
(mounded) water table.
What may be inferred from analyzing the two borings (if taken together) is a high degree of soil
variability, possibly even within an individual RIB. Depending on the degree of variability more
borings or test pits may be needed in the proposed RIB area(s), possibly with the less favorable
areas being excluded from consideration.
The following is a worked example for estimating annual hydraulic loading rates. The most
restrictive K within the proposed basin needs to be used for estimating hydraulic loading rates.
The EPA only allows averaging of K s if there is no obvious restrictive layer (17).
v
v
Example Calculations Using Profile B
K = 1.9 x 10 cm/sec; MPCA: use 10% of K ; (1.9 x 10 )(0.10) = v
3−
v
3−
1.9 x 10 cm/sec; 4−
(1.9 x 10 cm/sec)/(2.54 cm/inch) = 1 x 10 inch/sec.; 4−4−
(1.0 x 10 inch/sec)/(12 in/ft.) = 6.23 x 10 ft/sec.; 4−6−
(6.23 x 10 ft/sec.)(60 sec/min)(60 min/hr)(24 hr/day) = 0.54 ft/day; 6−
The system is not operated between November 15 and April 15: 365 days – 150 days = 215
days;
Assume loading cycle is 1/3 of loading/resting cycle: 215/3 = 71 days;
(0.54 ft/day)(71 days) = 38 ft/year/basin @ 10%;
If each basin was 200’ x 100’ = 20,000 ft 2 ;
(20,000 ft )(38 ft/yr) = 764,787 ft 3 /yr; 2
13
(764,787 ft /yr)(7.48052 gal/ ft ) = 5,721,000 gal/yr @ 10%; 3 basins =17,163,000 gal/yr33
In summary (as a preliminary estimate) if ten percent of the most restrictive vertical hydraulic
conductivity is used then 38 feet/ year would be allowed in each of the three RIBs, for a total of
17,163,000 gallons per year.
Calculated loading rates are needed to provide an estimate of the hydraulic performance (and
potential viability) of the system. Interim permit limits in the permit will be based on ten percent
of insitu hydraulic conductivity tests. Final permit limits will be based on basin-by-basin loading
tests run after construction of the basins, as specified in the revised Final O & M Plan that is
submitted to the MPCA for review and approval at the completion of the performance
certification period (twelve months after initiation of operation). The results of the post-
construction basin flooding tests are multiplied by 0.1 (ten percent) to provide annual limits that
includes the safety factor set by the EPA (18) and the MPCA.
Individual loading cycle application rates (as opposed to annual rates) are usually set at less than
50% of the K to allow for reduced infiltration by organic matter and solids in the wastewater.
Note that depending on soil variability each basin may have its own hydraulic conductivity, and
associated acceptance rate.
v
14
XI. Summary and Conclusions
RIBs may provide a cost-effective means of treating and dispersing municipal wastewater. A
thorough site characterization is needed to determine system viability, and to estimate the
hydraulic performance of the system. Empirically derived basin-by-basin loading tests
conducted after the basins are constructed are used in conjunction with a “safety factor” to set
final basin loading rates.
Depending on nitrogen concentrations in the effluent, ground water monitoring may be required.
The separation distance between the ground water mound height and the base of the RIBs must
be greater than three feet, and this separation distance may need to be verified with piezometers.
References
1. EPA. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. EPA 625/1-81-013a. 1984. p. 1
2. EPA. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. p. 5-3.
3. EPA. Process Design Manual Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
EPA 625/1-81-013. 1981. p. 5-25
4. EPA. Process Design Manual Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
EPA 625/1-81-013. 1981. p. 5-26
5. EPA. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. EPA 625/1-81-013a. 1984. p. 47
6. Amoozegar, A. 1992. Compact Constant Head Permeameter: A Convenient Device for
Measuring Hydraulic Conductivity. Advances in Measurement of Soil Physical
Properties
7. EPA. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. EPA 625/1-81-013a. 1984. p. 23
8. EPA. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. EPA 625/1-81-013a. 1984. p. 28
9. EPA. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. EPA 625/1-81-013a. 1984. p. 29
10. EPA. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. EPA 625/1-81-013a. 1984. p. 33
11. EPA. Process Design Manual Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
EPA 625/1-81-013. 1981. p. 5-30
12. EPA. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. EPA 625/1-81-013a. 1984. p. 38
13. Finnemore, E.J and N. N. Hantzsche. June 1983. Ground-Water Mounding Due to On-
Site Sewage Disposal. Journal of Irrigation Drainage Engineering. Vol. 109, No. 2.
14. EPA. Process Design Manual Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
EPA 625/1-81-013. 1981. p. 5-17
15. EPA. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. EPA 625/1-81-013a. 1984. p. 51
16. EPA. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. EPA 625/1-81-013a. 1984. p. 7
17. EPA. Process Design Manual Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Supplement on
Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. EPA 625/1-81-013a 10/1984. EPA p. 28
15
18. EPA. Process Design Manual Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Supplement on
Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. EPA 625/1-81-013a 10/1984. EPA p. 29
16
Appendix I
The RIB Permitting Process
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff is not required to begin review of a proposed project
until it receives a complete application, including all of the necessary supporting documents.
