Loading...
5.4. SR 09-07-2004Item { 5.4. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Stephen Rohlf, Building and Environmental Administrator DATE: September 7, 2004 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Worksheet for J & B Mining Included in your packet is a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the J & B Mining 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; · the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and · the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) - letter from James Sullivan, dated August 17, 2004. Comment -Project potentially needs a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for mining peat. Response - City staff contacted Julie Jordan, Mineland Reclamation Specialist for the DNR, regarding this issue. Ms. Jordan indicated that a separate permit from the DNR is not required for peat mining projects of less than 40 acres. The total area proposed to be mined by J & B Mining is 39.42 acres, of which a good portion is gravel mining. Therefore, a permit from the DNR is not required for the mining of peat. However, the peat mining portion of this request is subject to regulation under the Wetland Conservation Act and requires a conditional use permit through the City of Elk River. Comment - The EAW references periodic washing of gravel associated with the project, but does not identify the source of the wash water or the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Response - Washing of gravel has been eliminated from the project since the EAW was prepared, therefore these comments are no longer relevant. Comment - Former Judicial Ditch #1 is referenced in the EAW but its location is not delineated. Response - Although Judicial Ditch # 1 has been formerly abandoned, it will be used as an outlet for run-off from the site. Abandoned Judicial Ditch # l's branches ultimately discharge to the Trott Brook. Because the elevations of the inlet and outlet of the ditch on the subject property will remain unchanged, post-restoration run-off rates are anticipated to be similar to predevelopment run-off rates. The outlet will be protected from erosion with rip rap, silt fence and a vegetative buffer to remove nutrients. The Technical Evaluation Panel for the City of Elk River to ensure consistency with the Wetland Conservation Act has looked at this issue in detail. Comment - Whether or not temporary or portable storage tanks will be used to store fuel. Response - There will be no temporary or portable storage tanks for the storage of fuels. The petitioner will be using refueling trucks at designated locations on the site for refueling vehicles. Comment - Would like to see the "Potential to Emit" calculations to see if the project will have the potential to significantly impact air quality. Response - City Staff has informed the petitioner that "Potential to Emit" calculations are required for the project. Ifa MPCA Air Quality Permit is required, the city will copied. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) - letter from Kathleen Wallace, dated August 18, 2004. Comment - Waterfowl habitat and a fishing pond are problematic and shallower slopes will allow for better vegetation establishment, less erosion and better water quality. Response - All of the issues raised in this letter have been reviewed by the City of Elk River's Technical Evaluation Panel, which includes a DNR Fisheries Biologist. Adjustments to wetland mitigation plan for the project have been made in an attempt to address these concerns. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) - letter from Claudia Dumont, dated August 9, 2004. Comment - MnDOT is ok with the access to US Trunk Highway 169 via 225th Avenue proposed by the petitioner. Response - The city appreciates MnDOT's review of this issue. RECOMMENDATION 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. Staff is recommending a negative declaration on the need for an EIS for the J & B Mining request. A resolution to this effect is attached. RESOLUTION 04- CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ELK RIVER RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR J/~ B MINING A resolution of the City Council of the City of Elk River regarding the environmental review process for the proposed J & B 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, J ga B Mining is proposing to mine gravel and peat from 39.42 acre, and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Part 4410.4300, Subparts 12.B a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared under Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA); 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 July 19, 2004; a press release was given to the Elk River Star News on July 14, 2004; posted notice was given at the Elk River Public Library and Elk River City Hall on July 19, 2004; and copies of the EAW were supplied to all persons and agencies on the EQB official EAW distribution list on July 12, 2004; and, WHEREAS, comments have been received on the EAW from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, by letter dated August 17, 2004, from James Sullivan; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, by letter dated August 18, 2004, from Kathleen Wallace; and Minnesota Department of Transportation, by letter dated August 9, 2004, from Claudia Dumont and, WHEREAS, all substantive comments have been responded to appropriately by the City as RGU in the staff memorandum to the City Council, dated September 7, 2004, from Stephen Rohlf, Building and 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 for 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, 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 SEPTEMBER 7, 2004, 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. The project will not cause future development. D. 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 voted in favor of the resolution: The following voted against the resolution: The following The following were absent: Whereupon the resolution is adopted. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 7th day of September, 2004. ATTEST: Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor Joan Schmidt, City Clerk Minnesota Pollution Control Agency August 17, 2004 Mr. Stephen Rohlf Building and Environmental Administrator 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Comments on the J & B Mining project Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Rohlf: The EAW for the proposed J & B Mining project (Project) has been reviewed by the MPCA staff. This comment letter addresses matters of concern to MPCA staff reviewing the EAW and is submitted for consideration by the city of Elk River (City), the responsible governmental unit, in deciding whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared on the Project. It 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. We have attempted to identify and consult with interested program staff to identify the MPCA permits that may be required. Additional comments or requests for information maybe submitted in the future to address specific issues related to the development of such permit(s). Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. The following comments are made for your use in revising the draft EAW. The abstract of the proposed Project found in §6.a. indicates that approximately 1,190,000 cubic yards of material will be mined from the Project area. There is no specific mention of the predicted or expected peat yields from this Project. The amount of peat may be an important factor as certain peat operations (depending on size and/or environmental impact potential) may require a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The MPCA is providing you with a copy of the Peat Operations and Environmental Protection (December 1996) as you proceed with the environmental review process. In §6.a. of the EAW, it is stated that "...the proposed operation does include gravel washing on a periodic basis" yet there is no specific discussion of two major issues related to gravel washing, namely: 1) the source of the wash water; and, 2) the treatment and disposal of wastewater (Please refer to § 18 of the EAW regarding wastewaters.). This information must be included in the EAW to better assess the potential environmental impacts of the Project. Additionally, this information would be useful to the MPCA during the permitting process. The former Judicial Ditch Number 1 is discussed in §9. of the EAW, however, the flowpath for this land feature is not delineated on any of the diagrams or figures provided as attachments to the document. It would be helpful to know where the flow from the former Judicial Ditch Number 1 is directed and discharged. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 ('f-FY); www. pca.state.mn.us St. Paul · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Willmar Equal Opportunity Employer · Printed on recycled paper containing at beast 20 percent fibers from paper recycled by consumers. Mr. Stephen Rohlf Page 2 The EAW is somewhat confusing on the issue of storage tanks for the Project. The language in §20.c. states, "No temporary or portable aboveground tanks will be used to store fuels." However, §23 states, "Portable storage tanks may be used to store fuel oils...". This should be reconciled as to whether portable tanks will be used on the site and if so, §20.c. should be completed accordingly to address the response containment plan. The Project will require on-site ~avel and peat processing equipment that will generate air pollutants. The EAW addresses this issue in §23. The EAW correctly notes that "MPCA Air QUality Permits are required for sand and gravel mining operations and asphak plants depending on the size of the operation and the 'potential to emit'." It is noted that the Project proposer intends te supply the "potential to emit" calculations during the MPCA air quality permitting phase of the Project rather than during the environmental review process. The "potential to emit" calculations are also important for the City and other EAW reviewers to determine if the Project will have a significant impact on air quality. The MPCA would like the Project proposer to include a "potential to emit" calculation in as part of the environmental review. Please contact JeffPeltola, MPCA/Saint Paul, regarding any questions you may have pertaining to the "potential to emit" calculations. He can be reached directly at (651) 296-8638. Thank you for the opportunity to review this Project. As the responsible governmental unit for environmental review, the City is required to prepare specific responses to comments on the EAW. The City is also required to provide notice of its decision on the need for an EIS to all persons on the EAW distribution list and a copy of the responses to all persons who submitted timely and substantive comments (ref. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 4 and 5). The MPCA must receive notice of a negative declaration for this project in order to proceed with permitting. We also seek the opportunity to review the responses to comments on the EAW prior to the issuance of the MPCA permits or approvals for the project so that pertinent information may be reflected in these decisions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me at (651) 297-1788. Sincerely, s E. Sullivan Project Manager Operations and Environmental Review Section Regional Environmental Management Division JES:gs Enclosure CC: Beth Lockwood, MPCA, Regional Environmental Management Division, Operations and Environmental Review Section Jennifer Oknich, MPCA, Environmental Outcomes Division Jeff?y Peltola, MPCA, Majors and Remediation Division, Majors Air and Construction Section Maggie Leach, MPCA, Brainerd Regional Office Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 651.772.7900 August 18, 2004 Mr. Stephen Rohlf City of Elk River 2040 Highway 12 East Willmar, Minnesota 56201 RE: J & B Mining Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. DeWolf: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the EAW prepared for the proposed J & B Mining projeCt in the City of Elk River. The EAW appears to be complete, with cumulative impacts adequately addressed. We offer the following additional comments for your consideration. Description (Item 6b). The proposed outcome of the project after reclamation, i.e., "waterfowl habitat and a fishing pond" is problematic. High quality waterfowl habitat rarely provides fishing opportunities, and vice versa. Based on the depth of the proposed water body, it would be more appropriate to focus efforts on creating higher quality fisheries habitat. In addition, slopes in the vicinity of 5-25% do not allow for much wetland vegetation or aquatic plant beds to develop to buffer the open water. Shallower slopes will allow for better vegetation establishment and less erosion, thus ultimately better water quality. Physical Impacts on Water Resources (Item 12). We will address wetland sequencing and mitigation through the Wetland Conservation Act and Technical Evaluation Panel processes. However, it should be noted that deep water habitats cannot be considered for wetland mitigation, and that wetland replacement must be accomplished in advance of, or concurrent with, the losses. 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. An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 If you have any questions about this project, please contact staff ecologist Michael North at 218-828-2433. Sincerely, Kathleen A. Wallace Regional Director Cc: Wayne Barstad Fred Bengtson Steve Colvin Paul Diedrich Patty Fowler Dale Homuth Jon Larsen (EQB) Michael North Nick Rowse (FWS) An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversi~ DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 TI-Y: 65~-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation District 3 3725 12th Street North St. Cloud, MN 56303-2130 Office Tel: Fax: 320/654-5134 320/203-6089 August 9, 2004 Mr. Stephen Rohlf Building and Environmental Administrator City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 R,9: ,,,,,,,, ,~ ,_n,, / Jason Bebeau City of Elk River Dear Mr. Rohlf: The Minnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for J & B Mining for impacts to Trunk Highway 169. Page 17 of the EAW states that access will occur "via the 225th Avenue Interchange". Just to clarify - this access point is an at-grade intersection, not a grade separated interchange. This intersection already has a cross-over, turn lanes and lighting, and should be sufficient for the proposed use. