5.5. SR 04-04-2011REQUEST FOR ACTION
fiver
To Item Number
Ma or & Ci Council 5.5.
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Administration April 4, 2011 Rebecca Haug, Environmental
Administrator
Item Description Reviewed by
Request for a Negative Declaration on the Need for an EIS for Lori ohnson, Ci Administrator
Plaisted Companies Sand & Gravel Mining Operation EAW Reviewed by
Action Requested
Staff is recommending adoption of the attached resolution declaring a negative declaration on the need
for an EIS for the Plaisted Companies request.
Background/Discussion
Included in your packet is a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Plaisted
Companies Sand and Gravel Mining Operation request. The purpose of the EAW is to describe the
project and gather information to identify any potential environmental effects.
The City Council for the City of Elk River is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) charged with
determining from the information gathered through the EAW process, whether or not this project has
significant potential to cause irreversible environmental effects. If the Council feels there is a significant
potential to cause irreversible environmental effects, they shall order an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) be prepared for the project. To make their decision the Council will consider the following
information: the EAW itself, comments received on the EAW, and the responses to the comments
received.
The Council shall order an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared, if they determine that the
impacts that may reasonably be expected by the project have the potential for significant environmental
effects. The Council shall consider the impacts of the project under the following criteria:
• type, extent, and reversibility of the environmental effects;
• cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects;
• extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory
authority; and
• extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
environmental studies.
Written comments were received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Sherburne Soil
& Water Conservation District (SWCD), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). This area is property which was included in the
1994 EIS Gravel Mining Study.
N:\Public Bodies\City Council\Council RCA\Agenda Packet\04042011 \Plaisetd.docx
Staff feels that the EAW accurately describes the project and the potential environmental effects.
Mitigation measures to reduce the environmental effects have been identified by the EAW and will be
incorporated into the plans for the project.
Financial Impact
N/A
Attachments
• Copy of the Plaisted Companies Sand and Gravel Mining Operation EAW
• Comment letters from MPCA, SWCD, DNR & MNDOT
• Reponses to the comment letters
• Resolution Regarding the Plaisted Companies Sand and Gravel Mining Operation EAW
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
N:\Public Bodies\City Council\Council RCA\Agenda Packet\04042011\Plaisetd.docx
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
.,
rte,
~~ .
-,
}~ ~--
~ 1i~1~~~11~1'..
._ - F ~ .
..~ - ~w
Sand and Gravel Mining Facility
Elk River, Minnesota
December 2010
Prepared By:
Landmark Environmental, LLC
2042 W. 98~ Street
Bloomington, MN 55431
Version 8/08rev
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Note to preparers: This form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board's
website at: http://«~~~.egbstate.mn.us/EnvRevGuidance-ocuments.htm. The Environmental
Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant
environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit or its agents to
determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer must supply
any reasonably accessible data for -but should not complete -the final worksheet. The complete question
as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically.
Note to re~~iewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following
notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of
information; potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title Plaisted Companies Sand and Gravel Mining Operation
2. Proposer 3. RGU City of Elk River
Contact person: Todd Plaisted Contact person: Rebecca Haug
Title: President Title: Environ. Administrator
Address: 11555 205th Ave. NW, Elk River MN 55330 Address: 13065 Orono Parkway
City, state :Elk River MN 55330
Phone 763 633-6560 Phone :763 635-1068
Fax Fax : 763 635-1090
E-mail todd[~laistedcompanies.com E-mail RHaug~ci.E1k-River.mn.us
4. Reason for EAW preparation (check one)
-EIS scoping x_ Mandatory EAW -Citizen petition _RGU discretion -Proposer
volunteered
If EAW is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number: Subpart 4410.4300 and subpart .name:
"Non-metallic Mineral Mining"
5. Project location County: Sherburne City/Township: Elk River
'/ NW Section 15 Township 33N Range 26W
GPS Coordinates: N 45.35485945937655 W 93.56437683105469
Taz Parcel Number: 75-115-2100
Attach each of the following to the EAW:
• County map showing the general location of the project; (See Figure 1)
• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy
acceptable) ; (See Figure 2)
• Site plan showing all significant project and natural features; {See Figures 4 and 5).
6. Description
a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.
The project involves the extraction and processing of aggregates from a 30.6 acre parcel of property
(subject property) adjacent to an existing sand and gravel mining operation. Stripping, extraction,
limited processing and reclamation activities will occur on the proposed expansion area. Reclamation of
the property will be undertaken following completion of mining operations.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional
sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or
industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the
timing and duration of construction activities.
c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need
for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The proposed project involves adding approximately 30.6 acres to an existing mining operation ovmed
and operated by Plaisted Companies (Plaisted). Approximately 9.5 acres of the property v~~ill be used for
buffer along highway/street rights-of--way and neighboring properties. Buffer areas will not be mined and
vegetative screening will be maintained. The project will allow the removal of a deposit of sand and
gravel that will be processed into construction aggregates to serve the growing demand within the local
area and the City of Elk River. Mining the additional azea will improve overall end use grades for the
Plaisted operation. Portions of the existing site have been in operation since the 1980's. The existing
operation, as well as several other operations in the vicinity, were the subject of an Elk River Mining
District Environmental Impact Statement completed in June, 1994. Initially the subject parcel was
included within the gravel mining district boundary, but was removed because it was not controlled by a
mining operator at that time.
Active misting will begin by stripping topsoil and overburden from the site using scrapers and dozers.
Extraction of the aggregate deposit will be accomplished with loaders working from the floor of the
existing nvning operation. Equipment will be placed to insure compliance with both daytime and
nighttime noise standards.
Material will be conveyed to Plaisted's main operations and stockpiling azea located to the south of the
subject parcel for further processing. Product stockpiling will also occur in the existing processing and
operations area and all hauling of aggregates will occur from the main processing area. There will be no
access to 213 Ave NW or Highway 169 which abut the subject property to the north and east,
respectively, from the proposed expansion area during the mining operation. This project will not impact
the number of trucks trips to and from the facility. Truck traffic is a function of demand. The project is
expected to increase the overall life of the facility by approximately 5-10 years. The actual increase will
depend upon market demand.
d. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to
happen? _Yes _X_No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental
review.
e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? X Yes _No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
The subject property is adjacent to an existing mining facility owned and operated by Plaisted. The
existing operation as well as several other properties were the subject of an Elk River Mining District
Environmental Impact Statement completed in June, 1994. Initially the subject parcel was included in the
gravel mining district boundary, but was ultimately removed because it was not controlled by a mining
operator. Portions of the existing operation have been active since the 1980's.