Failure to complete the application or submit the supporting documents will likely result in a
delay in the issuance of the permit. The following is a description of the permitting process for a
RIB system:
1. Meet, discuss proposed project with MPCA staff;
2. Submit Preliminary Proposal/Facilities Plan;
3. Submit site, soils, hydrogeologic workplans;
4. Site, soils, hydrogeologic reports approved by the MPCA;
5. MPCA approval of Preliminary Proposal/Facilities Plan;
6. Submit complete permit application, Plans and Specifications, supporting documents;
7. MPCA approval of Plans and Specifications;
8. Permit issued;
9. System constructed;
10. Conduct basin-by-basin flooding tests;
11. Final O & M Plan submitted to the MPCA 60 days prior to initiation of system operations;
12. Commence operations, 1 year certification period elapses;
13. 1 Year Certification Report and revised Final O&M Plan submitted to the MPCA; and
14. Permit modified as needed based on flooding tests.
The following information is required to initiate processing the RIB permit application:
1. SDS Permit application forms found at the MPCA’s Web site.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/permits/index.html#
Including:
• Water Quality Transmittal Form
• Attachment for Municipal Facilities
• Stabilization Pond Information Sheet
• Attachment for Municipal Land Application
2. RIB Guidance Document attachments that include the following:
• Site Evaluation (Appendix II)
• Soils Report (Appendix III)
• Hydrogeologic Report and checklist (Appendix IV)
3. Engineering Report (Appendix V)
4. Additional information as appropriate.
The completed permit application forms, attachments and check must be sent to:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Attn: Beckie Olson, Permit Document Coordinator
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
17
To complete the permitting process the following must be submitted to and be approved by the
MPCA prior to permit issuance:
• The MPCA-approved site investigation, soils, and hydrogeologic reports of the proposed site;
• the MPCA-approved Engineering Report. Please provide in the estimations the number and
sizes of the basins, and any buffer areas. Projections of future wastewater needs should also
be incorporated into these calculations;
• as needed, a workplan and report for installing piezometers and monitoring wells;
• as needed, a sampling and analysis plan for monitoring wells; and
• a draft O & M Plan. The O&M Plan will need to specify individual and annual loading rates,
maintenance of the system, monitoring, etc. Interim limits in the will be based on ten percent
of insitu hydraulic conductivity tests. Final limits will be based on basin-by-basin loading
tests run after construction of the basins, as specified in the revised Final O & M Plan.
18
Appendix II
RIB Site Suitability Evaluation Methodology
Step-by-Step Procedure
Name of Project:
Legal Location:
County:
Name, address, and phone of project proposer:
General Description of the Project:
Proposed RIB Dimensions and Site Size:
Preliminary evaluation
A. The average daily flow for the design to the RIB will be: _________ Gallons per day.
B. Cultural and Other Conditions. Please prepare a preliminary map of the proposed site including the
following information:
Floodplain designation and flooding elevation from published data or data that is acceptable to
and approved by the permitting authority, within 50 feet of the proposed system;
no floodplain within 50’
flood elev. drawn on map
Wetland designations within 50 feet of the proposed system;
no wetland within 50’
wetland drawn on map
Property lines of the proposed site;
Yes No property lines drawn on map
Current land use of the site and surrounding areas.
Yes No Current land use drawn on map
19
Soil Survey Information
Please list all the soil map units for the proposed site along with the following soil characteristics.
Soil Feature Soil Map Unit
_____
Soil Map Unit
_____
Soil Map Unit
_____
Landscape
position
Flooding
potential
Slope range
Seasonally
saturated soil
level
Depth to bedrock
Texture of all soil
horizons
Permeability of
all soil horizons
Yes No Soil survey map submitted with the location of the
proposed site
Note: For availability on Soil Survey maps, please refer to the local
Natural Resource Conservation Service Office located in all counties in
Minnesota.
Surface Information
Yes No USGS quadrangle map submitted of proposed site and
surrounding area.
Maps depicting:
Yes No property lines;
Yes No any municipal, industrial or domestic wells within a half-mile radius of
the site;
Yes No actual boring and trench locations;
Yes No the proposed RIB configuration;
Yes No proposed monitoring points; and
Yes No any existing drain tile, and any surface water drainage features.
Note: For information on quadrangle maps, please refer to:
http;//mapping.usgs.gov/mac/findmaps.html
20
Field evaluation.
General:
Yes No Meet with permitting authority and determine if any additional fieldwork needs to be
conducted than what is outlined in this section
List any additions here:
Yes No Field work plan reviewed and approved by permitting authority.
Yes No Site boundaries, setbacks, easements identified, located, and marked on-site and on maps.
Note: Minnesota Statute 216D requires that anyone excavating must call the statewide notification center prior to
the start of digging. For more complete information please refer to: http://www.dps.state.mn.us/pipeline/gsoc.html/
Surface features. Identify, locate, and describe:
Provide a general description and classification of any wetland vegetation as per the US Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Note: Wetlands manual may be found at: http://www.wetlands.com/regs/tlpge02e.htm.
Yes No surface evidence of disturbance or compaction
If yes, describe and locate on map any surface evidence of disturbed or compacted soil.
Yes No surface evidence of disturbance located on map
Yes No evidence of flooding or run-on potential
Describe and locate on map any flooding or run-on potential.
flooding or run-on potential located on map
Landscape position, landform, micro-features, slope gradient and surface morphometry in accordance with the Field
Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, USDA – NRCS.
Description of geomorphic surface features:
21
Describe number, locations, descriptions of any hand borings:
Note: The field book can be obtained from: (http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/nssc/field_gd/field_gd.pdf)
Describe any discrepancies between the onsite soil information with the soil survey information.
Please resolve any discrepancies, and identify the soil information to be used for design.
Please list the elevation to bedrock, if encountered, and the determination of how that elevation was derived
(please refer to Minnesota Rules 7080)
Please list the elevation to the seasonally/periodically saturated soil, if encountered, and the determination of
how that elevation was derived* (please refer to MR 7080):
*If redoximorphic features are deemed not to be reflective of current day seasonally saturated levels, please submit
other information to determine the depth of the seasonally saturated soil (see footnote on redoximorphic features
below).
Determine the elevation of the bottom of the RIB system:
Please provide an assessment if the soil has been disturbed, compacted, cut filled or other unnatural
condition:
Please provide a description of the uniformity of the soil over the site.
Yes No Proposed site is or will be protected from disturbance, compaction or other damage by
staking, fencing, posting or other effective method.
22
Appendix III
RIB Site Soils Evaluation
The permittee must undertake a Site Soils Evaluation irrespective of the nitrogen management
option that is selected. The purpose of the Soils Evaluation is to adequately characterize the site
soils for design purposes.