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EAW. Please feel free to contact me at (320) 654-5134 with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Claudia Dumont Senior Transportation Planner Cc: Mark Renn - Mn/DOT St. Cloud An equal opportunity employer ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET J & B MINING ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA Prepared for: JASON BEBEAU May 2004 (Revised July 2004) Prepared by: Liesch Companies LIE~CH Minneapolis, MN · Madison, WI · Scottsdale, AZ Revised format 2/99 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the City of Elk River, the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the of information, 1. Project title: J & B Mining 2. Proposer: Jason Bebeau 3. Contact person: Jason Bebeau Title: Owner/Developer Address: 21310 Brook Road City, state, Zip: Elk River, MN 55330 Phone: 763-441-2684 Fax: 763-441-6013 E-mail: Reason for EAW preparation (check one) EIS scoping X Mandatory EAW Proposer volunteered e Minnesota Rule 4410.430, Subpart 12. B. RGU: City of Elk River Contact Person: Stephen Rohlf Title: Building and Environmental Administrator Address: 13065 Orono Parkway City, State, Zip: Elk River, MN 55330 Phone: 763-635-1061 Fax: 763-635-1090 E-mail: srohlf@ ci.elk-river, mn.us Citizen petition __RGU discretion Subpart. 3. Discretionary EAWs. An EAW shall be prepared: B. when a project is not exempt under pan 4410.4600 and when a governmental unit with approval authority over a proposed project determines pursuant to the petition process set forth in part 4410.1100 that, because of the nature or location of a proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. If EAW or ElS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and subpart name Project location: Sherburne County City/Township: City of Elk River South ¥2 of the NE IA, Section 10 and the NW lA of Section 11, T 33 North, Range 26 West Attach each of the following to the EAW: (figures are provided in Attachment A) Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: City Map (showing the general location of the project) United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 (indicating project boundaries) Site Map (showing significant project and natural features) Proposed Mining Grading Plan scale map Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure Figure 10: 11: Properties Zoned for Mineral Excavation National Wetlands Inventory Map DNR Protected Waters Map Sherburne County Soil Survey Map National Resource Conservation Service Prime and Statewide Important Soils Map Wetland Mitigation and Impact Map Proposed Transportation Routes w be Description Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. J & B Mining proposes to operate a private gravel and peat mining operation, for approximately ten years. Approximately 1,190,000 cubic yards of material will be mined from approximately 39.42 acres of the 60.23 acre site. The gravel mined will be processed on Site or hauled to a local asphalt facility located approximately 1A-mile south of the Site. The peat mined will be processed on site or hauled off site by independent haulers via 225th Avenue. At the conclusion of mining, the site will serve as waterfowl habitat and a potential fishing pond. 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. J & B Mining will propose through the submittal of a conditional use permit application to the City of Elk River (the City) the mining of gravel and peat on an approximate 60.23 acre site in the northern portion of Elk River located just outside of the designated mining districts (the Site). The location of the Site is illustrated on Figures 1 and 2 in Attachment A. The proposed gravel and peat mining location is situated on two private properties owned by J & B Mining. The aerial extent of the mining is approximately 39.42 acres and the proposed duration of the mining is 10 years. The gravel mining operation will include mining, processing, stockpiling, and hauling of gravel and peat to construction and road project sites. A portable crusher may be utilized on site periodically by an outside contractor under their Air Quality/Mining and Processing Permit and the proposed operation does include gravel washing on a periodic basis. Recycling of asphalt and concrete materials is also proposed in the northwest portion of the site. Mining will be conducted to the grades indicated on the mining plan (see Figure 4 in Attachment A). As a mining area is opened, topsoil will be stripped from the designated area and stockpiled on-site for later use in site restoration. The gravel mined will be processed on Site or hauled to a local asphalt facility located approximately ~¼-mile south of the Site. Truck traffic generated by the gravel mine will occur on designated haul roads on the north and south sides of the site via easements on private property for transportation of materials to Elk River Bituminous. Peat materials hauled off site will be transported on designated haul roads that access 225th Avenue to the north. Proposed transportation routes for vehicles utilizing the facility are included in Figure 11, Attachment A. The mining area at its complete aerial extent will be approximately 39.42 acres. The site is unique in nature, in that all of the gravel to be mined is located in existing hills on the site and peat will be mined in low lying areas of the site. Based on the existing information from the EIS prepared for the geology of the Elk River Gravel Mining District (Mining District), the groundwater elevation in the area of the Site is approximately 950 feet. The proposed maximum depth of mining will be to an elevation of 900 feet, or approximately fifty feet below the water table. In May 2004, three monitoring wells were installed on the property to better determine the groundwater elevation at the property. The results of subsequent monitoring indicate that the ground water is at an elevation of approximately 944. This would result in mining depths 44 feet below ground water at the maximum mining depth. Upon completion of gravel and peat mining activities, the stockpiled soils and topsoil will be distributed and graded across the mined area existing at that time above the watertable. The restoration elevations will range from approximately 900-950 feet with slopes from 1 to 25 percent. Figure 4 in Attachment A shows the proposed final contours of the Site. Stockpiled topsoil will be placed on graded and mined surfaces intermittently as the mining progresses. Topsoil will be seeded and mulched or stockpiled in a manner to prevent erosion in areas above the water table. Upon completion of all mining, the Site is proposed to be utilized as waterfowl habitat and a fishing pond. 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 project purpose is to obtain natural aggregate and peat material for use in the construction industry. Gravel material mined will be used for the production of asphalt and road base materials which will be used for building new roads and improving existing roads in the surrounding area. Peat mined from the area will be used for production of organic topsoil material and for landscaping purposes in the surrounding area. d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to happen? __Yes X No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. ee Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? __Yes X No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. o Se Project Magnitude Data Total project acreage: Approximately 39.42 acres of mining on a 60.23 acre parcel Number of residential units: none Commercial, industrial or institutional building area: none Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet): Office: none Retail: none Warehouse: none Light industrial: none Other commercial (specify): none Manufacturing: none Other industrial: none Institutional: none Agricultural: none Building height (If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings): not applicable 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. Unit of eovernment City of Elk River Type of application Rezoning for Mineral Excavation Status Pending City of Elk River Conditional Use Permit Pending City of Elk River Mineral Excavation License Pending City of Elk River Wetland Conservation Act Pending Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NPDES/SDS Permit For Storm Water Discharge Application Form for Wetland Projects Required for gravel mining operations Pending e 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. Land use associated with the Site was determined from observing current conditions and from review of historic aerial photographs for the years 1939, 1953, and 1991 as obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 0EDR); USGS 7.5-Minute Series topographic maps for Elk River (1961, 1961; photorevised 1980, and 1961 revised 1993); and the City of Elk River Zoning Map (January 2002). An interview with a longtime local resident indicated that the property had been part of a large shallow lake prior to a ditch being installed in the 1880's which still exists today. County records indicate that the ditch, which was designated as Judicial Ditch Number 1 was abandoned in 1965 and, at this time, the ditch appears to contain primarily ground water which exists at an elevation above the existing ditch bottom. In the 1939 aerial photograph, the majority of the Site appears to be open grassland and/or cropland. Four areas of possible wetlands appear across the Site. A farmstead is located in the southeastern portion of the Site and includes a small cluster of four buildings. A wooded area is located to the northwest of the farmstead. The remaining surrounding property land use is primarily open agricultural or wooded land. The 1953 aerial photograph depicts little change from the 1939 aerial photograph. One additional potential wetland area appears on the western portion of the Site and appears to be an excavated wildlife pond. An additional wooded area appears on the southern portion of the Site, southwest of the farmstead. The remaining portions of the Site are unchanged from the 1939 aerial photograph. The 1991 aerial photograph appears similar to the 1953 aerial photograph. The areas of potential wetlands appear more defined across the western portion of the Site. Two additional apparent wetland areas appear on the eastern portion of the Site. The remaining portions of the Site are unchanged from the 1953 aerial photograph. Currently, land use at the Site is as it appears in the 1991 aerial photograph, with the exception that none of the Site is currently cropland. All open areas of the Site are currently grassland. Copies of the aerial photographs provided by EDR are included as Attachment B. Review of the topographic maps confirm the same general land uses as observed from review of the aerial photographs including wooded and open areas, depressions for potential wetland areas, and the location of the farmstead. According to the 2002 Elk River zoning Map, the Site is zoned for Agricultural Conservation. Adjacent properties to the east and west are also zoned for Agricultural 10. 11. ae Conservation. Properties adjacent to the north, south and west are zoned for both Mineral Excavation and Agricultural Conservation. Active gravel mines are operating adjacent to the north and south of the site and across Trunk Highway 169 to the west. Figure 5 in Attachment A shows the properties zoned for mineral excavation in the surrounding area. Rezoning for Mineral Excavation at this property is currently pending. The information reviewed does not indicate environmental hazards due to past land use. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Before After Types 1-8 wetlands 15.51 17.51 Wooded/forest 7.17 6.82 Brush/Grassland 36.22 2.22 Cropland 0 0 Lawn/landscaping 0.80 0.80 Impervious surfaces 0.53 0.53 Other (Open Water) 0 32.35 TOTAL 60.23 60.23 If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: The estimated acreage of cover types at the Site is based on the percentage of various cover types as determined from review of the aerial photographs and site survey. At this time it is estimated that mining activities will occur in brush/grassland and wetland areas. Some of the type 2 wetlands will be converted to type 5 wetlands and two small wetland areas, one in the northern portion and one in the eastern portion of the site will be impacted and mitigated on-site and using wetland credits from the adjacent site at the required replacement ratios. A wetland Impact and Mitigation Map is included as Figure 10 in Attachment A. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources 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 minimize or avoid impacts. Fish and wildlife resources on and near the Site include the wetland areas located at the Site. Alteration of the wetlands is anticipated to occur primarily as conversion of type 2 wetlands to type 5 wetlands as a result of the shallow peat mining to occur in these areas. Prior to starting work, all wetlands will be delineated and marked as required. There is little tree cover in the areas of the proposed mining, therefore the removal of trees will be minimal. Mining is proposed in one small wooded area in the southern portion of the property at this time. Efforts to minimize impact from the proposed operation will include adherence to a proposed grading plan to control runoff and preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Upon completion of the mining, the Site will be restored to a natural condition. Additionally, the adjacent properties to the north, south and west; and the properties across Trunk Highway 169 to the west, are currently operating as mines, thus the potential for affecting any surrounding sensitive resources is minimal. b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? X Yes No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: (NHNRP Contract # ERDB 20030175) The Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program of the DNR was contacted to determine if there were any rare plant or animal species or significant natural features within an approximate one-mile radius of the Site. The database represents the most complete source of data on rare and significant natural features and species. The information in the database is generated from an ongoing county-by-county survey of such occurrences. A survey for Sherburne County has been completed. The DNR response is provided as Attachment C. The DNR information identifies three known occurrences of rare species or natural features for the area searched. The first is a rare feature occurrence noted as the Oak Woodland-Brushland (Central #4). According to the DNR, this feature is located within Section 3 northwest of the Site and is not anticipated to be affected by the project at the Site. The two remaining occurrences are rare species identified as Emydoidea blandingii (Blanding's Turtle). Two occurrences of the Blanding's Turtle have been documented in the general area of the Site. The first occurrence was in 1996 and was located south of the Site. The second occurrence was in June 2002, east of the Site. According to the DNR, Blanding's Turtles spend much of their time in shallow wetlands and nest in open, sandy uplands up to one mile from wetlands. Nesting occurs in June and eggs hatch in September. The young turtles then enter deep wetlands where they spend the winter in soft sediments. According to the DNR, no occurrences of the Blanding's Turtle have been documented on the Site. A site survey for Blanding's Turtles has not been conducted. Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. As recommended by the DNR, flyers with an illustration of the Blanding's Turtle will be distributed to ail site workers. If observed, any turtles in imminent danger will be moved by hand out of harms way to a safe location. Any turtles observed that are not in danger will be left undisturbed. All construction areas will be surrounded by silt fencing to keep turtles from entering construction areas. The silt fencing will be removed after the area is restored. Wetlands will be excavated to a shallow depth resulting in type 5 wetlands. Graded areas will be re-vegetated with standard MnDOT/BWSR seed mixtures and the terrain will be left with as much natural contour as possible upon completion of the project. No permanent roads or utilities will be installed at the Site. Attachment C contains the handout to be distributed to Site workers. 12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration m dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment -- of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? X_~_Yes _ No If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI: Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. No DNR Protected Waters are located in the area of the Site. However, five separate wetlands are identified at the Site on the 1991 Nationai Wetlands Inventory (NWl) map and in the Wetland delineation conducted by Liesch in April 2004. A copy of the DNR Protected Waters Map is attached at Figure 7 in Attachment A. It is anticipated that one small wetland at the northern portion of the site and one wetland area on the east side of the site will be excavated to the anticipated mining depth and mitigated on-site at the required replacement ratios. Three other existing type 2 wetlands will be excavated to a shallow depth to remove peat and result in type 5 wetland conditions. As indicated in Item 11 (a), a SWPPP will be prepared to manage storm water run off at the Site. The SWPPP will detail the preventative measures and best management practices that will minimize potential impacts to the wetlands and other off-site water resources. A copy of the NWl Map is included as Figure 6 in Attachment A. A copy of this wetland mitigation plan is included in Figure 10 in Attachment A. Wetland impacts to degraded invasive dominated reed canary grass wetlands will be minimal and total 85,294 square feet. Planned mitigation involves areas totaling 87,454 square feet of new wetland credit, a reed canary grass area transformed to native sedges and grasses for 16,685 square feet of public value credit and 12,545 square feet of planted native grass buffer. This will represent a shortfall of 2:1 wetland mitigation by 53,904 square feet. However, the remainder of the wetland credit will be obtained from the adjacent Schmidt Gravel Mine (Schuer, Inc.) mitigation plan. 14. 15. 16. 13. On site surface water runoff from precipitation is to be controlled by designated grading plans and installation of silt fences and/or vegetated buffers in areas of the Site to be graded. A portion of the existing ditch located on the property will be removed as indicated in the proposed mining plan. As mentioned in item 9, the existing ditch was abandoned in 1965 and very little flow has been observed in the ditch after significant rainfall events. It is not anticipated that excavation of portions of the ditch will affect property owners upstream or downstream of the property since the ditch elevations where it enters and leaves the property will be unchanged and the ditch will flow into the area of open water and wetlands created as mining progresses and as proposed for site restoration. 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)? X_~_Yes __ 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. The project will involve the installation of three ground water monitoring wells on the site that will serve to monitor ground water elevations in the vicinity of the mining area. The ground water monitoring wells were installed at the time this document was being prepared and the well locations are shown in Appendix A, Figure 3. One well currently exists at the house on the farmstead located in the southeast portion of the Site. The well is located approximately 600 feet from the boundary of the proposed mining area. It is not anticipated that the well will be affected by the mining operation. Water-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. Water 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. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: Approximately 39.42 acres; 1,190~000 cubic yards. 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. The nature of the Site is unique, in that the gravel resources to be mined are located only in long narrow ridges (eskers). It is anticipated that these ridges will be excavated and removed to a depth below the water table. Peat will be removed from the flat areas below the ridges to a depth below the water table as shown in the Final Contours map. Based on the topographic contours of the Site, surface water runoff from the western portion of the Site will flow to the east and remain on site either in open water areas or wetlands. Surface water runoff from the eastern portion of the Site will also remain on site and flow into the low areas or wetlands. Surface water runoff and erosion controls are proposed to control surface water discharge off site. The proposed controls will include installation of silt fence/hay bales, rip-rap placement in drainageways, and phased topsoil replacement and seeding of completed phases. The silt fence/hay bales and rip-rap will be placed in areas deemed necessary during mining operations. Since most of the Site will remain undisturbed during the mining operations and the site will be lower than the surrounding area, only minimal, if any, off site surface water run off is anticipated. 17. Water quality: surface water runoff ae Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any storm water pollution prevention plans. Surface water runoff and proposed controls have been discussed in the preceding item. As noted in Items 9 and 10, the majority of the Site is grassland/wetland and will be excavated to create deeper water wetland types and open water areas. Currently, no surface water runoff or sedimentation controls are employed at the Site with the exception of the ditch abandoned in 1965. The proposed mining operation will change the existing topography and may temporarily decrease the quantity of runoff through the Site to some extent by creating additional depressions and deepening the existing wetland basins. It is anticipated that most of the run off will flow into topographic depressions, open water or wetlands on the Site and eventually infiltrate to the shallow groundwater aquifer. The engineered erosion and sedimentation controls identified in Item 16 will be based on runoff from the mining area. Preparation of a SWPPP will be required to manage storm water run off. Specifically, the SWPPP will describe site conditions and operations, including outdoor storage of materials and a description of spill response procedures. If recycled asphalt is used and stored at the Site, drainage from the piles will be prevented from entering any surface waters. If applicable, monitoring of surface water quality may also be proposed or required. Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the SWPPP will be implemented as part of routine operations at the Site. 10 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. Based on a review of the USGS topographic map, surface water on the western portion of the Site is expected to flow into the topographic depressions, open water and wetlands. The eastern portion of the Site will also eventually drain into on-site wetlands and open water areas. The abandoned ditch that exists on the site had previously transported surface water to Trott Brook. Trott Brook flows into Eagle Lake located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Site and eventually to the Rum River. These drainage conditions and distances and the proposed Site erosion and sedimentation control measures suggest little to no impact on receiving water bodies. 18. Water quality: wastewaters a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. Wastewater generated by the operation of the proposed sand and gravel mine will include sanitary waste from workers or employees of independent trucking companies. Portable self-contained sanitary facilities will be provided and maintained weekly by an independent company during the annual operating months. During non-operating months the portable facilities will be removed. No wastewater will be discharged as a result of the mining operations. No other wastewater will be generated at the Site. be Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, 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 Ce 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 If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. Not applicable 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions (Mining Area-not including entire site) 11 a. Approximate depth (in feet) to groundwater: (approximate water elevation 944) Existing conditions: 0 minimum; 20 maximum; approximately 5 average Operating Conditions: minus 45 minimum; 20 maximum (deepest base of mining elevation 900) Restored Conditions: minus 45 minimum: 6 maximum (restored elevation will range from approximately 950 to 900) Depth to bedrock: (top of bedrock elevation approximately 825) Existing conditions: 125 minimum; 140 average Operating Conditions: 75 minimum; 120 average (deepest base of mining elevation 900) Restored Conditions: 75 minimum: 120 average (restored elevation will range from approximately 944 to 900) Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to groundwater and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Sinkholes or other karst conditions, or shallow limestone formations do not exist in the area of the Site. The general geologic and hydrogeologic conditions in the vicinity of the Site were described in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the Elk River Gravel Mining District, Elk River, Minnesota, prepared by Maier Stewart and Associates, Inc (MSA), dated May 1994 (the 1994 EIS). As the mining district surrounds the property on three sides, the conditions described in the EIS are applicable to the site. The following discussion is a summary of the geology and hydrogeology of the Elk River Gravel Mining District, copied from the 1994 EIS. "The mining district is situated on the northwestem edge of a major regional structural feature termed the Twin Cities Basin. The general geology of the mining district and vicinity consists of a sequence of glacio-fluvial deposits overlying an erosional surface of Paleozoic sedimentary bedrock units. Bedrock formations in the area dip southeastward, towards the center of the basin." "The surficial deposits and topography result from at least two major glacial events. The glacial depositional event responsible for many of the larger landforms in the region, occurred as a result of advance of the St. Croix phase of the Superior Lobe (Helgeson, Ericson and Lindholm, 1975). This glacial advance occurred from the northeast and deposited a sandy till that is characteristically red in color. The terminal moraine, formed by stagnation of the St. Croix lobe, trends northwest-southeast through the region and forms the core of many of the regions larger geomorphic features. The Grantsburg Sublobe of the Des Moines Lobe subsequently advanced through the region from the northwest and deposited a characteristic calcareous grey till with shale fragments. The Grantsburg till was the last major glacial depositional event in the region. Typically, the St. Croix glacial features are reworked with, and overlain by, a relatively thin veneer of Des Moines Lobe outwash sands and till. The Anoka sand plain is situated east of the mining district and was formed during 12 wastage of the Grantsburg Sublobe. It was during this period of wastage that an esker complex was formed. This esker complex provides the thick sand and gravel deposits of the mining district (Wright, 1972)." "In the mining district three major classifications of glacial sediments are present, till, outwash and ice contact deposits, with the later being most prevalent. Each of these deposits has a unique although interrelated depositional history. The till units typically consist of variable unstratified material ranging in size from silts and clays to large cobbles. Typically, till units are of low permeability and as such impede groundwater flow. The tills in the region consist of primarily silts and clays with a lesser sand and gravel fraction. Smaller lenses of sand and gravel are often present within the tills and evidence small scale fluvial activity during deposition. Glacial outwash deposits, such as those of the Anoka sand plain, are relatively permeable consisting of stratified fine sands to gravels deposited by glacial meltwaters at the front of a retreating glacier. Ice contact deposits often result in specific geomorphic features such as the gravel rich esker complex which comprises the surficial geology of the gravel mining district. Eskers or more generally, ice contact deposits are the result of deposition by subglacial fluvial processes such as meltwater streams and rivers. These deposits are essentially reworked till from which the fines were removed by fluvial activity. The lack of fines provides for the relatively high permeability of these deposits." "An alternating sequence of till and glacio-fluvial deposits are present beneath the esker deposit. The uppermost unit beneath the esker appears to be a relatively continuous till unit that is variable in thickness. A sand and gravel unit is generally present below the till. Other sand and gravel units are interbedded within or between successively deeper till units. These sand and gravel units are important water supplies for local residential use. A majority of the residential developments west of the mining district utilize the first sand and gravel unit present below the esker deposit." "Beneath the glacial deposits the first bedrock encountered in the immediate vicinity of the mining district is the Eau Claire formation. This formation consists of alternating sandstone and shale, and is generally recognized as a regional confining layer. Beneath the Eau Claire formation are the Mount Simon and Hinckley formations. These two formations are generally described as fine to coarse grained quartzose sandstones which combine to form the Mt. Simon-Hinckley Aquifer. The Mt. Simon-Hinckley is an important water supply locally and throughout the Twin City Basin, as well. According to USGS Hydrologic Atlases, the basement rock beneath the Mt. Simon-Hinckley consist of undifferentiated Pre- Cambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks including quartz, diorite, granodiorite