7. Project magnitude data
Total project acreage: 30.6 (21.1 acres will be mined and 9.5 acres will remain as setback and buffer)
Number of residential units: unattached NA attached NA maximum units per building
Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet NA
2
Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet):
Office Manufacturing
Retail Other industrial xx acres
Warehouse Institutional
Light industrial Agricultural
Other commercial (specify)
Building height ** If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings
*sand and gravel mining
** While there will be no buildings on site, there maybe aggregate and overburden stockpiles on the site.
The height of these stockpiles maybe up to 40 feet. The stockpiles will be located on the pit floor
approximately 20 feet below existing grade. Nearby buildings are residential structures that are 15 to ZS
feet high.
Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial
assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans
and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment
Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prol2ibited until all appropriate
environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.
Unit of Qovernment Type of application Status
City of Elk River Rezoning applied for
City of Elk River Mining CUP & licenseapplied for
MPCA NPDES Permit obtained
9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands.
Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts
involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as
soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines.
The current and recent past land use at the site is brush/grassland/woodland. The site is currently zoned
Single Family Residential (Rl a). The site is located in a "Mining" future land use category. The future
land use category map for the City of Elk River indicates that the site proposed to be mined is adjacent to
the Mineral Extraction Overlay District as defined by the City of Elk River (Figure 3). The land use map
was adopted on August 16, 2004 as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The map guides the current
and future land uses of the city through the year 2025. The land use map provides the foundation for the
zoning of parcels within the city. Rezoning of the subject parcel to Mineral Extraction Overlay District,
consistent with the future land use map, will be required as part of the project approvals.
Land use surrounding the site is residential single family housing to the east of the subject parcei.
Aggregate mining occupies the adjacent properties to the west, south and north of the subject parcel.
10. Cover Types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
Types 1-8 wetlands
Wooded/forest
Brush/Grassland
Cropland
TOTAL
Before After
0 0
12.2 0.8
7.7 29.8
9.2
30.6 30.6
Lawn/landscaping
Impervious surfaces
Stormwater Pond
Other (describe)
Before After
1.0 0
0.5
0
If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why:
11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be
affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to m;nimi~e or avoid impacts.
Runoff from the proposed mining area will be controlled and contained on site through the
implementation of Best Management Practices (BI\~s) as outlined in the site's Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan. Untreated stormwater contacting exposed soils will not be discharged off site. BMPs
include silt fence, stormwater diversion berms, establishment of vegetation, temporary sedimentation
basins and infiltration areas and vegetation of reclaimed areas.
b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or
other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? x Yes _ No
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Describe any measures that will
be taken to min;m;~e or avoid adverse impacts. Provide the license agreement number (LA-~ and/or
Division of Ecological Resources contact number (ERDB 2011019) from which the data were obtained
and attach the response letter from the DNR Division of Ecological Resources. Indicate if any additional
survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
The DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program was contacted for a review of the MN
Heritage data base to determine if any rare plant or animal species are known to occur within
approximately one mile of the site. The database also includes information regarding native plant
communities, noteworthy geologic features and animal aggregates.
The review indicates that there have been three observations of a Blandings Turtle, a state threatened
species within approximately 1 mile of the subject parcel. Blandings Turtles live in shallow wetland
areas and nest in sandy uplands, up to 1 mile from wetlands. The subject property is not within one of
fifteen known concentration priority areas determined by the DNR to be relied upon to maintain the
species' security within the state. However, the DNR recommends that certain guidelines be followed
during all construction activity in the area.
The Red Shouldered Hawk, a special Concern Species, has also been observed within approximately 1
mile of the subject property. However, based upon the review by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, these elements are not likely to be impacted by the proposed project.
A copy of the MNDNR review letter (ERDB 20110159) and the list of recommended measures for
avoiding and minimising impacts to Blandings Turtle are included as Appendix A.
12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration -
dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment - of any surface waters
such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes x No
If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s) if the water
resources affected are on the PWI: Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation
measures to minimize impacts.
13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or
changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including
dewatering)? -Yes _X No
If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be
made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations;
and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and
new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine.
4
No new wells urill be installed onsite. Material extracted from the expansion area will be conveyed to an
aggregate processing area in the adjacent existing mining operation to the south of the site. The existing
mining facility operates a washplant. The well associated urith the washplant operates under DNR Vdater
Appropriations Permit # 1972-0366-1. There is also a potable well located in the operations area which
serves the scale building. The proposed additional mining area will not impact or require any changes to
the existing permit.
14. Rater-related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning
district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use
district? _Yes _X_No
If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions.
1~. R'ater surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? _Yes
_X_No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or
conflicts with other uses.
16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be
moved. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe
any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction.
Approximately 21 acres will be graded and 800,000 cubic yards will be removed. The on-site soils are in
general susceptible to erosion. Historically, they have been subjected to wind and water erosion, with
between one-third and two-thirds of the original surface layer removed from erosion. Slopes on the
subject property range from 2-15%, with the average slope at 10%. Mining will create steeper slopes
with an excavation face of 1.5:1 (Horizontal to vertical). Erosion from the excavation slopes is
inconsequential. Surface water drainage from active mining areas will be directed to low areas within the
Plaisted mining operation. Collected surface water infiltrates into the underlying soils and/or evaporates
and there is no site discharge. Surface water drainage will not be directed off-site.
As part of restoration, excavated slopes will be graded and or backfilled to a maximum of 4:1 (25%).
Reclamation grades over the subject parcel will range from 2% - 25%. Reclaimed slopes will be covered
with topsoil and seeded to establish vegetation and stabilize the surface. Figures 4 and 5 indicate the
excavation plan and the reclamation plan following completion of mining activities.
17. Water quality: surface water runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent
controls to manage or treat runoff: Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans.
Both the quantity and quality of site runoff will remain similar before and after construction.
During active mining, the runoff from the subject property will be managed internally and will not drain
off the site. The existing mining facility operates under a Minnesota NPDES permit for gravel musing
facilities. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the existing site will be amended to
include the subject property. The SWPPP includes best management practices including spill prevention,
fuel storage, erosion control and eliminating site discharges of stormwater.
b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water
bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving
waters.
The site is located within the Elk River Watershed that ultimately drains to the Mississippi River.
During active mining; stormwater will be handled internally. Sedimentation basins, diversion berms,
silt fence and other appropriate controls are actively utilized to control sedimentation and treat
stormwater. After final reclamation of the subject property and the existing mining facility, reclamation
grades will direct water to the interior of site where it will percolate into ground. Elk River eventually
flows into the Mississippi River located approximately 2.5 miles south of the site.
18. Water quality: waste«~aters
a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater
produced or treated at the site.
Not Applicable
b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition
after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies (identifying any
impaired waters), and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project
involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems.