Soils are critical for the treatment process. The person who prepares the soils report must certify
by signature that they have expertise in Soil Science as defined by education and experience
(especially soil morphology) which includes having taken the Onsite Sewage Treatment
Workshop Soils class or equivalent. Under some circumstances the person who designates
where the soil pits are to be located may differ from the individual who actually logs the soil pits.
If this occurs, then it must be noted in the Soils Report.
The general procedure for characterizing site soils is as follows:
• Obtain the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey maps of the
proposed RIB site and evaluate soil variability.
• For uniform soils at least one test pit per basin, or one per 10,000 square feet is
suggested. If soils are more variable then more pits may be needed.
Test pits should be located immediately adjacent to the proposed RIBs, to reduce soil
disturbances within the basins. Test pits are generally less than 10’ deep. As such soil borings
must be used to provide information below and around the test pits as necessary.
A minimum of four deeper borings are also required to determine the depth to the seasonal high
water table. For mounding calculations at least two borings should extend all the way through
the saturated zone.
Continuous vertical observations and/or sampling of the entire vertical extent of the pit wall or
boring using the ASTM D 2487 or the USDA field taxonomy must be used. The test pit and soil
boring logs must contain the soil horizon, field texture, structure (grade and shape), consistence,
moisture content, elevation of ground water (perched or otherwise), Munsell colors, and
redoximorphic features such as gleying and mottling. A determination of seasonal high ground
water table must be made, and the elevations of the pits must also be submitted.
Laboratory derived or preferably in-situ permeability measurements and grain size analyses of
the most transmissive and most hydraulically limiting soil horizons should be obtained and be
compared with other site information.
The estimated hydraulic loading rates are determined primarily from soil texture, consistency,
and structure. Loading rates are also determined from saturated hydraulic conductivity, (K )
measurements made of the most and least transmissive horizon within five feet of the bottom of
the proposed system, above the seasonal high water table.
sat
Combinations of these soil properties assist in determining the most limiting horizon, and
provide estimates of individual and annual loading rates.
23
In-situ measurements of K using a double ring infiltrometer (or equivalent method) in most
cases should be undertaken, especially on less favorable sites. It should be noted that the
measured K typically represents the fastest rate that clean water will move through the soil,
and that waste water infiltration rates are usually lower than the K sat .
sat
sat
Perhaps the best method to estimate hydraulic acceptance rates is to use test infiltration basins.
If test infiltration basins (test areas at least 75 ft ) are used then in-situ saturated hydraulic
conductivity measurements typically then would not be required.
2
Checklists and worksheets to be included with the Site Soils Evaluation Report
I. Soil Descriptions
Yes No A minimum of one soil pit per basin or one per 10,000 square feet (whichever is more)
of proposed site examined, with the pits located within or on the borders of the proposed system. If
possible the test pits should be located outside of the proposed basins to reduce soil disturbances.
Yes No Soil profiles in pits described to a depth of 5 feet below the proposed depth of the
system.
Submitted rationale for the final number of soil pits excavated and described
Submitted the number, location, and depth of the test pits
Submitted the number, location, and depth of deeper borings
Submitted in-depth discussion of site soils
Submitted Soil Description sheets (located on page 27) for all soil pits/borings.
Note: Occupational safety and health administration regulations (29 CFR 1926 Subpart P) apply to entering
certain types of excavations. For more information, please refer to:
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/confinedspaces/
II. Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Checklist
Hydraulic conductivity testing should be undertaken for the most transmissive horizon within five feet of
the bottom of the proposed system. If the least transmissive horizon observed within the test pit(s) has an
anticipated conductivity that is appreciably slower than the horizon receiving the effluent then the hydraulic
conductivity of the least transmissive horizon should also be determined.
Which method of hydraulic conductivity testing was conducted?
Permeameter
Infiltrometer
Test basins
Other method __________________________________
Submitted the method used to conduct the test
Submitted the readings and calculations
Submitted the number location and depth of the tests (min of 3 tests on the most and least
transmissive horizons)
Submitted the number location and depth of any deep tests
III. Soil interpretation for system design (use as an attachment to the Soils
Report)
24
Describe which surface topography and soil features will affect system siting design and performance
Localized run-on of storm water drainage:
Regional Flooding:
Constructability (slope, gradient, etc.):
Constructability (clay percentage i.e., smearing, compaction):
Determine if the system requires any setbacks:
Yes No buildings
Yes No water supply
Yes No water pipes
Yes No surface water setbacks
Describe any discrepancies between the onsite soil information with the soil survey information.
Please resolve any discrepancies, and identify the soil information to be used for design.
Please list the elevation to bedrock, if encountered, and the determination of how that elevation was derived
(please refer to Minnesota Rules 7080)
Please list the elevation to the seasonally/periodically saturated soil, if encountered, and the determination of
how that elevation was derived* (please refer to MR 7080):
Please describe the suggested hydraulic loading rates for the proposed system.
Overall suitability evaluation of the site, and a description of any site limitations
25
Soil Description Worksheet
*If redoximorphic features are deemed not to be reflective of current day seasonally saturated levels, please submit
other information to determine the depth of the seasonally saturated soil (see footnote on redoximorphic features
below).
IV. Phosphorous Evaluation
A site phosphorous evaluation must also be included in the soils report. The criteria for
undertaking a phosphorous evaluation are provided below.
Table 2: Phosphorous Impact Evaluation
Soil Texture Distance to Nearest Receiving Water
Sand 2,500 feet
Loam 1,500 feet
Clay loam 300 feet
Site Phosphorous Evaluation Checklist
Yes No Based on the above chart, the proposed RIB is within the potential impact distance.
If yes, then I am, therefore required to complete a Phosphorus Impact Study.
At a minimum, the Study shall include the following items:
• A detailed discussion of the Phosphorus adsorption capacity of the soil
• A detailed discussion of the expected phosphorus breakthrough to the receiving water.
• Modeled results?
• Supporting documentation including pertinent calculations?
• Treatment options? Including BMPs, source reduction options, facility treatment options?