and quartz monzonite." "The bedrock elevation beneath the mining district and over much of the area to the west and south appears to be at an elevation of 800 to 850 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Slightly east of the mining district and extending along an approximate north- south trend is a reported major bedrock valley incised over 100 feet deeper than the bedrock elevation beneath the mining district. No major bedrock structures are documented west of the district and the bedrock elevation averages 800 feet NGVD." 13 "The uppermost aquifer within the mining district is a water table aquifer present within the gravel deposits. Several glacial aquifer sequences are present beneath the water table aquifer and do not appear to be in complete hydraulic connection with the water table aquifer. These confined aquifer units are important water supplies to residential housing developments around the perimeter of the mining district. The glacial aquifer systems are separated from deeper bedrock aquifer units by the confining properties of the Eau Claire formation and till units overlying the Eau Claire Formation. The Eau Claire formation overlies the Mount Simon-Hinckley aquifer which is the lowermost aquifer in the vicinity of the mining district. Bedrock aquifers beneath the Eau Claire formation may be under artisan pressure where confined by the Eau Claire formation and/or till units." "Shallow groundwater in the mining district is present as an unconfined water table aquifer. Water table conditions are manifested within the esker complex at elevations ranging from 950 in the northern part of the district to 925 at the southern margin. The thickness of unsaturated sand and gravel ranges between 40 and 70 feet. The water table aquifer is approximately 30 feet thick throughout the mining district." "Various other sand and gravel units are present beneath the water table aquifer. The first confined glacial aquifer beneath the water table aquifer occurs at a general elevation of 860 NGVD with a variable thickness of between 20 and 80 feet. This unit is utilized as the primary water supply for residential developments west of the district. Other deeper glacial aquifers are also present but are limited in thickness. The Mt. Simon-Hinckley formations combine to form one confined aquifer and together are generally 150 feet thick. There are no significant aquifer units beneath the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer." "The esker complex contains numerous depressions both natural and man-made that influence the shallow groundwater flow system. The sand and gravel surficial material is conducive to the rapid infiltration of precipitation and surface water depression storage into the water table. Accordingly, standing water in these areas frequently represents a surface expression of the water table. The flow patterns of the water table aquifer are primarily controlled by recharge and discharge, surface topography and the relative permeability of the shallow geologic materials in the area. Shallow groundwater discharge likely occurs at springs near the base of slopes or into topographically low streams or wetlands." Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. General measures for minimizing risk to groundwater are noted below. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. The following is a listing of the Site soils as identified in the Soil Survey of Sherburne County, Minnesota, dated May 1998 (Soil Survey). A map depicting the numbered units is included as Figure 8 in Appendix A. 14 158B Zimmerman fine sand 3 to 6% slopes 158E Zimmerman fine sand 12 to 25% slopes 161 Isanti fine sandy loam, depressional, 0 to % slopes 540 Seelyeville muck 0 to 1% slopes 730B Sanburn fine sandy loam 2 to 6% slopes 1109 Isanti loamy fine sand 0 to 2% slopes 1253B Stonelake-Sanburn Complex 1 to 6% slopes 1253C Stonelake-Sanburn Complex 6 to 15% slopes 1253E Stonelake-Sanburn Complex 15 to 40% slopes The majority of the Site is covered by the Seelyeville muck and the Sanbum fine sandy loam. The Sanbum Complex consists primarily of gravelly sand and sandy loam with moderately rapid to very rapid permeability. This is the primary unit where mining for gravel will occur. The Seelyeville muck is primarily decomposed organic material and peat deposits with moderately rapid permeability. The permeability of the granular sand and gravel deposits is greater than that of silty or clayey soils. Potential vertical migration of impacts from spills or releases is greater for soils with higher permeability. Mitigative measures to prevent and/or control contaminant releases include use of best management practices and compliance with local, state and federal regulations. Such regulations include NPDES permits and development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC). Such plans provide for control and spill response associated with releases. General practices should include proper use and routine maintenance of equipment, performance of maintenance activities in designated areas or on designated surfaces with appropriate spill containment measures at hand and, secondary containment as appropriate. Controlled access to excavation and operating areas should also be maintained to provide against such things as vandalism or illegal dumping. The plans also contain provisions for mining activities and spill response in the proximity of open water areas which are proposed at the site. A ground water monitoring plan has also been developed for the site to address monitoring of the ground water elevations during mining activities and annual sampling for ground water quality. Ground water quality monitoring will be conducted for parameters including Diesel Range Organics (DRO), Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) and Petroleum Volatile Organic Compounds (PVOC's). The ground water monitoring plan addresses contingency action plans to ground water impacts for the above mentioned parameters as well as for a significant decrease in the ground water elevations should they occur during and as a result of mining activities. The City of Elk River would be notified immediately of the necessity to proceed with contingency actions at the site. 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. 15 21. 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 minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. Only minimal amounts of waste will be generated by the proposed project. Waste will include that generated from the small number of on-site workers and from intermittent maintenance of on-site equipment. Any maintenance of on-site equipment will be completed by mobile equipment maintenance trucks which will provide collection and containment of fluids and lubricants. Used oils and fluids that are collected and contained with the maintenance truck will be removed from the site the day that they are exchanged out of the machinery and properly recycled off-site. 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. Fuel and lubricants (oil, grease, hydraulic fluid) will be used at the Site for machinery fueling and maintenance. Any other oils, greases, or hydraulic fluid used at the Site will be delivered to the site intermittently for on-site equipment via a mobile maintenance truck and a fuel truck. Empty containers and/or spent fluids will be removed from the site at the completion of maintenance by the mobile maintenance track and will be properly recycled off-site. All oil and fuel handling personnel will be properly trained in spill prevention and response. 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 permanent above or below ground storage tanks located at the Site. No temporary or portable aboveground tanks will be used store fuels. As required by the City of Elk River, a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan meeting the requirements of 40 CFR Part 122, will be prepared and implemented for the Site. Traffic. Parking spaces added: None Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): None Estimated total average daily traffic generated: 40 trucks per day Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence: Unknown Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. Average annual daily traffic (AADT) and heavy commercial average annual daily traffic (HCAADT) volumes were reviewed for Trunk Highway 169 for the year 2000. In the 16 area of the Site, AADT volumes are 27,300 and HCAADT volumes are 1,140. The estimated average of 40 trucks per day is low compared to the current traffic volumes on Trunk Highway 169. Additionally, a large portion of the traffic generated from the site will not access Highway 169 as they will utilize on site haul roads to deliver materials to Elk River Bituminous which is located approximately th mile southwest of the property and trucks that do utilize Trunk Hwy 169 will access via the 225th Avenue Interchange. Therefore, the proposed mining operation is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on traffic in the surrounding area. Proposed transportation routes for vehicle traffic from the site are illustrated in Figure 11 in Attachment A. 22. 23. Vehicle-related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EA W Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. As discussed in Item 21 above, the proposed project is not anticipated to cause traffic congestion on nearby roadways. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to significantly decrease air quality in the area. 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 EAW 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 prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. Air emissions associated with the proposed gravel and peat mining operation are associated with fugitive dust generated from excavation and conveying of gravel and peat. Fugitive particulate matter (PM) emissions will be generated from transporting the aggregate from storage piles to the feed unit hoppers. Crushing operations may also result in fugitive PM emissions. Diesel generators may be used to provide electricity. Emissions from generators correlate to fuel usage and would include oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO). Portable storage tanks may be used to store fuel oils, and may be a source of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. Combustion emissions will include carbon dioxide (CO2), water, NOx, oxides of sulfur (SOx) (if sulfur is present in the fuel), CO, and VOCs, including small quantities of benzene, toluene, and xylenes (hazardous air pollutants). MPCA Air Quality Permits are required for sand and gravel mining operations and asphalt plants depending on the size of the operation and the "potential to emit." The Conditional Use Permit documents will indicate the need for air quality permits. Potential to emit calculations will be performed and the proper permits will be obtained. 17 24. 25. 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 may be discussed at Item 23 instead of here.) Odors, noise and dust will be generated when mining and crushing activities are being conducted. Crushing operations will only be conducted using a portable crusher on a periodic basis. According to information in the 1994 EIS, noise levels in the Mining District have not been shown to exceed MPCA noise standards. Standard mining equipment and portable crushing equipment will be used for the mining operation which will have decibel (dBA) levels that are similar to those measured for the 1994 EIS. Therefore, noise levels should be within allowable standards for the project. Any nuisance noises will be minimized by limiting hours of operation. Selected placement of gravel stockpiles can also be used to control noise. On-site generators may be housed in trailers or other temporary structures to minimize noise, if necessary. Additional mitigative measures for noise will also include proper equipment maintenance and muffling. Mining operations be conducted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Saturday as required by the City of Elk River. The specific hours of operation and other mitigative measures will be determined as needed as part of the Conditional Use Permit. Dust generated during mining operations will be limited to the active mining area and haul roads. Water will be delivered to the Site via a water truck and applied primarily to haul roads, but also to any exposed soil/topsoil stockpiles and areas where mining has been completed as is necessary. Salts and other chemicals will not be used for dust control at the site. Mitigative measures to minimize fugitive dust from these areas may include of stockpiling soils in a manner to prevent erosion and phased restoration of completed areas. Based on the adjoining properties to the north, south and west (gravel mines), there are no sensitive receptors in the area. The farmstead located in the southeast portion of site is currently owned by Bob LeFavor, (the co-Proposer of this project). 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? X Yes 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 project, related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. 18 The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for Sherburne County was contacted to determine if any prime or unique farmlands or lands within an agricultural preserve were located on the Site. According to Edward Musielewicz, District Conservationalist, 6.05 acres of statewide important soils are located on the Site. A map showing the areas of these soils is included as Figure 9 in Attachment A. The soil identified as important is the Sanbum fine sandy loam, located in the northearn portion of the Site. The Sanburn soil unit is directly adjacent to and includes some gravel deposits and will be partially mined. Special consideration will be given to these areas as not to disturb the topsoil or unnecessarily excavate these areas within the setback. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of the Minnesota Historical Society was requested to review their records for information regarding any historic properties or archaeological sites that may be present near the Site. The response is provided in Attachment D and indicates there were no inventoried historic properties or archaeological sites found for the search area. However, if any archeological artifacts are discovered during mining activities, operations will be stopped and the City will be notified. Appropriate investigation of any discovered archeological sites would be required. 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. Visual impacts from intense lights will be minimized by hours of operation (daylight hours). A majority of the mining area will be screened from adjacent highway to the west by trees and topography. During the fall, winter and spring when foliage is minimal or absent, visual impacts will remain screened from the adjacent highway to the west by topography.. 