Not Applicable
c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any
pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes,
identifying any improvements necessary.
Not Applicable.
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 20 feet minimum 50 feet average;
to bedrock: 140 feet minimum 170 feet average. Describe any of the following geologic
site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone
formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to
any of these hazards.
There are no known sinkholes or shallow limestone deposits or karst conditions at this site. The first
bedrock unit beneath the glacial deposits is the Eau Claire Formation, consisting of alternating
sandstone and shale layers. The Eau Claire formation is generally considered a confining unit.
b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil texture and
potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils.
Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.
According to the Sherburne County Soil Survey, the predominant soil types located on the site are
gravelly coarse sand, coarse sand and sand. Soils are Stonelake and Sanburn complexes (1253C and
1253B). All of the site soils are granular soils that are well to excessively drained. The majority of site
soils have low moisture holding capacity and low natural fertility which are serious limitations for crop
production.
Granular materials are relatively permeable and can rapidly transmit contaminants through the soil
column to the ground water table. Mining activity will not involve the use of chemicals or hazardous
substances. There will be no fuel storage on the subject property. All fuel storage associated with the
existing operation is in accordance with MPCA standards. Equipment is kept in good repair and routinely
maintained.
All vehicle and equipment maintenance follows the company's spill prevention policies. The site
operates under a number of spill prevention and clean up requirements as defined by various federal and
state regulations. Company policy regarding spills is that any spill of oil, gasoline, diesel fuel or lubricant
is to be reported and cleaned up promptly. In addition, "topping-off' tanks is not allowed under
company procedures. This practice helps eliminate accidental spills during petroleum materials transfer.
20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks
a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal
manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of
disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan;
describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there
is a hazardous waste minimisation plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments.
A minimal amount of solid waste is generated at the existing facility. The waste is stored in a dumpster
located in the processing area that is picked up on a regular basis.
b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be
used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will
lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or
eliminate the waste, discharge or emission.
Toxic or hazardous materials will not be used or present on site.
c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum
products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans.
There will be no fuel storage on the subject property. The existing facility contains separate fuel
tanks ~~hich are 1,000 gallon double-walled above ground storage tanks. The tanks are registered in
accordance with MPCA regulations and requirements and covered under Plaisted's existing Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan).
In the event of a release, the site has a spill response kit (absorbent pads, safety supplies, etc.), front-end
loaders, skid-steer loaders and material (sand and aggregate) to contain and dike the spill. The facility
also has access to the spill response equipment of Plaisted main operations facility, which includes over
significant numbers and types of absorbent pads, several pallet loads of absorbent floor dry and
containment boom.
21. Traffic. Parking spaces added:
Existing spaces (if project involves expansion):
Estimated total average daily traffic generated:
Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence:
Indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates.
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 pm-t of the EAi~ Using the format and procedures described in the
Minnesota Department of Transportation's Traffic Impact Study Guidance (available at.•
http://ww~v.oim.dot.state.nzn.us/access/pdfs/Chapter%205.pdfl or a similar local guidance, provide an
estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any trafE`ic improvements
necessary. The analysis must discuss the project's impact on the regional transportation system.
The proposed project will not impact existing daily or maximum peak hour traffic generation and
traffic patterns will not be altered. Traffic levels generated by the existing Honing facility are seasonal
and vary with market demand. During the mining season, average daily truck trips from the facility is
approximately 225. Peak hour usually occurs from 8:00 a.m. to 9:OOa.m. or 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
Trucks leaving the facility during the peak hour are estimated to be 45.
Recent improvements to area roads include the lowering and realignment of County Roads 33 and 77 and
the construction of an interchange at the intersection of County Road 33 and Trunk Highway 169.
The improved County Roads include turn lanes and acceleration lanes and the interchange allows trucks
to safely enter and exit Trunk Highway 169.
Trucks access the operations and stockpiling area from the new portion of County Road 33. The majority
of truck traffic from the site travels easterly on County Road 33 to the interchange at Highway169.
22. Vehicle-related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality,
7
including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation
measures on air quality impacts.
The proposed action will not result in any increase in vehicle-related air emissions. Current truck traffic
levels from the existing Plaisted facility will continue at approximately the same daily volume and from
the same location. Off road vehicles (front end loaders and other earth moving equipment) will operate
on the site; however the small number of equipment (typically two loaders operating at the active face)
will not generate enough pollutants to have a significant impact on air quality.
The EIS from the Elk River Gravel Mining District addressed vehicle related air emissions. The EIS
concluded that emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide can result from truck traffic, but such
emissions are limited and not considered a potential problem due to the size and the dispersion potential
of the area. (Truck traffic movement and equipment operation on and about the facility site does generate
PM10 emissions, see #24 below.)
23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust
sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EA i~ Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse
gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro-
fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed
pollution prevenrion techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air
quality.
Vehicles operating within the site on internal haul roads are the primary source of dust generation.
Additional dust maybe generated at the mining face from loader operations, the primary crusher, and
transporting material from the active mining face to the processing area. Mitigation measures include
frequent road watering. A water truck is kept at the existing Plaisted site and is readily available for dust
control, as needed. Conveyors will be used to transport the material from the active mine face to the
processing area, reducing dust emissions associated with internal truck traffic. In addition, the entrance
area into the processing and stockpile area, as well as the majority of the stockpile area, is paved.
Maintaining existing trees within the mining setback areas also reduces overall dust emissions from the
site.
24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during
operation? x_Yes _No
If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to
mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on
them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by
operations maybe discussed at item 23 instead of here.)
This project is not expected to generate any odors. Dust emissions are discussed in item #23 above.
The operation of equipment associated. with stripping topsoil and extraction and transport of aggregate
will generate noise. Mining and processing will be subject to setbacks established by the City of Elk
River Mining Ordinance and voluntary setbacks shown on the plan. The setbacks will help to minimize
the impact of noise on nearby residents.
The site will comply with the State of Minnesota Noise Standards. The standards establish allowable
noise levels measured at nearby residences. The noise standards are given below:
MINNESOTA NOISE STANDRADS FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Daytime Nighttime
L50 L10 L50 L10
60 dBA 65 dBA 50 dBA 55 dBA
The Minnesota Standards define daytime hours as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and nighttime hours from
10:00 p,m. to 7:00 a.m. Hours of operation for the site are proposed to be consistent with the existing
operation which allows excavation and processing during both daytime and nighttime hours as defined
by the MPCA.
25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? _Yes x No
Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? _Yes x No
Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? _Yes. x No
Scenic views and vistas? _Yes _x_No
Other unique resources? _Yes x No
If yes, describe the resource and identify any proj ect-related impacts on the resource. Describe any
measures to minimise or avoid adverse impacts.