NOTE: Designers should work with agency staff to perform this evaluation prior to application submittal.
26
USDA Methodology
(use one sheet per test pit or boring)
Date: Vegetation:
Project:
Location:
Landscape:
Soil Survey Map Unit: Slope Form:
Disturbed Soil : Yes No Slope:
Type of Observation: pit boring auguring Floodplain: Yes No
De
p
t
h
(
i
n
)
Ho
r
i
z
o
n
De
s
i
g
n
atio
n
Co
ar
s
e
Fr
a
g
m
e
n
t
s
Te
x
tur
e
(a
b
un
d
an
c
e
,
si
z
e
,
c
o
n
t
r
ast
)
Ma
tr
i
x
C
olo
r
(a
b
un
d
an
c
e
,
si
z
e
,
c
o
n
t
r
ast
)
Re
d
ox F
e
at
u
r
es
(a
b
un
d
an
c
e
,
si
z
e
,
c
o
n
t
r
ast
)
St
r
u
c
tur
e
(S
h
ape
,
S
i
z
e
,
Gr
a
d
e
)
Co
n
s
i
s
t
en
c
y
Ro
ot
s
(a
b
un
d
an
c
e
a
n
d
si
z
e
)
Po
r
e
s
(
Q
ua
n
t
i
ty
an
d
s
i
z
e
)
Co
n
c
r
e
t
i
ons
No
d
u
l
e
s
Boun
d
ar
y
Backhoe test
pit ground
surface
elevation
Depth to Seasonally
Saturated Soil
(see footnote below)
Depth of Standing Water in
Hole/Pit (if any)
Depth to
Bedrock (if
any)
Proposed Bottom of System
Elevation
Estimated
Infiltrative
Loading
Rate
Weather and light conditions:
27
Appendix IV
RIB Hydrogeologic Report and Checklist
A detailed Hydrogeologic Investigation Report and ground water monitoring report will be
required for RIB systems unless the conditions described in Option 1 (see Section II) are met.
The purpose of the report is to document hydrogeologic properties that include depth to ground
water, ground-water flow direction, estimated ground water flow rates, ambient geochemistry,
proximal receptors, the potential for unacceptable ground water mounding, and to establish a
ground water monitoring network.
The person who prepares the report must certify by signature that they have expertise in
Hydrogeology as defined by education and experience. The report must summarize existing
(published) information, and information obtained in the field.
If ground water monitoring is required then at least one monitoring well must be installed in the
approximate up-gradient location, and sampled three times prior to permitting. The purpose of
sampling prior to permitting is to ensure that the permit reflects ambient conditions, so limits will
not have to be changed once the system becomes operational.
Although not required to obtain a permit a Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan (Work Plan)
should be submitted to the MPCA prior to initiating the field work. If the field work is
performed without MPCA review and approval of a Work Plan, and it does not meet minimum
requirements, then more field work will be required.
Typically for a RIB system a minimum of four deep borings are completed (in addition to the
test pits required with the soils work) along with the three monitoring wells (a minimum of one
up-gradient, and two down-gradient). Down-gradient monitoring wells may be located no
further than the property boundary. Due to discharge flow dynamics the further from the system
the monitoring wells are located, the more monitoring wells may be required to adequately
monitor the site.
Under certain conditions constricted lateral movement of the effluent in the soil matrix may
cause mounding of ground water. For proper soil based treatment the system must maintain a
minimum of a three foot aerobic zone below the bottom of the RIBs. Mounding calculations are
suggested for all RIB systems. Under certain circumstances, such as systems located in coarse
soils with a deep water table, mounding analyses may not be necessary.
Alternative design approaches may be used to prevent and minimize the potential for mounding.
At minimum, either mounding calculations or a rationale for why mounding calculations are not
necessary for the project, must be submitted with the hydrogeologic evaluation. Additional
mounding caused by adjacent basins also must be taken into account.
Unless it can be clearly demonstrated that unacceptable mounding will not occur, piezometers
will be required. The purpose of the piezometers is to measure mounding during system
operations, and to maintain an aerobic zone under the system during operation.
29
The proposed locations and rationale for the piezometers needs to be submitted to the MPCA. A
MPCA-approved workplan will be needed for piezometer installation.
If ground water monitoring is required, then a ground water sampling and analysis plan (SAP)
will need to be submitted to the MPCA for review and approval. Depending on the proximity of
the RIBs to surface waters additional standards may need to be applied to the monitoring points.
A template for a SAP is available at the following Internet address:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/pubs/gwprocwells.pdf
Estimating Mound Height
For sites where unacceptable mounding may be an issue estimating the extent of mounding is
required to ensure that ground water does not rise to within three feet of the bottom of the system
during loading. Mounding calculations must also consider mounding influences from adjacent
basins.
Deep borings must be conducted to a minimum of 10 feet below the proposed system bottom to
determine soil properties. In-situ hydraulic conductivity tests (slug tests, pump tests) conducted
sufficiently below the water table to conduct the tests may also be suggested. If not, a minimum
of three laboratory hydraulic conductivity measurements of the most and least transmissive
horizons must be made.
Recommended Mounding Calculation - Finnemore and Hantzche
zm = Mound height in center of system (ft)
zm = IC * (L/4)^n * (1/ K *h)^0.5n * (t/Sy)^1-0.5n h
t = Time (days): (365 days/year)-(150 days not in use) = 215 days
I = Average daily loading rate (ft/day) = Design loading rate/215
C = from chart below
L = Length of system (ft)
n = from chart below
K = from hydraulic testing
h = ho + zm/2
Sy = Specific Yield
ho = Aquifer thickness (ft)
zm (guess) = estimated mound height
Table 3: Finnemore and Hantzche Length to Width Ratios
L/W Ratio C N
1 3.4179 1.7193
2 2.0748 1.7552
4 1.1348 1.7716
8 0.5922 1.7793
Note: The two dimensions of an RIB (length and width) is included in the Length to Width
(L/W) Ratio found in the "c" and "n" values of the formula
30
The final result of this calculation is to estimate if the proposed system will have at least three
feet of separation between the bottom of the system and the predicted mound (including a
capillary fringe) height.