27. Compatibility with 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? X 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 Site is currently zoned for Agricultural Conservation. According to the City of Elk River Zoning Map (January 2002) the properties adjacent to the north, south and west of the Site and across Trunk Highway 169 to the west of the Site are zoned for Agricultural Conservation with Mineral Excavation. Active mines are operating in each of these areas, which are included in the Mining District. The property adjacent to the east is zoned for agricultural conservation and is currently undeveloped. The City of Elk River recognizes mineral excavation as an appropriate and compatible interim land use for agricultural conservation zoned areas. 19 The property owner will propose that the Site be re-zoned for Mineral Excavation Overlay Zoning District. A Mineral Excavation License and Conditional Use Permit will be required subject to approval by the Elk River City Council. 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 EA W Guidelines for details.) No other new or expanded public services or utilities are anticipated for the proposed project. (Confirm no additional traffic infrastructure other than limited easements) 29. Cumulative impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related 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 impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). Currently, the Site is bounded to the north, west and south by larger gravel mines. Large active gravel mines are also located west of Trunk Highway 169, just west of the Site. Thus, the Site will correspond with current and projected area land use in the area. The extent of mining is estimated to cover approximately 39.42 acres of a 60.23-acre parcel and is expected to remove 1,190,000 cubic yards of gravel and peat over a 10-year period. At the end of mining operations, the Site will be restored to public value area in the form of waterfowl and fisheries habitat. No expansions of the mine on this property are projected for the future, as no additional gravel resources are present on the Site. Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are anticipated to be minor and are comparable to those presented in the 1994 EIS prepared for the Mining District. Mining on the property is being coordinated with mining activities to the west and proposed future mining to the north in order to match mining grades and connect open water and wetland complexes to optimize site restoration and end use. The City of Elk River is aware of the cumulative impacts for the Mining District and has considered and addressed them accordingly. 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 with any proposed mitigation. A potential environmental impact not addressed includes vibration from crushing operations. Mitigative measures to reduce the impacts caused by any vibration will include locating the gravel stockpiles and crushing operations on areas of the property 20 31. farthest from the most sensitive receptors. Additionally, the crusher will be manned at all times during operation. No other potential environmental impacts are anticipated. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EA W is being done for ElS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EA W. 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 may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. Environmental issues that have been identified for the proposed project include the following: noise, dust, traffic, air quality, potential surface water impacts, potential groundwater impacts, potential rare species disturbances, and potential affect on prime or unique farmlands. The City of Elk River will address these issues through the Conditional Use Permit and Excavation License process, including annual review. Noise and visual impacts have been addressed by designating allowable hours of operation. No intense lighting will be used at the Site. The physical setting of the project site (surrounded to north, south, and west by mining) conforms to the surrounding land use and therefore reduces these potential impacts. The specific hours of operation will be determined as part of the Conditional Use Permit. Potential dust generation has been addressed by requiring dust control on an as needed basis. Completed mining areas and soil stockpiles are to be seeded to stabilize soil and minimize wind blown dust particulates. The affect of the proposed project on traffic volume is minimal as discussed in Sections 21 and 22. Potential dust generation will controlled by watering the haul roads on an as-needed basis. Potential to emit calculations will be performed for the gravel mining operation and the need for an air quality permit will be assessed at that time. Permits will be obtained from the MPCA. It is not anticipated that the proposed project will adversely affect air quality in the surrounding area. Surface water, erosion, and sedimentation have been reviewed and mitigative measures have been proposed to control these issues. The proposed project will affect drainage into the wetlands located on the Site and also the wetlands themselves as mentioned in Item 12 above. The project will not adversely affect or contribute directly other surface water bodies. Adherence to NPDES requirements is also required. Physical controls to be implemented during the proposed operation include adherence to a grading plan and restoration, seeding of stockpiled soil and completed phases, silt fences and/or vegetative buffers. Some control of contaminant migration from potential releases is afforded by these physical controls. Additional mitigative measures to control potential releases to surface water include conformance with best management practices, proper equipment maintenance, and storage tank safeguards. The proposed gravel mining operation does not include installation of a supply well, thereby eliminating potential interference with other nearby supply wells. Dewatering for 21 mining is not proposed. Although the proposed mining will extend approximately 45 feet below the water table at the deepest point, mining will be accomplished with a clamshell without dewatering. Mining of the Site may include removal of some topsoil, which will be stockpiled for site restoration. The Site soils include primarily sand and gravel and peat which have greater vertical permeability and affords less protection to the migration of spills or releases. Mitigative measures to control potential releases include conformance with applicable regulations and best management practices, proper equipment maintenance, storage tank safeguards, and site security. The Blanding's Turtle was identified as a state-listed threatened species for the vicinity of the proposed project. As recommended by the DNR, flyers with an illustration of the Blanding's Turtle will be distributed to all site workers. If observed, any turtles in imminent danger will be moved by hand out of harms way to a safe location. Any turtles observed that are not in danger will be left undisturbed. All construction areas will be surrounded by silt fencing to keep turtles from entering construction areas. The silt fencing will be removed after the area is re-vegetated. Wetlands will not be dredged or filled and all wetlands will be protected from pollution sources. Graded areas will be re- vegetated with standard MN DOT seed mixtures and the terrain will be left with as much natural contour as possible upon completion of the project. No permanent utilities will be installed at the Site. 6.05 acres of statewide important soils are located on the Site. A portion of this soil unit include sources of gravel and are expected to be mined. Special consideration will be given to these areas as not to disturb the topsoil or unnecessarily excavate these areas further than is proposed. If it is determined that portions of these areas will be disturbed, the topsoil will be stripped, stockpiled and replaced and restored to farmland upon completion of mining activities. Upon completion of gravel and peat mining activities, the Site is proposed to be utilized as waterfowl habitat and a fishing pond with adjacent wetland complexes. Wetland restoration and mitigation activities will occur as areas of mining are completed and will be performed in accordance with the approved wetland application. 22 RGU CERTIFICATION. The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets 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 knowledge. 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. Signature Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. 7181o't Date Title W:\env\6461 l\Bebeau EAW.doc 23 / , ,? ......... ~ ~,,~' ~ ~ I ~ ! ~ i ~ ~.,~.~~,. ~ , , ,. . ~ -4-- .~ ................ ~ ........ Ig~ ~.~, , , , -,~ 132 lin ~W ! q N U,S, HI.way ~ To~shtp Road 14 ___ Administrative Boundaries ~ u ~, '* ~ So.ce: Sh~b~e Co~. 8/02. S~e: ~ Shorn ~ ~ J & B ~ffing July 04 [~~ Hydrogeologists. Engineers. Enviromnental Scientists 6000 G~ho" ~. Suite 203 13400 ~5* ~ ..... S 4~ S ~i"~ ~d. S~i~ 200 Ci~ Map Fignre Madison, ~ 53713 Mmca~lis, ~ 55441 ScoRs~lc. ~ 85251 (608) 223-1532 (763) 489-3 I~ (480) 421-0853 .', L/ ~ ~ i , .- -~' : A L.>, ; ' ~' ~" . , :'~' ' ' ~=~%"' ..... ~m~ ./' ..... ' ~"-- ~<1 /, .~ - . , . '~ ) . ~ ) . -, ( '/ ' -,':'-:-'' '" /' ":'>",< C;¢'?,w4 - '-'::"*~e ~ ' ' ~ '..: ' ~' - ' , : ' · ~, ~' , ,q,' ',': ,..:' , ':-- ;:---'. ' ' -. ,t ' , "~., ,. .:. ,,~, . .. .,.,~ ..... ~.~, . .--..- :.. .~,.._ ..., . .... .,'. /: - ~ ,. ?.: ' v:: . , .__ _~- · ' . , ' ~ ~.,., - ~ ' oO" ~ { ' :-. .':'--V"~' -: ~-.-', % .-' -'-:v_ ~ ,: .. . ....... . f , .< . .~ ......... ~ · · ~,. ' .... ,' ~'~ / ; -, - ~*,c k ,, ' , ~* * ~- -- -- q . _ , ./ , ~ , , , . ~ - , _ , -, . ~- , ~: , , ~ , / - ' ...." ' " o~ '~':' "~~ ' : ~ " '"' .... ~ : :- '-"' -: 1~ ( ~ '> ~'" ~ ' ' ~ ~o~9 · '"- '~-: ...... ¢~ ' ' " ¥'/L:'}. ,..~ ' · ' --:;-:z., v '~,> ',,',./ _ .-:. - ' ~ ..... '. '~'. -- .-'.. ' .... _~/,' .~~~'-.-~.. ,.~ .. . ' _' ". .... '; ,,~:,','--:i, : ~o ..-----,, .... - ..... , '-.. . ~ . ~,, , ., , ~ ~ ~ , ,, ~ .... , ..... ~ ~ .. , . ~~- , _ _ .~ ..... ~+' .,~'?:/ , )- ~~:'- ' " ' '.% · ~ ~' ~*y' a t'.,-/{:.~ ?.~ ~ ,~& _ ' '- · ' / '- : ~ .v ~ ,.-~ } ~ - /,:' . . .: .... .',~-, · .. ~ , , ,, ,-, ~ ., , ~'~ - . · -'- .~ -- - -- 'o -'-. ~: ~ ~ ...... . .... , , , ~. ,. _, . ~- . ..... ,.. · ,~ ,. . ~ .. , ,, ~~ ~::'?_:>~-,~, ~ ;4~.~. : /~ ~+). , . ~-., ;~:, · :,. .., . -/~ .' ,, ,. ,,.. ~ /.~-~ . ,~ "~ ~~~''~:~ '7:/"~:~- d~' ~ ~'-'?:'" ' - - '~ ' ~-" ' ~'/~%' '';t~, . ~~._./_- >~..-~.~.~ ,,,,~:,,~,, ,, ,/ ~ .:.. -., . ,~,.-'?) ~, Source: USGS. 7.5 Mkute Oua&~les. Ek ~ver.~d ,Lake Freemont, ~. 1961.. revised 1993 Scale: 1" = 2,000' :~ J & B ~ning July 04 Project Loca~on Map Figure 6000 G~holt ~, Suit~ 203 13400 15~ Avenue N 4300 N Mill~ Rd~ Suite 200 Madi~n~ ~ 53713 M~neapolis, ~ 55441 Sco~sdale. AZ 8525~ ~2 (608) 223-1532 (763) 489-3100 (480) 421-0853 :/ "-e,-~,., P.I.D. 75-110-1100 LE~ND DENOTES E~,/ST/NG GU4RO POSTS y~' OE~OTE'S E:X/S~NC ~ POLE' ~.,,. OENO/'E'S E:X'/S/'/NC ~ -- DENOT'~ EA'/$/'/a~ ~ UHE N o 100 200 300 TOPOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY SURVEY BY: JOHN OLIVER &: ASSOCIATES, INC, ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS APRIL 2004 _-=- J & B ~ning JulY 04 Existing Conditions Plan Figure 6000 Oisholt Dr, Suite 203 13400 15a Avenue N 4300 N Iviillgr Rd, Suite 200 3 Madison, WI 53713 Minncaix)lis, M3l 55441 Scott. sd,ale, AZ 85251 (608) 223-1532 (763) 489-3100 (480) 421-0853 L~G~ND / x939.0 / / / -J I I L, 50' FFSET B N CROSS SECTION B - B' LIE.Y:H Hydrog¢ologists · Engineers 6000 GishoJt Dr, Suite 203 13400 15'~ Avenue N Madison, WI 53713 Minneapolis, MN 55441 (608) 223-1532 (763) 489-3100 · Environmental Scientists 4300 N Miller Rd, Suite 200 Scotmlalc, AZ 85251 (480) 421-0853 J & B Mining Mining Area Grading Plan and Cross Section July 04 Figure 4 ' _ "' Ac,~ c~ :.';I +~ ...'---': ---' ': 7""' ~ * t~~ ..... '~ : : ' , - ," -- .,~;3',~ ...... ',, = I .... = · t ' I .... ' - , - ~ ~; ..... ' ' ~ ,~-~ .~_ : _ ........ r, ,- J ........... - .................. " .... ~'. , i:', ,*,c ~ __=~ *_. ~ '-4: '=::"':'":': -:~_] ..... · :"" O '>'~'~' ':' j .... k''% I-, ~ ,'~, <~~-~--i" ~ . ...... :"" : .... . 7 ~r,: ; ~' .... Prope~ zoned as used for mineral excavation Sources: 2001 S~erbume Co. Atlas/Plat Map Book~ City of Elk ~iver Zo~n~ Map~ Jan. 2002 Scale: Not to Scale 2001 Sherburne Connty Atl~/Plat Map Book Figure 6000 G~holt ~. Suite 203 13400 15 ~ Avenue N 4300 N Mill~ Rd, Suite 200 Madisom WI 53713 Mmea~lis. ~ 55441 Sco~s~le. AZ 85251 (608) 223-1532 (763) 489-3100 (480) 421-0853 Source: United States Dept. of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Elk River, ~, 1991 Scale: 1" = 2.000' :~ J & B Mining July 04 National Wetland Inventory Map Figure 6000 Gisholt ~. Suite 203 13400 15* Avenue N 4300 N Mill~ Rd, Suite 200 Madison, W1 53713 Minnmpolis~ MN 55~1 Sco~sdate. AZ 85251 g6 ~608) 223-1532 (763) 489-3100 (480) 421-0853 ~:-.. ,~. .<; ' · ~';;~/'1: ~:.. ~K~. '.~]~. - ~ ~,J'~ L-~". · ~ '~ ~:'~.. . ~1 .' '-~ ~ '~N~ ~. ':1 ';~l ~' .~ ~ '~J '~%-, " ~t'~2,',.~~ m~~) ~~ ~ ~:~,. ,,:, ,,~. :,~..,,,,., ,, ,~ , ,.~ _._,.... -=~ * ' --- ~'a ~__¢' *_. _ ~_~__ ' * '.,* 0 .... · ~ S,. ~.. · . , . I. J · , - ~ . ,- .,-~-r~..~~~ ~i~~~... ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~'] l"' .~ * '~.* ~.-='- .;Z','. .... ; m~ ...~ · . ',: u c o ,,,= ~", {~ - ki'~ z ik'~ z So~: ~ D~ Protected Waters ~d We~ds, 8h~bme Co.. ~983, ~ehsed 1996 S~e: 1" ~ 2 Miles =~ J & B ~ning July 04 ti~~ Hydrogeologi~ts · Engi ...... Enviro ..... mi Scientists DNR Protected Waters Map Figure 6000 G~holt Dr. Suite 203 13400 15~ Avenue N 4300 N Miller Rd. Suite 200 Madison, WI 53713 Mmnea~lis. ~ 55441 Scottsdate, AZ 85251 g7 (608) 223-1532 (763) 489-3 I~ (480) 421-0853 73o~ Source: Soil Survey of Sherbume County~ Minnesota, May 1998 Hydrogcologista · Engi ...... Envi ....... tal Scientists 6000 Oisholt Dr, Suite 203 13400 I 5~' Avenue N4300 N Miller Rd. Suite 200 Madison. WI 53713 Minneapolis. MN 55441 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 (608) 223-1532 (763) 489-3100 (480) 421-0853 J & B Mining Sherburne County Soil Survey Map Scale: 1" = 1,000' July 04 Figure #8 0 125 250 500 750 l[00F0eet Legend _--~ July 04 Statewide Important So~s J & B Mining LIE C_H.H ~ i~e~.'~' Grovel Mining Area .-- Hydrogeologists · Engineers · Environmental Scientists N Project Boundary 6000 Gisholt Dr, Suite 203 13400 15th Avenue N 4300 N Miller Rd. Suite 211 Sherburne County NRCS - Prime and Statewide NRCS Soil Boundaries Madison. W! 53713 Minneapolis, MN 55441 Phoenix, AZ 8525 t Important Soils Map (608) 223-1532 (763) 489-31()0 (480) 421-0853 ! II!1 NORTH - ~ ..... q ~ ' / . · , r~ x '~ ' '/I ~ I ' 'f.~ ~t .. ~11 I ~ x.~ ~.~ ~[~,~[JX ~ I i-x of 5lc ~0 rwp ~ ~ng 26 It N ' ~- ~] ~- -- _~--~ ~11 / . x ~ ~'/"~,~r~/~ '~ 'l~'(/~x/ "~ ~r~ ' ' ' ' x ~_ ~z~Z4 ........ '~,~/~, L ~. , ,','/,~',c",',~=-~' ,/ ',~','~ ,~d~'~,~ ~ ~' ,; ~'~l ~ ~--~ ,~ / / -. ~ ~. , ~ , x,~z.. ~.:~.. .~l lu,.u,./,~.~,~ ' - ~ ,~ ~ / t-- ~t:z--::z-~IlJllI~~C1 [ 1lll ~ { c4~~ ~/ , .