A request was made to the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) to conduct a search of their
cultural resources database. No archaeological sites or historic structures were identified in a search of
the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for the subject property
requested. Correspondence is contained in Appendix B.
The City conducted a Probability Modeling and Reconnaissance Survey in February, 2005. This site was
identified as having a low probability of archaeological significance.
26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as
glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers
or exhaust stacks? _Yes x No
If yes, explain.
27. Compatibility v<~ith plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local
comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource
management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? _Yes _No.
If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be
resolved. If no, explain.
The proposed project is compatible with local land use plans and regulations. The proposed project is
located within the City of Elk River and subject to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The future
land use map for the City of Elk River designates the area of the proposed project to be mining. The
City's zoning regulations would require that the parcel of property to be mined be rezoned to a Mineral
Excavation Overlay.
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other
infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? _Yes _x_No.
If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a
connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for
details.)
29. Cumulative potential effects. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU
consider the "cumulative potential effects ofrelated or anticipated future projects" when determining the
need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future
projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative
potential effects. (Such future projects would be those that are actually planned or for which a basis of
expectation has been laid.) Describe 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 tb these cumulative effects (or discuss each cumulative potential effect under
appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form).
The Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Elk River Gravel Mining District which
encompassed 2,865 surrounding the 30.6 acres of the proposed project, reviewed cumulative impacts for
potential environmental effects of mineral extraction relative to noise, air quality, traffic, dust, surface
and ground water quality, and disruption of native flora and fauna as well as cumulative impacts related
to social and economic issues. The City, as the responsible governmental unit (RGU) for performing the
review, concluded that any negative effects could be regulated within the framework of the Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) issued for each individual mining operation. The CUP for Plaisted's existing facility
includes conditions which address and satisfactorily regulate potential environmental impacts associated
with noise, dust, surface and groundwater protection, and site restoration.
30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts
not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along v,Tith any proposed mitigation.
None.
31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAi~ is being done for EIS scoping; instead,
address relevmzt issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW.
List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is
begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or maybe considered for these
impacts and issues, including those that have been or maybe ordered as permit conditions.
Runoff'. Runoff from the proposed mining area will be controlled and contained on site through the
implementation of Best Management Practices as outlined in the site's Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan. Untreated stormwater contacting exposed soils will not be discharged off site. These practices
include silt fence, stormwater diversion berms, establishment of vegetation, temporary sedimentation
basins and infiltration areas and vegetation of reclaimed areas.
Noise: Noise is produced from the mining and processing equipment. The mining operation is subject to
setbacks from properly boundaries. Operations will be conducted within established noise standards.
Dust: Dust emissions are predominantly due to vehicular travel on internal unpaved haul roads.
Conveyors will be used to transport the excavated material to the operations area for additional
processing, minimizing truck travel in the mining operation. The main processing and stockpiling area
is hard surfaced and a water truck is maintained on-site and used for frequent watering of internal haul
roads throughout the mining period. The hard surface areas are swept routinely to reduce dust
generation.
Erosion/Sediment Control: Erosion during the initial stripping operations may generate runoff with high
sediment loads. Appropriate best management practices which may include diversions berms and silt
fence will be employed on a temporary basis as needed.
10
RGU CERTIFICATION. (Tlae Environmental Quality Board ~~~ill only accept SIGNED Enviro~amental
Assessme~zt Thor ksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.)
I hereby certify that:
• The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
l~owledge.
• The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other
than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or
phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively.
• Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature ~~y,~ "~\ Date 1 I Z ~ /
Title Gi(lU±~f0~lnnevl~-a) ~hin;S1`~a~(1/
Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at the
Minnesota Department of Administration, Office of Geographic and Demographic Analysis. For additional
information, worksheets or for EATS Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St.
Paul, MN 55155, 651-201-2492, or http:!/~~~w.egb.state.mn.us
11
N~.ECiS\RW1ak4etl MpWea\Cl1-\Slnrbwne Ctv Publ! Vsks f'Yes~Env Flo 4d
m ~ rn cna w N ~Z __ -_
o ~
o -.
- ~ 3 ~t ~ aao g ~~ a a a o m o o~~ k ~• r -~ _ __ _
N f
Om ~ Q ~
° W
o9`"
~
a
2
"
/
/
W.
3•
o3m
~m
y
~k~°,mpmo•O.,coi3w~o ~m$~ 'OSO
J
j ~
~
tr'
Q'D ~ a ~ 0 g ~
JI
~
D
O w y
,
- m O
o O
1os0-
~ -. o m r~
A~~~~w~~om~ ow~~ .
-- ~A
m a a o•
m ~
-~
t
mNO a ao•yrnS•... ao m
m• ma~a~o~O.~~H• am ? ~ °
~
~
i
z
-~
m
~ a 3 ~ a~~• ~ ~
o ~ m , ~' ~ ~
~m a ~m~am ~~ m r ~~
~:
-
i ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ a ~.~ a J ~/
~ 3
~ ~osot- -~
~ Sm
ma
~°~ ~~
~ ~ ? ~ ~
m 4 ( I
O
o ..
r ~ ~.: ~ ~
J :.. ~ ~
.
_._ ..... ~ L
~ 1025 ~- \ / ~ ~ - (
..__
,k ~ ~
m .,
,
o ui
/
.
;~
'.. ..._ / ~
I
-_
\ ,. , m
_. ~, -
- / _.. _ _
-
~ ~
~~
s
. _.
,. /
_ ~
/
` _ _
_ --~ozs-
~ ~- -.
9
a / _ _ ._ I
~
.~ /
-..„- \
l
_...._ - - , o~
_.
,
~ o~
I
/
. _, ~
8 m ra
zz _,.
--
.... obol-~ -....
~ /_ ,
o
_ H - I ~
r
n `
p0 ~. \ ~
•
a
./ . ~ ~,oo ~
W n
/
_:
_...
, n
z .
__
~z
~~~~
a~NmT
~~y~~ ~ ~. /
- ,/ o g~ ~
- ~ ~ ~
-
~ ~ o
a
~ ~
m ~ /
II
N a m
a
myy
m
\ , ~~
~~/ O
r
Q
>~y~
~_ ~
-~./ ~ / / I
- -- i/
v
T ~~ ~
s I
_ ~
9 !