Hydrologic Report Requirements
The Hydrogeologic Report must include a detailed discussion of the following elements:
• Physiographic setting/topography/slopes;
• Hydrology;
• Geology and hydrogeology to include descriptions of local, intermediate and regional
ground water flow regimes;
• Depth to current and seasonal ground water;
• Hydraulic gradient;
• Hydraulic conductivity;
• The directions and rates of ground water flow;
• Geologic cross-sectional analysis of the site including the presence of deeper limiting
layers, perched water tables, bedrock, karst, etc.;
• Background ground water quality data;
• Potential or actual receptors; and
• Mounding analyses
The following checklist must be attached to the Hydrogeologic Report to ensure that all of
the required elements described above are included in the Report.
Completed? COMMENTS MPCA
USE
Required Elements for a RIB
Hydrogeologic Investigation Report
YES NO
SUBMITTAL
PAGE No.
1. A USGS topographic map showing:
• the proposed location of the system
• the property boundary
• the borings, test pits, piezometer and monitoring well
locations
• domestic or municipal wells within 1/2 mile radius of the
proposed system
• any wellhead protection areas within a mile radius of
the proposed system
2. Discussion, logs of deeper borings
3. Proposed municipal or domestic well setbacks
4. Narrative on the physiographic
setting/topography/slopes
5. Summary of the soils investigation
31
Completed? COMMENTS MPCA
USE
Required Elements for a RIB
Hydrogeologic Investigation Report
YES NO
SUBMITTAL
PAGE No.
6. Local, intermediate and regional hydrology, Including
site drainage
7. Proximity to a flood plain
8. Geologic narrative (local, intermediate and regional)
9. Perpendicular geologic cross-sections including
incorporating the results of the soils investigation
10. Hydrogeologic narrative (vertical and horizontal,
local, intermediate and regional ground water flow)
11. Potentiometric surface map showing alignment
(perpendicular) of system in relation to ground water
flow direction
12. Discussion, results of the phosphorous evaluation
done in Soils Report
13. Discussion, results of ground water mounding
analyses
14. Recommendations based on the report
15. Discussion on K , K , and K v h sat
16. Mounding analyses
32
Appendix V
RIB Limited Hydrogeologic Report and Checklist
The following checklist must be used when submitting a Limited Hydrogeologic Investigation
Report for a RIB system with pretreatment sufficient to reduce total nitrogen concentrations in
the effluent to 10 mg/L or less (i.e. nitrogen management Option One).
On-going monitoring of total nitrogen in the effluent will be required to ensure that the total
nitrogen concentrations in the effluent remain at 10 mg/L or less. If subsequent on-going
monitoring demonstrates that the system cannot meet the limit of 10 mg/L or less, then a more
detailed Hydrogeologic Investigation and ground water monitoring may be required.
Please note that irrespective of any Hydrogeologic Investigation Report requirements that deeper
borings will be required to assess among other things ground water mounding.
Completed? COMMENTS MPCA
USE
Required Elements for a Limited LSTS
Hydrogeologic Investigation Report
YES NO
SUBMITTAL
PAGE No.
1. The name, title and signature of the person
preparing the report
2. Description of the system that includes:
• legal description of the land (township
section, range)
• brief RIB description (conveyance
system, ponds, basins etc,)
• design flow of the system
• size of the RIB (square feet of bed
area)
• projected flow rates to the RIBs
(gallons/day/ft ) 2
3. A USGS topographic map showing:
• the proposed location of the system
• the borings, test pits, and piezometers
• existing domestic or municipal wells
within 1/4 mile radius of the proposed
system
• wellhead protection areas within a half
mile radius of the proposed system
4. Proposed municipal or domestic well locations
and setbacks
5. Narrative on the physiographic
setting/topography/slopes
33
Completed? COMMENTS MPCA
USE
6. Summary of the soils investigation
7. Discussion, logs of deeper borings
8. Local, intermediate and regional surface
water hydrology Including site drainage and
proximity to a flood plain using existing
information
9. Proximity to a flood plain
10. Geologic narrative using existing information
(E.G. Hydrogeologic Atlas)
11. Separation to bedrock using results from soils
investigation and information from existing
(published) sources
12. Is karst if present
13. Discussion, results of ground water
mounding analyses
14. Discussion, results of the phosphorous
evaluation
15. Discussion, results of ground water mounding
analyses
16. Recommendations based on the report
17. Discussion on K , K , and K v h sat
18. Mounding analyses
Estimating Mound Height
Estimating the extent of mounding is required to ensure that ground water does not rise under the
system during loading and reduces the designed separation and treatment distance between the
saturated soil and the bottom of the system. The Finnemore and Hantzche mounding method is
provided in Appendix IV.
34
Appendix VI
RIB Engineering Report Requirements Checklist
The design professional shall certify (by signature) to the following general conditions:
• The plans and specifications including the Engineering Report were prepared
under the direct supervision of a Registered Professional Engineer licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
• The design professionals preparing the Engineering Report are qualified to design
wastewater systems.
• The wastewater system will not discharge directly to the surface of the ground or
to surface waters.
• That a minimum distance of three feet must exist between the discharge point and
the seasonal high water table and/or the estimated mound height.
• That the monitoring wells (if used) are installed according to the Minnesota Water
Well Construction Code, Minnesota Rules ch 4725.
Completed
? COMMENTS MPCA
USE Required Elements for a RIB
Engineering Report
YES NO
SUBMITTAL
PAGE No.
1. The name, title and signature of the
person preparing the report
2. Description of the system that includes:
• location
• environmental setting
• demographics
• wastewater characteristics
3. Design flow
4. Description of design loadings with
appropriate design manual references
5. A description of the proposed wastewater
treatment system referencing the plans
and specifications.