~ q~ ~ v'- ~ ,', ~'~l~{~ ~Z~d" ' ~ ~.~ ~' ~ ' ', !i' I' 71 --x ~ x: ~11 i )~ x x-- ' I t' ix/vii I1~ X' /) I ~o I I t II I~~~ ~ ~ ' . r- ,~/ / EAST ~ ~ ~ ~A ~ 4. ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~T ~T NO ~E 4/ 5 m~MEO ~ A P~D ~EA ' I 4 ~EA' I T~E 4/ 5 ~AN~MED ~EA ' . . ' ~i~ ' I ; ~ i ~1 - 25X ~T ~.741 ~ · 0.2~ EBOT U ' ~ ~A~D T~ 2 ~  ~A~D ~ 5 M~ M~ ~TT~ 4,327 ~. ~D U~ ~R ~ CROSS SECTION A - A' ~ .~ .~ ~ u.~... ~.~c, ~m.s~ ~o ~., And~son Engineering of Minnesota, LLC d & B MINING ~AND MI~GA~ON I ORA~: P~ UN~R~[~ ~ESTA~N~TA CiViL~.~,.~.,.~ ~.. ~,.. ~..~,.~ E~ R~R, M~NNESOTA & IMPACT MAP FIG. 10 ,~ uo~ , ~ ~,-, := "'r~ .~ ~ F~v ~;~m~ ~ RObe '~ u ,~ ~(~:~.~.~ ~ i 27', ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ .. '. ~ D ~.~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ J & B ~ning July 04 Proposed Transportation Routes Figure ~0 Gisl~lt Dr, Suite 203 134~ 15~' Avenue N 43~ N Miller Rd, Suite 200 ~1 1 Madimn, ~ 53713 Minnea~lis, MN 55~1 Scott~ale, ~ 85251 (~8) 223-1532 (763) 489-31~ (480) 421-0853 The EDR-Aerial Photography Print Service Highway 169 N and 219th Ave. Elk River, MN 55330 August 14, 2002 Inquiry Number: 828958-3 Ed" i Environmental : Data ;Resources, Inc. · ·' an,aedt-company The Source For Environmental Risk Management Data 3530 Post Road Southport, Connecticut 06490 Nationwide Customer Service Telephone: 1-800-352-0050 Fax: 1-800-231-6802 Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Aerial Photography Print Service Envirrmmenml Dam Resources, Inc.'s (El)R) Aerial Photography Print Set, ice is a screening tool designed to assist professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. ASTM E 1527-00, Section 7.3 on HNtorical Use Information, identifies the prior use requirements for a Phase I en,Aronmental site assessment. The ASTM standard requires a review of reasonably ascertainable standard historical sources. Reasonably ascertainable means information that is pt&licly m~lable, obtainableJi'om a source with reasonable time and cost constraints, and practically reviewable. To meet the prior use requirements of ASTM E 1527-00, Section 7.3.4, the following standard historical sources may be use& aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, property tax files, land title records (although these cannot be the sole historical source consulted), topographic maps, city directories, building department records, or zoning/land use records. ASTM E 1527-00 requires "All obvious uses of the property shall be identified from the present, back to the property 's obvia~ first dexeloped us~ or back to 1940, whichevo' is earlier. Th~ taskreqzdres revi~ving only as many of the starrlard historical sotwces as are necessaw, and that are reasonably ascertainable and likely to be usefid. "(ASTM E 1527430, Section 7.3.4, page 12. Aerial Photographs Aerial photographs are a valuable historical resource for documenting past land use and can be particularly helpful when other historical sources (such as city directories or fire insurance maps) are not reasonably ascertainable. The EDR Aerial Photograph Print Service includes a search of aerial photograph collections flown by public and private agencies for the state of Minnesota. EDR's professional field-based researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs at approximately ten year intervals. Disclaimer Copyright and Trademark Notice This report contains information from a variety of public and other sources. Environmental Data ® Resources. Inc. (EDR) has relied on the information pro, ided to it from such sources. EDR has not reviewed and does not warrant or omtarantee the completeness, accuracy, timeliness or authenticity of such inJbrmation in preparing this report. THE 17vTcOP~gt~770N.4~VD METHODOI_OGY USED TO COMPI_LE THIS REPORT, AND THE ANAL YSIS AND SERkTCES INTENDED TO BE PROVIDED BY THIS REPORT ARE PRO~TDED "AS IS" ~777qOLrf WARg4,'v?-Y OR GUARANTY OF.4_NY Kb-VD. EDR DISCI_4g~ }P777n'ObT L&ITE. q770N. L~I~LIED WAR~4~VFIES OF ~t~RCHA~VE.4B[LITY OR FI73/EC~g FORA PARTICUL,IR PURPOSE. b~ no e~ent shall EDR be liable for an.v indirect, special, punitive or consequential damages, whether arising Out of contract, tort or otherwise, arising OUt of this report and the information contained herein even if EDR has been advised of the possibility that such damages may arise. Entire coruems copyright 2000 by Emqro~m~ental Dcua Resources, [tm (EDR) All ~ights resorted Repro&iction in caO~ meda'a or formaon whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, [nc.. or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and tim edt logos are registered trademar~ of Emironmental Data Resources, Inc or itx affiliates. All other tradem~qcx tt~ed herein are the property, of their respective owners. 1953 1991 5/11/2004 W:\env\6461 l\FiguresL2003 AP.doc · I[lllg] II · Source: __~-~_ J & B Mining May 04 H Hydrogeologists-Engi ...... Envi ........ tal Scientists 2003 Aerial Photograph Figure 6000 Gisholt Dr, Suite 203 13400 15°~ Avenue N 4300 N Miller Rd. Suite 200 ~ Madison, Wi 53713 Minneapolis. MN 55441 Scottsdale. AZ 8525 l (608) 223-1532 (763) 489-3100 (480) 421-0853 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritag_e, gxn~ ,d N~ongame.,Res.earch Program, Box 25 ~vu Lafayette Koaa St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40__ Phone: (651) 296-7863 Fax: (651) 296-1811 E-mail: sarah.hoffmann@dnr.state.mn.us May 12, 2004 Warren Tuel Liesch Associates, Inc. 13400 15th Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55441 Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed Bebeau ~ravel Mine, T33N R26W Sections 10 & 11, Sherburne County NHNRP Contact#: ERDB 20040830 Dear Mr. Tuel, The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the area indicated on the map enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, there are 3 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the area searched (for details, see enclosed database printout and explanation of selected fields). Following are specific comments for only those elements that may be impacted by the proposed project. Rare feature occurrences not listed below are not anticipated to be affected by the proposed project. Blanding' s Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species, are reported from the vicinity of the project area. The Blanding's Turtle records represent observations of individuals from a population. We do not know the size or the full extent of that population. Although we have no records from directly within the project area, it is possible that turtles exist in the area if there is suitable habitat on the site. Blanding's Turtles spend much of their time in shallow wetlands (1-3 feet deep), but they nest in open, sandy uplands up to 1 mile from wetlands. Nesting is in June and eggs hatch in September, at which time young turtles enter deep wetlands where they over-winter in soft sediments. Factors believed to contribute to .the decline of this species ~nclude wetland drainage and degradation, ,development on upland ~esting areas, and possibly collection for the pet trade. In addition, because of the tendency for Blanding' s Tuffies to travel long distances over land, they are often forced to cross roads in developed areas. Many of the records we have of Blanding's Turtles are from turtles killed crossing roads. For your information, I have attached a fact sheet and a flyer about the Blanding's Turtle. The fact sheet is intended to provide you with background information regarding habitat use, life history, and reasons for the species' decline, as well as recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to this rare turtle. As you will note, there are two lists of recommendations. The first list contains recommendations to prevent harm to turtles during construction work, and is relative to all areas inhabited by Blanding's Turtles. Please refer to this first list of recommendations for your project. The second colunm expands on the first column, and contains greater protective measures to be considered for areas known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding's Turtles, or any area where greater protection for turtles is desired. Your project area is not within one of these priority DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · An Equal Opportunity Enlployer 1-888-646-6367 * TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum ot' 10G Post-Consumer Waste areas. The flyer, which should be given to all contractors working in the area, contains an illustration and description of the Blanding's Turtle, as well as a summary of the recommendations provided in the fact sheet. The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Division of Ecological Services, Department of Natural Resources. It is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, natural communities, and other natural features. Its purpose is to foster better understanding and protection of these features. Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or otherwise significant natural features in the state that are not represented in the database. A county-by- county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Shebume County. Our information about natural communities is, therefore, quite thorough for that county. However, because survey work for rare plants and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an on- site survey of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist on the project area. The enclosed results of the database search are provided in two formats: index and full record. To control the release of locational information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare element, both printout formats are copyrighted. The index provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, municipal natural resource plan, or report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish 'to reproduce the index for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. ~ COpyright notice for the index should include the following disclaimer: ':~.: :~ "Copyright (year) State of MinneSOta, Departmefit df Natural Resources. This index may be reprinted, unaltered, in Environmental AssessmentWorksheets, municipal natural resource plans, and internal reports. For any other use, written permission is required." The full-record printout includes more detailed locational information, and is for your personal use only. If you wish to reprint the full-record printouts for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. If you require further information on the environmental review process for other wildlife- related issues, you may contact your Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Mike North, at (218) 828-2433. An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You are being billed for map and database search and staff scientist review. Please forward this invoice to your Accounts Payable Dep~mnent. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely, Sarah D. Hoffmann"" Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator encl: Database search results Rare Feature Database Print-Outs: An Explanation of Fields Fact sheets: Blanding's Turtle Invoice Minnesota Natural Heritage Database Element Occurrence Records TWP RNG PRIMARY FED MN SECTION STATUS STATUS S RANK BEBEAU GP. AVEL MINE T33N R26W SECTION 10-11, SHERBURNE COUNTY MnDNR, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program ELEMENT and OCCURRENCE NUMBER 11:55 Tuesday, MAY 11, 2004 Copyright 2004 State of Minnesota DNR MANAGED AREA T033N R26W 03 T033N R26W 11 THR T033N R26W 15 THR S4 OAK WOODLAND-BRUSHLAND (CENTRAL) #4 EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (BLANDING'S TURTLE) #1001 EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (BLANDING'S TURTLE) ~840 RECORDS PRINTED = 3 Minnesota Natural Heritage Database Element Occurrence Records T033N R26W NW03 SHERBURiNE CO~, MN Element: OAK WOODLAND-BRUSELAND (CENTRAL) #4 S Rank: S4 EO Size: 160 acres appro EO Rank: Current Status: Site: ELK RIVER 3 WEST Ownership: Owner unknown Managed Area(s): not managed or no record Source: PARTCH,M.; TNC BEBEAU GRAVEL MINE T33N R26W SECTION 10-11, SHERBURNE COUNTY 11:55 Tuesday, MAY 11, 2004 MnDNR, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program Copyright 2004 State of Minnesota DNR *** SITE T~REATENED *** Last Observed Date: 1973 DNR Region: 3 Wildlife Area: 320 Intended Status: Quad Map: LAKE FREMONT (Q15A) Forestry District: 351 CBS Site #: 194 Latitude: 45 22' 55" Long: 93 34' 2" Precision: approx, boundaries have been determined Voucher: Verification: verified DECIDUOUS SAVANNA COVER CLASS ON STEEP PARALLEL MORAINE RIDGES RUNNING N-S. VEGETATIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN E AND W FACING SLOPES. AREA IS USED AS GRAVEL PIT AND LANDFILL. BEST PART IS IN SW CORNER OF SECTION 34. T033N R26W NEll SHERBURNE COUNTY, MN Element: EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (BLANDING'S TURTLE) #1001 State Status: TEREATENED EO Size: EO Rank: Current Status: Site: ELK RIVER 11 Ownership: Owner unknown Managed Area(s): not managed or no record Intended Status: Last Observed Date: 12 June 2002 Quad Map: ELK RIVER (Q15D) Latitude: 45 22' 7" Long: 93 32' 16" Precision: wichin 0.25 mile, confirmed DNR Region: 3 Wildlife Area: 320 Forestry District: 351 Source: SWANSON,D. (2002 BLANDING'S TURTLE REPORT) Voucher: Verification: sight or sound rec. ONE TURTLE OBSERVED CROSSING OLSON STREET IN ELK RIVER. OBSERVER NOTED YELLOW THROAT AND ESTIMATED TURTLE WAS 6-8" WIDE. CREEK AND "DUCK POND" NEARBY. T033N R26W SE15 SHERBURNE COUNTY, MN Element: EMYDOIDEA BLD~NDINGII (BLANDING'S TURTLE) #840 State Status: THREATENED EO Size: EO Rank: Current Status: Site: ELK RIVER 15 Ownership: Owner unknown Managed Area(s): not managed or no record Intended Status: Last Observed Date: 24 June 1996 Quad Map: ELK RIVER (Q15D) Latitude: 45 20' 55" Long: 93 33' 27" Precision: within 0.25 mile, confirmed DNR Region: 3 wildlife Area: 320 Forestry District: 351 Source: VELDHOUSE,D.