-~ moo
o ~~ ~ /J ~ m ~
~ ,
1 ~_
3
m / \ ' ~
/ /~ - I
~
+ at
N a ~
/ I
-pr
-m~ ~
o~$
_e
~3
m ~
z _ ~_,
~_ ~
~
~
Giear Lake ' ~ Qrrock ~ Livonia
~~-
THE PROPERTY
0
~ I ~'~
FIGURE 1
PROPERTY LOCATION
COUNTY OVERVIEW MAP
11684 213th Avenue NW
Elk River, Minnesota
LANDMARK ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
.~
~ ~ _,., 4
--
-~ ~
~~~ - ~-
i ~ , "`
~~ . - ~ - ''- ~-.. _.1 . ~ ~~
~-
.98~' J ~ .-ii ~ E + ~ f 1~ ~ I ~'µ~~ ~ ) ` 1, _ . % --~.. ~ ~ _
t ~ ,~ L~nl! V)
i I~ l~ Jf~, ;~r` ~ ~..'
~ `n~
. I _
... _ ,_ -
ttT~f~ ~ r I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~
`% i~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~~
~ ~ _ _
r • i ~.
_ ~.
~ ~ p\\\ /`THE P RO P ERTfY ~ `~~ ~ -~.`~ ~ ~ '- - _ ' fi,.- ~ '`' ;;.`~
~ ~ ~ . , -~ , riff 1 ~ r ~~~ ~' ~~~ , - - _ ~ I ~
! I ~ t ~~ ctil /, ~~~ ~ ,~
G ` 1 ~~ n~ rl I t ~ ~k~r ~J r ~\ `--~
~ i
'~ ~ ~ ~' irk ` ' i ~ 1 ' • ~' 1~ I'I~~~~ r-,
fl
~~ .~ rf /I ~~/~ f ~ ~ J' lr +9s`~ ~' i ~I~i~~ ~ ~I
~~s~ f ~ 1` I _ ,- i ~ ~/
_ i
I f I1 ~ ~ ~ I /~-~ / f =r ~ t~ I ~ i 7/! o
I ~ Ci~l i~ti~ '~` v r ~. / /~I ~ `i -~f . sX~ ~ ~ ; ,. ~~ - t, ~-,1 i'~';l r/V ~~ ~ \.~ .~~_
..~~. ' \ f ~J i' ~ ! Sri .~-.,~ ~!
r,~
i _
~ v. i
JJ ~ IIV)! 1 'lJ
I L
v f ~ ~
~~ l n' t/ ~ 1'~ ~ I ~ _, C ~. ~ti ~ 't S r.l ~ I
I If -'~ lx~'
- _ ~ _ 1 ~~ , I u~~ .Y Tz ~ ~._~ .. P~~ ~ ~ ~~ ti r 1 I r I , I r `j~``r
'1 ~/ 1 i ~ tt~e s , _
y i' ' ~~ - I ,. ~~ ~ _ Tat tr/~ J v' r q
'r ~'f"~ t~ } ~ r I
6 I (~
i .~ .~, ~ ~ ~ a - ~:-. ~ rr
~ _ yt, t 7.= ~ -
/ 1 ~`~ ~ ~G-~ c5 ~ _
Source: Elk Rlvsr. Minnesota 7ooooraohic Quadrancls. 7.6-Minute Series
N FIGURE 2
A PROPERTY LOCATION
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet 11684 213th Avenue NW
Elk River, Minnesota
LANDMARK ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
z
-- :.:
1
. _ _
v rn N A w rv .. 2 __ _
o o
,gym ~ ~~8 ~ ~ ~na~ ~o$p`c~'y . ~ r ~--,
°
3
~
'v
\ I
m 3~~m a~
3~
m ~ na c ~
~~m ~,amc~,,~~~..;~~~ J
~`io,o~~ao~ W~°0~m ~ So °s ~
=~ I ~I
~ o
m_~~m,°~,4'm~~x~a~ mNma L~oso~
j x ~ ~ a p _ c
D
m o
o - ~A~$. ~m~m.~m.mc ~we~
~ti~~ cao8~"~~ ~m
'~'H ~
o`s
~ )
~
~'~3~ '2'm me o ia`a° 3'c y ~ ~ o~ ~- ~
Z m m e -~wm ~~y uWi m ~ j ~ ..
m cbb
O $' ~ 4 ^w m C ~+ ~ G ~ _
a
''.
,,
m ~
O
o ~ ya ~3~
~~m ,--x y _ ~ I
c~ -mac ~ __ -- J ~, ;
j ~ 01 N ~ ~ b v ~ o ~ a m ~' ~ ~ ~ ~
a ~ y~ ~
~ n
~ m ~ ~~ ~ a v ~ m ~ ~ 3 J -... // ~osot- ~
~m mW°T° y~ a ~ ~ I
I
w
00
~ E
;; - , '
J
_..._
_. __
._~- ~ ~-1025 ~ ._ ` / J ~
.,
` \ ~ ~
~ ' . .~
0
,. 1
.,
~
\
_..
.
~, ~ .. ~ ..
,.
/
_ - - /
~
m p~~ ..,_
_ O~
.. - __
`
\I
/ -
~
r ._,.-
_ i
m
m
_ ~
_
o ~ ~
:~
- ... _--~ - C ~
oo~` ,
,~
® _.
'~~
~ Y m ~ - _
X000 L-~ ~ .- _ ., / - ~
vJ
~ '
/
~ n
_ ~. / .
~ oo
~
\'~ao / W
~
~-.
m -- / \
1
~
o ~ .. `,
zz
~ /
p~NxT
'
n
>m
_ ^~
~ /
,. .~ ~ a` ~ ~ m ' i
~
m ~J
3
''
,
~
moo o ~
~ /J ~
~ o ~ moo 1
~_ ~
\
3 / ''.. \
a ~
-
I
~~. ~ 1~ ~
_
.. ,-.
\ _.. _. -
m
i p
m m ~
... _
_ao _
-
_ `_
Minnesota Deportment of Natura{ Resources
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
1200 Wamer Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
651-259-5738
March 7, 2011
Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
rhaug@ci.elk-river.mn.us
~~~~n~~a}~~I
DEPAATliiENTOF
NATUAAEAESOUACES
Transmitted Via E-mail
RE: Plaisted Companies Sand and Gravel Mining Operation Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW)
Dear Ms. Haug:
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Central Region has reviewed the EAW
for the Plaisted Companies Sand and Gravel Mining Operation in the City of Elk River. From a
natural resources perspective, the proposed project does not require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, the following comments are for your
consideration.
Please be advised that the document posted online, along with the agency distributed copies,
appeared to be missing some of the attachments referenced in the document. Item 5 and Item 16
made reference to a Figure 5, and item 11 b referenced an Appendix A. At this time it does not
appear that these omissions warrant concern for the potential of significant impacts. These errors
should, however, be noted for reviewers and these documents should be made available.