• description of flow monitoring methods
• description of treatment technology
• describe and size all pumps and appurtenances
• describe RIB design
6. Plans and Specifications
7. Operations and Maintenance Plan
35
Monticello Industrial AUAR Update
City Council-Planning Commission| Dec. 15, 2025
WHAT IS AN AUAR?
•Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is an environmental review document outlined by
state statute
•Hybrid of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)
•“Uses a list of questions adapted from the EAW form, but provides a level of analysis of
typical urban area impacts comparable to an EIS”
•AUAR process provides local governments with the opportunity to evaluate how different land
uses may impact the community's environment
•Used when there is no individual specific project; evaluate multiple scenarios
•Environmental analysis before major development occurs, informing development
decisions
•AUAR study and process is managed by a Responsible Government Unit (RGU)
•RGU entity for an AUAR is the local unit of government
WHAT IS AN AUAR?
•Evaluates impacts within a defined geographic study area for the identified development
scenarios
•Valid for 5 years for the specific scenarios studied; must be updated every 5 years
•Must be updated if proposed development will be more intense than scenarios provided and
studied in the AUAR
•Provides information useful to planning for the management and mitigation of impacts of the
identified scenarios
•Specifies of other studies required for development
•An AUAR is NOT a project approval document. The AUAR is used to inform local planning and
development decisions.
WHAT IS THE MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL AUAR?
•Monticello Tech LLC is proposing to develop a technology campus, including data center uses,
on 550 acres of land located in the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area
•Following an initial concept review workshop, the City determined an environmental review
process would be the appropriate next step
•Monticello Tech has proposed a development concept rather than a specific project
•As RGU for this step of environmental review, the City has determined that an AUAR should
be prepared in compliance with the State’s requirements.
•Consultant preparation and review
•Prepared by Kimley-Horn
•Reviewed by City staff and WSB (City’s environmental review consultant)
WHAT IS THE MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL AUAR?
•The AUAR environmental review process provides the City with the data to inform planning
decisions for two different development scenarios
•Technology campus, including data center uses
•Light industrial uses typical to Light Industrial Park land use designation, not including principal
use data centers
•Scoping process to define scenarios and outline AUAR review information
•Scoping Document accepted and Order to Authorize Preparation of AUAR on October 12, 2025
•Scoping Document and comments informed the full AUAR
•AUAR evaluates maximum development capacity impacts for both scenarios and identifies
mitigation measures to address impacts for both scenarios
•Additional study when a known development project comes forward
•Transition Area – NW Quadrant Land Use Plan and 2040 Plan
WHAT IS THE MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL AUAR?
Scenario 1
•Up to 3,000,000 SF of proposed technology park development
•Data center, research and design facilities, technology, laboratories
or research park uses
•May include additional electrical substations, transmission lines, and
backup generators
•Campus facility with 5-10 buildings, approximately 100,000-200,000
SF/building with ancillary support buildings
•Phased development over 10 years
Scenario 2
•Up to 5,000,000 SF of light industrial land use consistent with Light
Industrial Park, including process and production manufacturing,
warehousing and distribution, machine shops, office and research
and development facilities, industrial engineering facilities
•Multiple buildings ranging from approximately 20,000-1 million SF.
•Generally expected to occur in the range of 50,000 – 500,000 SF
buildings
•Phased development over 20 years
HOW DOES THE AUAR INFORM DEVELOPMENT
DECISIONS?
•Valuable impact information used and applied by the
City for either development scenario
•Provides a Mitigation Plan outlining specific studies, plan
requirements, and other strategies to address potential
development impacts for the two scenarios
•Identifies additional studies that required prior to or as
part of development applications
•Identifies permits and additional environmental review
required for either/both scenarios
•Provides an outline for public improvement needed
•Information/requirements as part of development and
construction
Graphic provided by Kimley Horn
WHAT DOES THE MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
AUAR REVIEW?
•Analysis and review of AUAR category areas:
•Project Information & Scenarios
•Land Use & Land Cover
•Climate Adaptation and Resilience –
including estimates of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Carbon Footprint
•Permits Required
•Geology & Soils
•Water Resources
•Surface, groundwater, water
appropriations, wastewater,
stormwater
•Contamination
•Wildlife & Habitat
•Cultural Resources
•Visual
•Air
•Noise
•Transportation
•Cumulative Potential Effects
•Other – Power next steps, site security,
Electromagnetic Field Radiation
•Mitigation Plan
ADDITIONAL STUDIES COMPLETED TO DATE
Several supplemental studies have been completed specific to this AUAR, including:
•Wetlands – Wetland Delineations (completed by Kimley-Horn)
•Transportation – Transportation Impact Assessment – for operations and construction
(completed by Kimley-Horn)
•Water and Aquifer – Preliminary Water and Aquifer Assessments (completed by the city)
•Wastewater – Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Service Assessment (completed by the city)
•Archeological Phase I Assessment (completed by an archaeological consultant - In Situ)
•Stormwater – Initial drainage assessment (completed by Kimley-Horn)
•Ongoing coordination with state agencies
ADDITIONAL FUTURE STUDIES
The AUAR mitigation plan identifies the following additional studies to be completed
•For both scenarios - once a specific project has been identified
•Noise evaluation to confirm if specific noise mitigation measures are needed with site design
•Project specific stormwater management plan
•Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment for potential contamination on site
•Tree survey
•Supplemental Archaeological Survey may be needed
•Specific to Scenario 1
•A hydrogeological analysis to site the Rapid Infiltration Basin system within the study area, then
MPCA review and permit (including an EAW) prior to construction
•Completion of a well capacity and aquifer pumping plan (city to complete outside of the study area)
•Additional environmental reviews may be necessary for backup generators, sewer extensions,
water appropriation and power needs
IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
Resource Mitigation Responsible
Party
Climate Adaption – trends
in increased precipitation
and heat
•Several site and building adaptions will be considered (green infrastructure,
water reduction strategies, landscaping, etc.).