(1996 BLANDING'S TURTLE REPORT) Voucher: Verification: sight or sound rec. 1 TURTLE (10 X 8 INCHES) OBSERVED ALONG DRIVEWAY. TURTLE IS MISSING LEFT FRONT FOOT, HAS ONLY A STUB, BUT APPEARS TO GET AROUND FINE. TURTLE RETURNED TO POND (5.5-6 FT DEEP, -9 ACRES, NEXT TO HWY 169). OBSERVERS ARE QUITE SURE THEY OBSERVED THE SAME TURTLE NESTING IN Th~EIR PASTURE IN 1995. Rare Features Database Print-outs: An Explanation of Fields The Rare Features database is part of the Natural Heritage Information System, and is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). **Please note that the print-outs are copyrighted and may not be reproduced without pe~,nission** Field Name: [Full (non-abreviated) field name, if different]. Further explanation of field. -C- CBS Site: [County Biological Survey site number]. In each county, the numbering system begins with 1. CLASS: A code which classifies features by broad taxonomic group: NC = natural community; SA = special animal; SP = special plant; GP = geologic process; GT = geologic time; OT = other (e.g. colonial waterbird colonies, bat hibemacula). Crv: [County]. Minnesota counties (ordered alphabetically) are numbered from 1 (Aitkin) to 87 (Yellow Medicine). CURRENT STATUS: Present protection status, from 0 (owner is not aware of record) to 9 (dedicated as a Scientific and Natural Area). -D- DNR Region: i=NW, 2=NE, 3=E Central, 4=SW, 5=SE, 6= Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro. DNR Quad: [DNR Quadrangle code]. DNR-assigned code of the U.S. Geologic Survey topographic map on which the rare feature occurs. -E- ELEMENT or Element: See "Element Name (Common Name)" Element Name (Common Name): The name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species records, this field holds the scientific name, followed by the common name in parentheses; for all other elements (such as plant communities, which have no scientific name) it is solely the element name. EO RANK: [Element Occurrence Rank]. An evaluation of the quality and condition of natural communities from A (highest) to D (lowest). EO Size: [Element Occurrence Size]. The size in acres (often estimated) of natural communities. FED STATUS: [Federal Status]. Status of species under the Federal Endangered Species Law: LE--endangered, LT=threatened, C=species which have been proposed for federal listing. Federal Status: See "FED STATUS" Forestry District: The Minnesota DNR's Division of Forestry district number. GLOBAL RANK: The abundance of an element globally, from G1 (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide basis) to G5 (demonstrably secure, though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks are determined by the Conservation Science Division of The Nature Conservancy. INTENDED STATUS: Desired protection status. See also "CURRENT STATUS."' If a complete list of protection status codes is needed, please contact the Natural Heritage Program. LAST OBSERVED or Last Observed Date or Last Observation: Date of the most recent record of the element at the location. Latitude: The location at which the occurrence is mapped on Natural Heritage Program maps. NOTE: There are various levels of precision in the original information, but this is not reflected in the latitude/longitude data. For some of the data, particularly historical records, it was not possible to determine exactly where the original observation was made (e.g. "Fort Shelling", or "the south shore of Lake Owasso"). Thus the latitude/longitude reflect the mapped location, and not necessarily the observation location. Legal: Township, range and section numbers. Long: [Longitude]. See NOTE under "Latitude" MANAGED AREA or Managed Area(s): Name of the federally, state, locally, or privately managed park, forest, preserve, etc., containing the occurrence, if any. If this field is blank, the element probably occurs on private land. If "(STATUTORY BOUNDARY)" occurs after the name of a managed area, the location may be a private inholding within the statutory boundary of a state forest or park. Map Sym: [Map Symbol]. MN STATUS: [Minnesota Status]. Legal status of plant and animal species under the Minnesota endangered species law: END=endangered, THR=threatened, SPC=special concern, NON=no legal status, but tracked. This field is blank for natural communities and colonial waterbird nesting sites, which have no legal status in Minnesota, but are tracked by the database. NC Rank: [Natural Community Rank]. Occ #: [Occurrence Number]. The occurrence number, in combination with the element name, uniquely identifies each record. OCCURRENCE NUMBER: See "Occ #" # OF OCCURS: The number of records existent in the database for each element within the area searched. Ownership: Indicates whether the site is publicly or privately owned; for publicly owned land, the agency with management responsibility is listed. Precision: Precision of locational information of occurrence: C (confirmed) = known within 1/4 mile radius, U (unconfirmed) = known within 1/2 mile, N (non-specific) = known within 1 mile, G (general) = occurs within the general region, X (unmappable)=location is unmappable on USGS topographic quadrangles (often known only to the nearest county), O (obscure/gone)=element no longer exists at the location. PS: [Primary Section]. The section containing all or the greatest part of the occurrence. .Q- Quad Map: See "DNR Quad'! Rec #: [Record number]. RNG or Rng: [Range number]. SECTION or Section: [Section number(s)]. Some records are given only to the nearest section (s), but most are given to the nearest quarter-section or quarter-quarter-section (e.g., SWNW32 denotes the SW1/4 of the NWl/4 of section 32). A "0" is used as a place holder when a half-section is specified (e.g., 0N03 refers to the north 1/2 of section 3). When a occurrence crosses section boundaries, both sections are listed, without punctuation (e.g., the NE1/4 of section 19 and NWl/4 of section 20 is displayed as "NE19NW20"). Site: A name which refers to the geographic area within which the occurrence lies. If no name for the area exists (a locally used name, for example), one is assigned by the County Biological Survey or the Natural Heritage Program. Source: The collector or observer of the rare feature occurrence. S RANK: [State Rank]. A rank assigned to the natural community type which reflects the known extent and condition of that community in Minnesota. Ranks range from 1 (in greatest need of conservation action in the state) to 5 (secure under present conditions). A "7" following a rank indicates little information is available to rank the community. Communities for which information is especially scarce are given a "U", for "rank undetermined". The ranks do not represent a legal status. They are used by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to set priorities for research, inventory and conservation planning. The state ranks are updated as inventory information becomes available. State Status: See "MN STATUS" TWP or Twp: [Township number]. Verification: A reflection of the reliability of the information on which the record is based. The highest level of reliability is "verified," which usually indicates a collection was made or, in the case of bird records, nesting was observed. Plant records based on collections made before 1970 are unverified. Voucher: The museum or herbarium where specimens are maintained, and the accession number assigned by the repository. In the case of bald eagles, this is the breeding area number. Wildlife Area: The Minnesota DNR's Division of Wildlife administrative number. Data Security Locations of some rare features must be treated as sensitive information because widespread knowledge of these locations could result in harm to the rare features. For example, wildflowers such as orchids and economically valuable plants such as ginseng are vulnerable to exploitation by collectors; other species, such as bald eagles, are sensitive to disturbance by observers. For this reason, we prefer that publications not identify the precise locations of vulnerable species. We suggest describing the location only to the nearest section, ff tiffs is not acceptable for your purposes, please call and discuss this issue with the Environmental Review Specialist for the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program at 6511296-7863. Revised 9/2002 Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series Emla~rcd, Threatened, and Special Com~rn Species of Mim~esota Blanding's Turtle (Emlldoideo blandi~giO Minnesota Status: Threatened State RankS: S2 Federal Status: none Global Rank]: G4 HABITAT USE Blanding's turtles need both wetland and upland habitats to complete their life cycle. The types of wetlands used include ponds, marshes, shrub swamps, bogs, and ditches and streams with stow-moving water. In Minnesota, Blanding's turtles are primarily marsh and pond inhabitants. Calm, shallow water bodies (Type 1-3 wetlands) with mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation (cattails, water lilies, etc.) are preferred, and extensive marshes bordering rivers provide excellent habitat. Small temporary wetlands (those that dry up in the late summer or fall) are frequently used in spring and summer -- these fishless pools are amphibian and invertebrate breeding habitat, which provides an important food source for Blanding's turtles. Also, the wanr~er water of these shallower areas probably aids in the development of eggs within the female turtle. Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands, often some distance from water bodies. Frequently, nesting occurs in traditional nesting grounds on undeveloped land. Blanding's turtles have also been known to nest successfully on residential property (especially in low density housing situations), and to utilize disturbed areas such as farm fields, gardens, under power lines, and road shoulders (especially of dirt roads). Although Blanding's turtles may travel through woodlots during their seasonal movements, shady areas (including forests and lawns with shade trees) are not used for nesting. Wetlands with deeper water are needed in times of drought, and during the winter. Blanding's turtles overwinter in the muddy bottoms of deeper marshes and ponds, or other water bodies where they are protected from freezing. LIFE HISTORY Individuals emerge from overwintering and begin basking in late March or early April on warm, sunny days. The increase in body temperature which occurs during basking is necessary for egg development within the female turtle. Nesting in Minnesota typically occurs during June, and females are most active in late afternoon and at dusk. Nesting can occur as much as a mile from wetlands. The nest is dug by the female in an open sandy area and 6-15 eggs are laid. The female turtle returns to the marsh within 24 hours of laying eggs. Alter a development period of approximately two months, hatchlings leave the nest from mid-August through early-October. Nesting females and hatchlings are often at risk of being killed while crossing roads between wetlands and nesting areas. In addition to movements associated with nesting, all ages and both sexes move between wetlands from April through November. These movements peak in June and July and again in September and October as turtles move to and from overwintering sites. In late autumn (typically November), Blanding ' s turtles bury themselves in the substrate (the mud at the bottom) of deeper wetlands to overwinter. IMPACTS / THREATS / CAUSES OF DECLINE · loss of wetland habitat through drainage or flooding (converting wetlands into ponds or lakes) · loss of upland habitat through development or conversion to agriculture · human disturbance, including collection for the pet trade* and road kills during seasonal movements · increase in predator populations (skunks, racoons, etc.) which prey on nests and young *It is illegal to possess this threatened species. Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program Enviromnental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding=s Turtle. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS These recolnmendations apply to typical construction projects and general land use Within Blanding's turtle habitat, and are provided to help local governments, developers, contractors, and homeowners minimize or avoid detrimental impacts to Blanding's turtle populations. List 1 describes minimum measures which we recommend to prevent harm to Blanding's turtles during construction or other work within Blanding's turtle habitat. List 2 contains recommendations which offer even greater protection for Blanding's turtles populations; this list should be used in addition to thefirst list in areas which are known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding's turtles (contact the DNR's Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program if you wish to determine if your project or home is in one of these areas), or in any other area where greater protection for Blanding's turtles is desired. List 1. Recommendations for all areas inhabited by List 2. Additional recommendations for areas known to Blanding's turtles, be of state-wide importance to Bianding's turtles. GENERAL A flyer with an illustratio~a of a Blanding's turtle should be Turtle crossing signs can be installed adjacent to road .... given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners crossing areas used by Blanding's turtles to increase public should also be informed of the presence of Blanding's awareness and reduce road kills. turtles in the area. Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved, by Workers in the area should be aware that Blanding' s hand, out of harms way. Turtles which are not in imminent turtles nest in June, generally after 4pm, and should be danger should be left undisturbed, advised to minimize disturbance if turtles are seen. If a Blanding's turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the If you would like to provide more protection for a nest. Blanding's turtle nest on your property, see "Protecting Blanding's Turtle Nests" on page 3 of this fact sheet. Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated. Construction in potential nesting areas should be limited to the period between September 15 and June 1 (this is the time when activity of adults and hatchlings in upland areas is at a minimum). WETLANDS Small, vegetated temporary wetlands (Types 2 & 3) should not be dredged, deepened, filled, or converted to storm water retention basins (these wetlands provide important habitat during spring and summer). Wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides shOuld be avoided, and run-off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes. Shallow portions of wetlands should not be disturbed during prime basking time Onid morning to mid- afternoon in May and June). A wide buffer should be left along the shore to minimize human activity near wetlands (basking Blanding's turtles are more easily disturbed than other turtle species). Wetlands should be protected from road, lawn, and other chemical run-offby a vegetated buffer strip at least 50' wide. This area should be left unmowed and in a natural condition. ROADS Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes (this reduces road kills by slowing traffic and reducing the distance turtles need to cross). Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4 inch high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred (Blanding's turtles have great difficulty climbing traditional curbs; curbs and below grade roads trap turtles on the road and can cause road kills). Tunnels should be considered in areas with concentrations of turtle crossings (more than 10 turtles per year per 100 meters of road), and in areas of lower density if the level of road use would make a safe crossing impossible for turtles. Contact your DNR Regional Nongame Specialist for further information on wildlife tunnels. Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program Environmental Reviexv Fact Sheet Series. Blamting=s Turtle, 3 ROADS cont. CulVerts between wetland areas, or between wetland areas Road placement should avoid separating wetlands from and nesting areas, should be 36 inches or greater in adjacent upland nesting sites, or these roads should be diameter, and elliptical or fiat-bottomed, fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for details). Wetland crossings should be bridged, or include raised roadways with culverts which are 36 in or greater in diameter and fiat-bottomed or elliptical (raised roadways discourage turtles from leaving the wetland to bask on roads). Road placement should avoid bisecting wetlands, or these roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for details). This ~s especially important for roads with more than 2 lanes. Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized Roads crossing streams should be bridged. (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical. UTILITIES Ut. il!ty access and maintenance roads should be kept to a mmlmum (this reduces road-kill potential). Below-ground utility construction sites should be returned to original grade (trenches can trap turtles). LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as As much natural landscape as possible should be preserved possible. (installation of sod or wood chips, paving, and planting of trees within nesting,habitat can make that habitat unusable to nesting Blanding s turtles). Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and Open space should include some areas at higher elevations forbs (some non-natives form dense patches through which for nesting. These areas should be retained m native it is difficult for turtles to travel), vegetation, and should be connected to wetlands by a wide corridor of native vegetation. Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1st and before June 1st ). Ditches and utility access roads should not be mowed or managed through use of chemicals. If vegetation management ~s required, it should be done mechanically, as infrequently as possible, and fall through spring (mowing can kill turtles present during mowing, and makes it easier for predators to locate turtles crossing roads). Protecting Blanding's Turtle Nests: Most predation on turtle nests occurs within 48 hours after the eggs are laid. After this time, the scent is gone from the nest and it is more difficult for predators to locate the nest. Nests more than a week old probably do not need additional protection, unless they are in a particularly vulnerable spot, such as a yard where pets may disturb the nest. Turtle nests can be protected from predators and other disturbance by covering them with a piece of wire fencing (such as chicken wire), secured to the ground with stakes or rocks. The piece of fencing should measure at least 2 ft. x 2 ft., and should be of medium sized mesh (openings should be about 2 in. x 2 in.). It is very important that the fencing be removed before August 1st so the young turtles can escape from the nest when they hatch! REFERENCES IAssociation for Biodiversity Information. "Heritage Status: Global, National, and Subnational Conservation Status Ranks." NatureServe. Version 1.3 (9 April 2001). http://www.natureserve.org/ranking.htm (15 ^pd12001). Coffin, B., and L. Pfanmueller. 1988. Minnesota' s Endangered Flora and Fauna. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 473 pp. Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program Enviroumemal Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding=s Turtle. 4 REFERENCES cont. Moriarty, J. J., and M. Linck. 1994. Suggested guidelines for projects occurring in Blanding's turtle habitat. Unpublished report to the Minnesota DNR. 8 pp. Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 237 pp. Sajwaj, T. D., and J. W. Lang. 2000. Thermal ecology ofBlanding' s turtle in central Minnesota. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4):626-636. Compiled by the Minnesota Department of Natttral Resources 3~2ttural Heritage and Nortgame Research Program, September, 2001 Endangered S! ecies Environmental Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd. Box 25, St. Paul MAt 55155 / 651-296- 7863 CAUTION BLANDING'S TURTLES MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS AREA The unique and rare Blanding's turtle has been found in this area. Blanding's turtles are a State Threatened species and are protected under Minnesota Statute 84.095, Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species. Please be careful of turtles on roads and in construction sites. For additional information on turtles, or to report a Blanding's turtle sighting, contact the DNR Nongame Specialist nearest you: Bemidji (218-755-2976); Brainerd (218-828-2228); New UIm (507-359-6033); Rochester (507-280-5070); or St. Paul (651-297-2277). DESCRIPTION: The Blanding's turtle is a medium to large turtle (5 to 10 inches) with a black or dark blue, dome- shaped shell with muted yellow spots and bars. The bottom of the shell is hinged across the front third, enabling the turtle to pull the front edge of the lower shell firmly against the top shell to provide additional protection when threatened. The head, legs, and tail are dark brown or blue-gray with small dots of light brown or yellow. A distinctive field mark is the bright yellow chin and neck. Illustration by Don Luce, from Turtles in Minnesota, Natural History Leaflet No. 9, June 1989, James Ford Bell Museum of Natural History SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS TO BLANDING'S TURTLE POPULATIONS (see Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series for full recommendations) A flyer with an illustration of an adult Blanding' s turtle should be given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners should also be informed of the presence of Blanding's turtles in the area. · Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved, by hand, out of harms way. Turtles which are not in imminent danger should be left undisturbed to continue their travel among wetlands and/or nest sites. · If a Blanding's turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the nest, and do not allow pets near the nest. · Blanding's turtles do not make good pets. It is illegal to keep this threatened species in captivity. · Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated. · Small, vegetated temporary wetlands should not be dredged, deepened, or filled. · All wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided, and mn-off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes. · Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes. · Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4" high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred. · Culverts under roads crossing wetland areas, between wetland areas, or between wetland and nesting areas should be at least 3 6 in. diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical. · Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical. · Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum. · Below-ground utility construction sites should be returned to original grade. · Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible. · Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs. · Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1 st and before June 1 st). Compiled by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, August, 2001 Endangered Species Envit-onmental Review Coordinator; 500 Laj~t),ette Rd., Box 25. St. Paul. MN 55155 / 651-296-7863 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS TO BLANDING'S TURTLE POPULATIONS (see Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series for full recommendations) · A flyer with an illustration of an adult Blanding's turtle should be given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners should also be informed of the presence of Blanding's turtles in the area. · Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved, by hand, out of harm's way. Turtles which are not in imminent danger should be left undisturbed to continue their travel among wetlands and/or nest sites. · If a Blanding's turtle' nests in your yard, do not disturb the nest, and do not allow pets near the nest. · Blanding's turtles do not make good pets. It is illegal to keep this threatened species in captivity. · Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated. · Small, Vegetated temporary wetlands should not be dredged, deepened, or filled. · All wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided, and mn-off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes. · Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes. · Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4" high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred. · Culverts under roads crossing wetland areas, between wetland areas, or between wetland and nesting areas should be at least 36 in. diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical. · Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical. · Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum. · Below-ground utility construction sites should be returned to original grade. · Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible. · Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs. · Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1~t and before June l~t). Compiled by the Mim'~esota Deparnm~m qf Naatral Resourc¢'.~' NatUral Heritage a~ut Nrmgame Research Program, August. 2001 Et~da,.gered Species Em,iromnental Re~,iew Coordinator. 500 Lt~aYette Rd. Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155/6.51-296,786.3 JIIL-OG-20f14(TI1E) 15'25 E CO (F, ×)fiSl 29G t811 P,0 2 AUTHORIZATION TO use COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL Authorization No, ~P-2005-0002 NAME OF AUTHORIZED USER: Warren Tuel. Soil Scientist Liesch Associates, Inc. 13400 15m Avenue North Plymouth. MN 55441 WORK BEING AUTHORIZED: Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program Index and Full Record printouts sent May 12, 2004, for Natural Heritage inforrmafion for the vicinity of proposed Bebeau Grovel Mine. T33N R26W Sections 10 & 1 I, Sherbume County. Contact ~ EKDB 20040830 NATURE OF USE: Include print-outs in file Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Bebeau Gravel Mine Project. This letter contains the terms and conditions under which the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resoumes is authorizing you to reproduce the above-described work. The State of Minnesota, is and remains the owner of this work, and reproduction of it is not allowed without our express permission. Permission is granted to you without fee. Your right to reproduce the work is limited to that use set forth above under the heading NAT[J'RE OF USE. If you wish to expand your use beyond these parameters, you will have to obtain separme permission from ut, The p~,,-ission granted to reproduce is given to you alone, on a non-exclusive basis, and you may not transfer your right to reproduce to any other person or entity. In order to protect our rights to the work, the following notice must be affixed to all items employing the work: Copyrighted [year], State of Minnemta, Department or Natural Resources Reprinted with Permission We ask that the notice be located on the work in a place where it will be easily seen by those who come into contact with the work. The authorization granted to you to reproduce the above-described work will last for a period of one year, with the period beginning on the date or this letter. If you wish to reproduce the work beyond one year, it will be necessary lo obtain a new authorization. In this regard, we would ask that you contact us at least one month before the end o1~ the present authorization period so that your use of the work may be uninterrupted. Of course, we expect you to maintain high quality standards on ',ti items containing the above-described work. This authorization does not give you the fight to use the department name or any of its logos and is not an endorsement of the user or the user's material. JUL-Of-21)O4(TIIE) 15'26 E CO (F^X)651 296 1811 P, OO3 This leuc~r describes the scope of your authorization to usc ,the ubove-described work. Your usc o[ the work is acceptance on your part of all thc terms and conditions set forth herein. S rate of Minnesota, Dcpartmenl: o1' Natural Resourres // Title: Environmental Review Coordinator Date: Julv 6, 7.004 Page 1 of 2 Warren Tuel From: Cinadr, Thomas [thomas.cinadr@mnhs.orgl Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:03 PM To: 'Warren Tuel' Subject: RE: Archeological and historical database search Warren, There are no archaeological sites or historic properties recorded in the Minnesota SHPO CRM databases for the area you requested. The result of this database search does not include an assessment for archaeological site potential, or provide a listing of all potential historic architectural properties. It represents only known and recorded archaeological sites and historic architectural properties from the cun'ent SHPO databases. If you require an assessment for archaeological site potential and/or historic architectural properties, you will need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian to provide this service. Please contact the SHPO by phone at 651-296-5434 or by email mnshpo@mnhs.org for current lists of professional consultants in these fields. Tom C/~/adr Survey and Information Management Coordinator Minnesota 5tote Historic Preservotion Office Minnesota Historical 5ociety 345 Kellogg Boulevard West St. Paul, MN 55102 651-296-5434 651-282-2374 (fox) ..... Original Message ..... From: Warren Tuel [mailto:warren.tuel@liesch.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:51 PH To: 'thomas.cinadr@mn hs.org' Subject: FW: Archeological and historical database search Forwarding previous message returned to me earlier today due to my typo. Message is the same just change good morning to good afternoon. Thank you! LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC Warren Tuel 13400 15th Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55441 (763) 489-3167 (Office) (763) 489-3101 (Fax) (612) 709-7192 (Ceil) ..... Original Message ..... From: Warren Tuel Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:43 AM To: 'thomas.cinadr@mahs.org' Subject: Archeological and historical database search 5/13/2004 Page 2 of 2 Good morning. I am doing an EAW for a proposed gravel mine north of the City of Elk River just east of Highway 169 at 219th Avenue and I need you to do a search of the above mentioned database for any potential historical or archeological properties on this site. The site is located in the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 11 and the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 10 in Township 33N, Range 26N. Please contact me at the numbers shown below if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you for your cooperation. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC Warren Tuel 13400 15th Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55441 (763) 489-3167 (Office) (763) 489-3101 (Fax) (612) 709-7192 (Cell) 5/13/2004