The EAW does not directly indicate the proposed mining depths, or the potential for the mining
operation to impact groundwater. Item 19 indicates that the minimum depth to groundwater is 20
feet. The description of the stockpile locations provided in Item 7 indicates that the pit floor would
be approximately 20 feet below grade. While Figure 3, Mining Excavation Plan, indicate that
depth would be a minimum of 990 feet mean sea level (with surface elevations varying from
1,000 to 1,025 feet mean sea level) and that actual excavation depth may vary depending on the
quality of aggregates encountered. Given this information, it maybe possible that the proposed
activities could encounter and/or impact groundwater resources. It does not appear from review
of other Item information provided that the proposed project includes in-water mining activities.
The potential to impact groundwater should be addressed, or the information discussed above
should be clarified so that it is clearly understood how this potential impact will be avoided.
The DNR Natural Heritage Database letter dated November 15, 2010 identified that Blanding's
turtles (Emydoidea blandingi~), a state-listed threatened species, have been documented in the
vicinity of the proposed project. The letter also stated that the response to Item 11 b of the project
EAW should clearly discuss potential impacts to Blanding's turtles and identify any avoidance or
mitigation measures that will be implemented. Possible avoidance or mitigation measures were
included in the Blanding's turtle fact sheet that was attached to the letter. While the EAW
document acknowledged this comment, the document does not indicate how or to what extent the
proposed project will incorporate or consider the recommendations to avoid and minimize impacts
as requested. The DNR encourages project proposers to incorporate the recommendations
www.mndnr.gov
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
i~ PRINTED ON RECYtlEO PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 1096 POST-CONSUMER WASTE
Plaisted Companies Sand and Gravel Mining Operation
DNR Comments
March 7, 2011
provided in the fact sheet when and where appropriate. The Blanding's turtle flyer and fact sheet
has been attached to this letter for your convenience. Please contact Krista Larson, Regional
Nongame Specialist, at 651-259-5775 or by a-mail at krista.larsonCa~state.mn.us if you have
further questions.
Figure 2, Property Location Topographic Map, depicts a wet area located in the east-central
portion of the Property. In addition, the aerial photograph reviewed indicates that there may be
wet area on the Property. The potential wetland area was not addressed in Item 12 which
addresses physical or hydrologic alteration to surface waters including wetlands. The EAW
should discuss why this area, depicted as a wet area on Figure 2, is not a wetland and how that
was deduced.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving
your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of environmental review.
Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 and 5, require you to send us your Record of
Decision within five days of deciding on this action.
If you have any questinns ahout these r0rrtmet?tg, ple2se 0211 Melicg2 f~~pgralgki~ F2e~inn2-
Environmental Assessment Ecologist, at 651-259-5738, or by a-mail at
melissa.dooeraiskit7a state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
r,?A~/-~" ,Gf ~ct
Keith Parker
Regional Director
CC: Steve Colvin, Bernice Cramblit, Melissa Doperalski, Liz Harper, Roger Stradal, Krista
Larson, Lisa Joyal, Paul Diedrich, Fred Bengtson, Nicholas Snavely, REAT (DNR}
Nick Rowse (IJSFWS}
Jon Larsen (EQB)
ELK11 Plaisted Companies Mining Operation EAW.doc
ERDB#20110159-0002
~I3ERBURN~
S"C7i L & `Y"JRT~Ft
GONSERVATtCN C{STRICT
~1
February 24, 2011
Rebecca Haug
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
Rebecca:
14855 Highway 10
Elk River, MN 55330
Tel. (763) 241-117Q ext. 3
Website: www.sherburneswcd.org
I have the following comment on the Plaisted Companies Sand and Gravel Mining Operation
EAW.
Page 4, #13 Water Use: There appears to be two homesteads on the site along 213th Ave. If
these homesteads will not be in use or if the buildings are to be razed, the sites should be
inspected for the existence of water wells. Any wells located at the sites that will not be used in
the future and which have not been sealed should be sealed according to State of Minnesota
requirements.
Sincerely,
-;tt--
Mark Basiletti
Water Resources Specialist
Sherburne Soil and Water
Conservation District
--~ ~ -x= ~/linnesc~~a P~~tutiQn ~a~tr~! ~ge~c~r
.~,~.~.
~ 520 Lafayette Road North I St Paul, MN 55155-4194 ~ 651-296-6300 1800-657-3864 ~ 651-282-5332 TTY I www.pcastate.mn.us
March 9, 2011
Ms. Rebecca Haug
Environmental Administrator
City of Elk River
1306 Orono Parkway NW
Elk River, MN 55330
Re: Plaisted Companies Sand and Gravel Mining Operation Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Ms. Haug:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for the Plaisted Companies Sand and Gravel Mining Project (Project) in Sherburne County,
Minnesota. The Project consists of the extraction and processing of aggregates from a 30.6-acre parcel
of property adjacent to an existing sand and gravel mining operation. Regarding matters for which the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility and other interests, MPCA
staff has the following comments for your consideration.
Proiett Maenitude Data (Item 71
The EAW indicates there will be no buildings on the site. However, aerial photos indicate several
buildings on the north end of the site. Please indicate if these buildings will be removed and if there are
existing wells for these buildings that have not been listed in Item 13.
Permits and Approvals Required (Item 8)
This item should also include an air emission permit as being required from the MPCA. Since the EAW
does not discuss the Project's potential to emit for all criteria pollutants, it is not possible to determine
from the information provided whether the Project will require a Nonmetallic Mineral Processing
General Permit or a Part 70 Title V Permit. It is the responsibility of the Project proposer to determine
the type of air permit necessary for this specific operation. Application forms and instructions are
available on the MPCA's website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/permits/forms.html#4a.
The Project proposer should also be aware that operation of a stationary crusher and aggregate spread
that is greater than 25 tons per hour capacity, or greater than 150 tons per hour portable, and assuming
the equipment is newer than 8/31/83, is subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart 000 of the federal New Source
Performance Standards. Under this subpart, the facility owner must conduct specific performance
testing (i.e., opacity testing) when the mining site is in normal operation.
Depending upon crusher size (tons per year) and year of manufacture, and generator horsepower and
year of manufacture, the operation may also be subject to Subpart ZZZZ of the federal National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, which has additional reporting requirements. If you
have any questions on air permitting issues, please contact 1im Kolar in our St. Paul office at
651-757-2174.
Equal Opportunity Employer
Ms. Rebecca Haug
March 9, 2011
Page 2
Erosion and Sedimentation (Item 16)
Items 16 and 17 provide minimal narrative to describe that during active mining, stormwater will be
handled internally and that sedimentation basins, diversion berms, silt fences, and other appropriate
controls will be used to treat stormwater. However, the EAW should additionally provide
proposed/estimated sizing information and layout description on the site plan to show how these
controls will fit into the excavation plan. Additional understanding of how the stormwater runoff and
sediment capture will be accommodated on site is needed in order to assess that the proposed
treatments have a reasonable assurance of mitigating the runoff and water quality impacts.
Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff tltem 17)
It is indicated that the stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit for the existing mining facility (this
permit should be identified in the EAW) will be modified to include the additional acreage for the
proposed activity. It should also be noted that the current SWPPP for the existing facility must also be
modified to meet current NPDES/SDS Permit requirements, which were changed in August of 2008 after
the permit was re-written. The new requirements will require the SWPPP to list estimated quantities of
erosion and sediment control best management practices to be used on the site, identify new time lines
for stabilization, and provide erosion and sediment control training certification for the SWPPP designer
and the erosion and sediment control inspector for the Project. There are also new requirements for
concrete washout facilities and for projects located within one mile of special or impaired waters, which
do not appear to apply in this instance.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please provide your specific responses to our
comments and notice of decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Please be aware
that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the
purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the
Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If
you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me at 651-757-2508.
Sincerely,
~~a~
Karen Kromar
Planner Principal
Environmental Review and Feedlot Section
Regional Division
KK:mbo
cc: Craig Affeldt, MPCA, St. Paul
Scott Lucas, MPCA, Brainerd
Jim Kolar, MPCA, St. Paul
Larry Zdon, MPCA, St. Paul
Reed Larson, MPCA, Brainerd
ip~~NNE~T4yo Minnesota Department of Transportation
372512 Street North
~~~oF~P~y~ Saint Cloud, MN 56303
March 3, 2011
Ms. Rebecca Haug
Environmental Administrator -City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
Re: Plaisted Companies Sand and Gravel Mining Operation EAW
Dear Ms. Haug:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation -District 3 has reviewed the EAW for the
proposed pit expansion by Plaisted Companies for impacts to the trunk highway system.
Our staff review finds no concerns relating to Trunk Highway 169.. Thank you for the
opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely,
~~(Gcudtq ~~u.~,t
Claudia Dumont
Engineering Specialist
Cc: CS 7106
Mark Renn - St. Cloud
An Equal Opportunity Employer
V ~
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Central Region, March 7, 2011
From a natural resources perspective, the proposed project does not require the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, the following
comments are for your consideration.
Please be advised that the document posted online, along with the agency distributed
copies, appeared to be missing some of the attachments referenced in the document.
Item 5 and Item 16 made reference to a Figure 5, and item 11 b referenced an Appendix
A. At this time it does not appear that these omissions warrant concern for the potential
of significant impacts. These errors should, however, be noted for reviewers and these
documents should be made available.
So noted.
The EAW does not directly indicate the proposed mining depths, or the potential for the
mining operation to impact groundwater. Item 19 indicates that the minimum depth to
groundwater is 20 feet. The description of the stockpile locations provided in Item 7
indicates that the pit floor would be approximately 20 feet below grade. While Figure 3,
Mining Excavation Plan, indicate that depth would be a minimum of 990 feet mean sea
level (with surface elevations varying from 1,000 to 1,025 feet mean sea level) and that
actual excavation depth may vary depending on the quality of aggregates encountered.
Given this information, it may be possible that the proposed activities could encounter
and/or impact groundwater resources. It does not appear from review of other Item
information provided that the proposed project includes in-water mining activities. The
potential to impact groundwater should be addressed, or the information discussed
above should be clarified so that it is clearly understood how this potential impact will be
avoided.
The project does not involve "in-water mining activities" and groundwater
resources will not be encountered and/or impacted. Based on drilling work to
define the aggregate resources, the groundwater elevation occurs at
approximately 970 feet mean sea level. This explains the information in Item 19.
The 990 feet mean sea level for the Mining Excavation Plan indicates the lowest
elevation. There is a potential that excavation depth could be less than the
planned depth based on quality of aggregates encountered. The City of Elk River
will place specific requirements within the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that no
excavation occur below the groundwater table.
The DNR Natural Heritage Database letter dated November 15, 2010 identified that
Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingill), astate-listed threatened species, have been
documented in the vicinity of the proposed project. The letter also stated that the
response to Item 11 b of the project EAW should clearly discuss potential impacts to
Blanding's turtles and identify any avoidance or mitigation measures that will be
implemented. Possible avoidance or mitigation measures were included in the
Blanding's turtle fact sheet that was attached to the letter. While the EAW document
acknowledged this comment, the document does not indicate how or to what extent the
proposed project will incorporate or consider the recommendations to avoid and
minimize impacts as requested. The DNR encourages project proposers to incorporate
the recommendations provided in the fact sheet when and where appropriate. The
Blanding's turtle flyer and fact sheet has been attached to this letter for your
convenience. Please contact Krista Larson, Regional Nongame Specialist, at 651-259-
5775 or by a-mail at krista.larson@state.mn.us if you have further questions.
So noted. The City of Elk River will evaluate the recommendations for potential
inclusion as specific requirements within the CUP.
Figure 2, Property Location Topographic Map, depicts a wet area located in the east-
central portion of the Property. In addition, the aerial photograph reviewed indicates that
there may be wet area on the Property. The potential wetland area was not addressed in
Item 12 which addresses physical or hydrologic alteration to surface waters including
wetlands. The EAW should discuss why this area, depicted as a wet area on Figure 2, is
not a wetland and how that was deduced.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory was consulted and
this area is not within the inventory. Other supporting evidence is the drilling
work to define the aggregate resources. This fieldwork indicated that the
groundwater elevation occurs at approximately 970 feet mean sea level or more
than 15 below the lowest surface elevation. In addition, the reported soil profile,
which shows a relatively thin layer of low permeable soils overlying more
permeable soils, does not typically support wetland conditions. The area has been
farmed and is not known to contain draintile.
Minnesota Pollution Control Aaencv. March 9. 2011
Project Magnitude Data (Item 7) -The EAW indicates there will be no buildings on the
site. However, aerial photos indicate several buildings on the north end of the site.
Please indicate if these buildings will be removed and if there are existing wells for these
buildings that have not been listed in Item 13.
The buildings on the northern end of the property will be removed (as needed) at
the time that mining activities progress to this portion of the Site. The Minnesota
County Well Index does not indicate the presence of wells associated with the
buildings. The proposer is aware, however, that water wells are located near
these buildings. The City of Elk River will place specific requirements within the
CUP that require that all water wells within the mining area be abandoned in
compliance with the Water Well Code of the Minnesota Department of Health.