•Scenario 1: Majority of technology park end users have sustainability goals
around water, energy, carbon, recycling that would be implemented on this site.
Developer
Land Use – changes from
agricultural to light
industrial uses
•City will annex area and development would need to comply with city zoning,
shoreland overlay, and land use requirements.
•Both scenarios: would need to incorporate the conceptual future greenway
corridor as site planning advances.
Developer
Geology/Soils – changes
to topography, 12 types of
soils on site
•Soils are suitable for buildings.
•Earthwork can be generally balanced on the site to maintain the existing
drainage patterns, some slope stabilization will be needed.
Developer
Water Resources – Surface
Water - 7 wetlands on site,
including one DNR Public
Water Wetland in the SE
corner
Scenario 1: anticipated to have more wetland impacts, no impact to the DNR Public
Water Wetland anticipated for either scenario. Proposer to obtain appropriate
permits and purchase wetland banking credits, if needed.
Developer
IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
Resource Mitigation Responsible
Party
Water Resources –
Groundwater – 5 wells
may be located within the
study area, NW corner of
study area is located
within a DWSMA – low
vulnerability
Both scenarios: surface water runoff will be captured and treated in lined
stormwater ponds prior to leaving the site to meet requirements from the City,
MPCA, MDH, and the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit.
If unable to re-use, wells would be properly sealed by a licensed well
contractor prior to redevelopment
Scenario 1: DWSMA would need to be re-evaluated with the increase in flows
from the aquifer.
Developer and
City
Water Resources -
Wastewater
Scenario 1: use of non-contact cooling water to remove heat from industrial
systems without directly contacting materials. This would be discharged to
Rapid Infiltration Basins (RIB) system that would be permitted by the MPCA
and would filter before going back into the groundwater and recharge the
aquifer over the next 10-20 years. MPCA’s guidance on RIBs:
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-wwtp5-64.pdf
Scenario 2: wastewater would discharge to municipal collection system.
Both scenarios: require new extensions to and through the site.
Developer and
City
IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
Resource Mitigation Responsible Party
Water Resources –
Stormwater – minimal
impervious surface area
within the study area today,
no existing permanent
stormwater management
features
•Impervious surface will increase with development. On-site
stormwater basins are proposed and will be sized to
accommodate runoff from these impervious areas.
•Infiltration basins will follow MPCA guidelines and the
requirements of the NPDES Permit.
•Additional detailed stormwater analysis will be provided at
later stages of the design phase.
Developer
Water Resources – Water
Appropriations
Both scenarios: watermain extensions and potentially a water
storage tank will need to be constructed to service the study
area. Both scenarios would require additional water
appropriations from MnDNR.
Scenario 1: water demand at full build is higher than Scenario 2
for water cooling purposes. An aquifer analysis has begun to
understand water levels for any new potential wells. Water
demands will be phased as the project is intended to be built
over the next 10+ years to get to the full build out.
Developer and City
NEXT STEPS FOR WATER APPROPRIATIONS
Scenario
City’s
Remaining
Appropriation
Existing
Use
Proposed
Demand
RIB
Recharge to
Aquifer
New Net
Demand
1 – Technology
Park 149 76 250 - 300 75 99-149
2 – Light
Industrial 149 76 113 0 37
All numbers are in millions of gallons per year •City conducted a preliminary
aquifer analysis
•Scenario 1 and 2 Permits/
Approvals:
•DNR Water Appropriations
Permit to increase pumping
capacity
•MDH permit for new well(s)
•MPCA EAW for sewer
extension
•Scenario 1 Specific Permits/
Approvals:
•MPCA Permit for RIB -
including EAW and
hydrogeological study
•MDH permit for water
storage tank
IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
Resource Mitigation Responsible Party
Contamination – 1 MPCA WIMN site
identified within study area (inactive
stormwater permit)
Scenario 1: back-up generators may be needed for
emergency use. Depending on specific end user needs, if
1 million gallons or more of fuel storage for backup
generators are needed, separate EAW will be completed.
Both scenarios: developer to complete a Phase I/II ESA
prior to construction.
Developer
Fish & Wildlife – within 1 mile of the
study area Blanding’s Turtle, Monarch
Butterfly, Whooping Crane, and
Western Regal Fritillary habitat may be
present
•Tree removal may be needed, developer to comply
with City’s Tree Protection Ordinance.
•A conceptual greenway corridor is planned within the
study area that could provide connections between
and among natural open spaces and be a natural area
for wildlife.
•Comply with MnDNR’s recommendations for
minimizing impacts to Blanding’s Turtle.
Developer
Cultural Resources – known
archeological records and 3 historic
sites in the vicinity of the study area
Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office
and State Archeologist is ongoing.
Developer
IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
Resource Mitigation Developer
Visual Both scenarios: Conform with the city ordinances for building height, building form,
landscape screening, outdoor storage areas, and lighting to avoid impacts to neighboring
properties and species.
Scenario 1: is expected to have larger buffers and setback requirements between nearby uses
around the perimeter of the buildings compared to Scenario 2.
Developer
Air Both scenarios: If any potential emission generation (e.g., from generators) from future
development is above the threshold for an air quality permit/environmental review, then that
specific project would be subject to additional environmental review beyond what is
evaluated in this AUAR.
Developer
Noise Scenario 1: main source of noise, depending on the type of technology park use, could
include computers and ventilation/cooling systems within the building, and the testing of
generators up to once per month and operating in the case of emergency.
Both scenarios: additional noise evaluations will be completed to identify any noise
mitigation measures and comply with MPCA and city noise ordinances.
Developer
IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
Resource Mitigation Responsible
Party
Transpor
tation
Scenario 1: less traffic generated during operations. Additional turn lanes anticipated at access
points to accommodate traffic to and from the site.
Scenario 2: more traffic during operations is anticipated compared to Scenario 1. Additional turn
lanes anticipated at access points to accommodate traffic to and from the site.
Both scenarios: include a future road network within the study area. Both scenarios are expected to
have a new road connection off 85th Street NE into the site with only private roads/private
connections internal to the site. Scenario 2 is anticipated to have a grid system of internal public
roads to facilitate traffic between various tenants.