Permits and Approvals Required (Item 8.) -This item should also include an air emission
permit as being required from the MPCA. Since the EAW does not discuss the Project's
potential to emit for all criteria pollutants, it is not possible to determine from the
information provided whether the Project will require a Nonmetallic Mineral Processing
General Permit or a Part 70 Title V Permit. It is the responsibility of the Project proposer
to determine the type of air permit necessary for this specific operation. Application
forms and instructions are available on the MPCA's website at
www. m oca. state. m n. us/air/permits/forms. html.
So noted.
The Project proposer should also be aware that operation of a stationary crusher and
aggregate spread that is greater than 25 tons per hour capacity, or greater than 150 tons
per hour portable, and assuming the equipment is newer than 8/31/83, is subject to 40
CFR 60 Subpart 000 of the federal New Source Performance Standards. Under this
subpart, the facility owner must conduct specific performance testing (i.e., opacity
testing) when the mining site is in normal operation.
Depending upon crusher size (tons per year) and year of manufacture, and generator
horsepower and year of manufacture, the operation may also be subject to Subpart
ZZZZ of the federal National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, which
has additional reporting requirements. If you have any questions on air permitting issues,
please contact Jim Kolar in our St. Paul office at 651-757-2174.
So noted. Operation of a stationary crusher is not planned for this project. The
project proposer intends to comply with all air permitting requirements of the
MPCA, as necessary.
Erosion and Sedimentation (Item 16) -Items 16 and 17 provide minimal narrative to
describe that during active mining, stormwater will be handled internally and that
sedimentation basins, diversion berms, silt fences, and other appropriate controls will be
used to treat stormwater. However, the EAW should additionally provide
proposed/estimated sizing information and layout description on the site plan to show
how these controls will fit into the excavation plan. Additional understanding of how the
stormwater runoff and sediment capture will be accommodated on site is needed in
order to assess that the proposed treatments have a reasonable assurance of mitigating
the runoff and water quality impacts.
The proposed project is a continuation of the current aggregate mining operation.
Currently, there are no problems with the management of erosion and
sedimentation for the adjacent areas and the proposer has indicated that all
surface water from disturbed areas for the project will be directed internally. This
is supported by the proposed mining plan. The proposer is subject to
requirements of Sector J for the NPDES permit for Industrial stormwater, MN
R05000. Additional details will be developed as necessary to implement a
stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Site in accordance with
erosion and sediment management requirements of MN R050000.
Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff (Item 17) - It is indicated that the stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit for the existing mining facility (this
permit should be identified in the EAW) will be modified to include the additional acreage
for the proposed activity. It should also be noted that the current SWPPP for the existing
facility must also be modified to meet current NPDES/SDS Permit requirements, which
were changed in August of 2008 after the permit was re-written. The new requirements
will require the SWPPP to list estimated quantities of erosion and sediment control best
management practices to be used on the site, identify new time lines for stabilization,
and provide erosion and sediment control training certification for the SWPPP designer
and the erosion and sediment control inspector for the Project. There are also new
requirements for concrete washout facilities and for projects located within one mile of
special or impaired waters, which do not appear to apply in this instance.
The current SWPPP has recently been updated to meet the requirements of Sector
J for the NPDES permit for Industrial Stormwater, MN R050000. This SWPPP will
again be updated to include the new area and meet the permit requirements prior
to the initiation of mining activities in the proposed area.
Sherburne Soil and Water Conservation District, February 24, 2011
Page 4, #13 Water Use: There appears to be two homesteads on the site along 213th
Ave. If these homesteads will not be in use or if the buildings are to be razed, the sites
should be inspected for the existence of water wells. Any wells located at the sites that
will not be used in the future and which have not been sealed should be sealed
according to State of Minnesota requirements.
The buildings on the northern end of the property will be removed (as needed) at
the time that mining activities progress to this portion of the Site. The Minnesota
County Well Index does not indicate the presence of wells associated with the
buildings. The proposer is aware, however, that water wells are located near
these buildings. The City of Elk River will place specific requirements within the
CUP that require that all water wells within the mining area be abandoned in
compliance with the Water Well Code of the Minnesota Department of Health.
Minnesota Department of Transportation. March 9. 2011
No Comments on the proposal.
So noted.
RESOLUTION I I -
CITY OF ELK RIVER
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR PLAISTED COMPANIES
A resolution of the City Council of the City of Elk River regarding the environmental review
process for the proposed Plaisted Companies Sand & Gravel Mining Operation; setting
forth the City Council's findings of fact regarding the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement; and declaring that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not
necessary
WHEREAS, Plaisted Companies Sand & Gravel Mining Operation is proposing to
extract and process aggregates from a 30.6 acre parcel of property, and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Part 4410.4300, Subparts 19.D a
mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared under Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act (NIEPA); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Elk River, as the responsible governmental unit (RGU)
under EQB Rules, prepared an EAW as required by EQB Rules; and,
WHEREAS, notice of availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor
on February 7, 2011; a press release was given to the Elk River Star News on January 31,
2011; posted notice was given at the Elk River Public Library and Elk River City Hall on
January 31, 2011; and copies of the EAW were supplied to all persons and agencies on the
EQB official EAW distribution list on January 31, 2011; and,
WHEREAS, comments have been received on the EAW from Mark Basiletti,
Sherburne Soil & Water Conservation District, February 24, 2011; Karen Kromar,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, March 9, 2011; Keith Parker, Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, March 7, 2011 and Claudia Dumont, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, March 3, 2011; and,
WHEREAS, all substantive comments have been responded to appropriately by the
City as RGU in the staff memorandum to the City Council, dated Apri14, 2011, from
Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator; and,
WHEREAS, the environmental review process mandated by the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act and implemented through the EQB Rules has been followed and
this resolution shall be the City's record of its compliance with the EQB Rules and decision
in this matter; and,
WHEREAS, the City, as RGU, shall order the preparation of an EIS if the Project
has the potential fox significant environmental effects; and,
WHEREAS, in deciding whether a project has the potential for significant
environmental effects, the City is to apply the criteria set forth in Section 4410.1700 subparts
6 & 7 of the EQB Rules.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the information
contained in the EAW, the comments received on the EAW, and the responses thereto from
City staff in their memorandum to the Council dated April 4, 2011, the City Council of the
City of Elk River finds the project does not require the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement for the following reasons:
A. The environmental effects of the project are minimal.
B. The project will be subject to ongoing regulatory authority of the City of Elk
River and other state agencies.
C. Future development in the area of the project will be subject to the requirements
of the EQB Rules and will be subject to the ongoing regulatory authority of the
City and other governmental agencies.
The foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member and duly
seconded by Council Member
The following voted in favor of the resolution:
The following voted against the resolution:
The following were absent:
Whereupon the resolution is adopted.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 4~ day of April, 2011.
John J. Dietz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tina Allard, City Clerk