Developer and
City
Other
Effects
Power Needs for Scenario 1: project proposer would request the utility company complete a System
Impact Study on the existing grid network to understand the existing capacity and future
infrastructure power needs.
EMF: Both scenarios propose new electronics and utilities that would emit EMF levels. Scenario 1
would emit EMF levels typical of industrial and utility applications and Scenario 2 would emit EMF
levels typical of office and warehouse applications. Project's design would include EMF mitigation
strategies to ensure that the EMF radiation levels remain well within the safety thresholds.
Developer and
Utility
Company
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
•Comprehensive Utility Plans
•Water and sewer extensions
•Other needed infrastructure
•Sizing
•Service area
•Timing
•Cost participation
•Transportation Impacts
•Access and improvements
•Timing
•Cost participation
DRAFT AUAR COMMENT PERIOD SUMMARY
•Public and agency comment period: Nov 18-Dec 18. 2025
•To date:
•2 agency comments
•5 public comments at time of preparation, more received in interim
•Open house during comment period on Nov 20
•10-day objection period (state agencies) following Final AUAR and comment responses
AGENCY COMMENTS
Agency Agency Comment Response
Wright County The County does not have any significant comments currently. Access location and
design along CR 117 will be reviewed during the platting process.
Additionally, as the area around CR 117 develops would the City be interested in
discussing a turn back of the roadway similar to Edmonson Ave to the north.
The city can
discuss
changes in
jurisdiction
for CR 117
outside of the
AUAR process.
MN Dept of
Health
Staff in the Source Water Protection Unit at the Minnesota Department of Health have
reviewed the Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR and have no comments. We appreciate
that the AUAR includes the corrections and suggestions from MDH during the AUAR
Scoping.
Thank you for
your
comment and
review.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comment Theme Response
Concerns about
data centers,
additional
alternatives
Comments for additional alternatives to scenarios was requested during the Scoping comment period.
One of the scenarios is required to meet the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the plan currently guides the
area for Light Industrial Park, which allows several uses such as manufacturing, warehousing,
research/development, and technology campus
Contamination on
Site
AUAR includes a desktop analysis of potential contaminated materials on or near the site. Prior to
development, the end-user would be required to complete a Phase I or Phase II Environmental
Assessment and coordinate with the MPCA to ensure safe handling and disposal of hazardous materials.
Groundwater
Impacts not
addressed
City is currently drafting an aquifer analysis which will include a hydrogeological model of aquifer
drawdown and cumulative groundwater demand impacts in combination with future city growth.
Prior to construction, the end-user would conduct additional environmental review for siting the RIB,
including an Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comment Theme Response
Surface water &
stormwater
analyses use
outdated data
Analysis in the AUAR used the most up to date version of NOAA Atlas 14 in the Hydrocad model.
The AUAR includes stormwater modeling that is consistent with all city stormwater ordinances.
Traffic &
transportation
impacts are
underestimated
The AUAR includes analysis of Highway 25.
CR 39 is over 2 miles away from the study area and is outside the scope of the Traffic Impact
Assessment.
EMS and school traffic would be coordinated during construction.
Preservation of
agricultural land
use
The city has not included agricultural preservation in a scenario because that would be inconsistent
with the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comment Theme Response
Inadequate
mitigation plan
Given the nature of an AUAR as a planning document, the city cannot provide exact timelines for
mitigation at this time. The responsible parties have been added to the mitigation plan steps in the
Final AUAR.
The permitting matrix in Table 6 describes which agencies are responsible for enforcing permitting and
approval prior to project completion.
Concerns related
to nighttime
lighting and noise
The city is currently conducting public feedback on a Data Center Planned-use Development District,
which is where these specific requirements related to lighting and noise mitigation would be enforced
from.
Health impacts Site and building plans would be required to comply with all city, state, and federal permits and
approvals related to noise, light, air, water related impacts
Utility impacts This is outside the scope of an AUAR; however, if Scenario 1 advances, the end-user will be responsible
for requesting a System Impact Study for the project through the utility company.
The cost of any needed utility improvements would not affect current rate payers.
WHERE CAN I FIND MORE INFORMATION &
COMMENT?
www.monticellomn.gov
Search: Environmental Reviews, Public Notices
Comments are due by December 18, 2025
Email: angela.schumann@monticelloMN.gov
Mail: Angela Schumann
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
All comments are public data and will be included in
the AUAR document
ESTIMATED TIMELINE & NEXT STEPS FOR
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL AUAR
•Scoping Document Review: July-October 2025
•Scoping Document Acceptance and Order to Prepare AUAR: October 13, 2025
•Review of AUAR: Currently on-going
•Council Authorizes AUAR for distribution: November 10, 2025
•Distribute Draft AUAR & Mitigation Plan for review: November 11, 2025
•Draft AUAR & Mitigation Plan available for 30-day comment period: November 18, 2025
•AUAR Open House: November 20, 2025
•AUAR Review – Joint City Council & Planning Commission: December 15, 2025
•Draft AUAR & Mitigation Plan revision: December 2025
•Final AUAR & Mitigation Plan distribution and 10-day objection period: December/January 2026
•Adoption of Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan: January 2026
WHAT IS THE AUAR PROCESS?
•RGU adopts Order to Prepare AUAR
•RGU develops AUAR
•RGU reviews and distributes Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for public and agency review
•Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan available for 30-day public and agency review
•RGU revises Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan based on comments from public and agencies
•RGU distributes Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan to agencies for final 10-day review and
objection period
•If no objections, RGU Adopts Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
•Objections can only be filed by a reviewing state agency (or Met Council)
•If objections, work with agency to resolve
•AUAR process may include an additional step for an AUAR Scoping Document
•Used when a project meets certain criteria under state rules
•Precedes the full AUAR study; requires review of draft AUAR Order
•May suggest additional development scenarios, study area, or other issues for analysis in full AUAR