The URL can be used to link to this page

5.3. & 5.4. PCSR 06-09-2009REQUEST FOR ACTION To Item Number Planning Commission 5.3. & 5.4. Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Planning June 6, 2009 Rebecca Haug, Environmental Admin Item Description Reviewed by 5.3. Request by Elk River Landfill, Inc. for Land Use Lori Johnson, City Amendment to change the Land Use of Certain Administrator Propertyfrom Mining to Landfill, Public Hearing - Peter Beck, City Attorney Case No. LU 09-01 5.4. Request by Elk River Landfill, Inc. for Rezoning to change the zoning from Al (ME) Agricultural Conservation (Mineral Excavation) to AI (SWF), Agricultural Conservation (Solid Waste Facility), Public Hearing -Case No. ZC 09-01 Item to be discussed at a future meeting Request by Elk River Landfill, Inc. for Conditional Use Permit and License to expand the existing landfill into 109 acres of property located immediately south of the existing landfill, Public Hearing -Case No. CU 09-12 General Information Applicant Elk River Landfill, Inc. 60-Day Rule The application was submitted on March 30, 2009 and has been deemed complete as of April 6, 2009. The City must act on the Land Use Amendment and Rezoning by July 28, 2009. The Landfill has granted an extension for action on the Conditional Use Permit and License until Se tember 26, 2009. Requested Action Land Use Amendment, Zone Change Location and Size 22460 Highway 169 - A 109-acre parcel located immediately to the south of the existing landfill property see ). Case File: CU 09-12 ERL CUP Page 2 City of Elk River Location Existing Land Use Land Use Plan Designation Current Zoning Property in Question Mineral Excavation Mining Al (ME) North Existing Landfill Landfill A1(ME) (SWF) South Mineral Excavation Mining Al (ME) East Highway 169/Agriculture Commercial Reserve CRT/(ME) West Undeveloped/Residential Rural Residential Al Introduction Elk River Landfill, Inc. (Landfill) is requesting a Land Use Amendment and Zone Change to expand the Landfill into 109 acres of property located immediately south of the existing landfill property referred to as the Southern Development Area (SDA). The Conditional Use Permit and License fox the expansion will be considered at a future meeting. This proposal would allow for the development of additional landfill space on 8.6 acres on the southern most portions of the existing landfill property and on 60.2 acres extending into the 109-acre parcel owned by Tiller Corporation and located immediately to the south of the existing landfill property. This property is currently being mined. Tiller's entire 109-acres parcel would be rezoned from Mining to Landfill and rezoned from AI (ME) to Al (ME) (SWF). As in past landfill operations, the landfill would follow behind the gravel mining. The proposal consists of approximately 69 additional acres of lined mixed solid waste (MSW). This expansion would allow fox approximately 13,600,000 cubic yards of additional MSW capacity, extending the life of the facility to 2033. Executive Summary The Landfill was first approved to operate in 1971 by the Sherburne County Board of Commissioners. In 1972, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NIPCA) required the forty-acre operation to have a permit, SW -74. Concerned with groundwater contamination from the original cell, the City of Elk River drafted its first solid waste ordinance in 1986 to better regulate waste facilities. Solid Waste Facility (SWF) uses were allowed under the new ordinance providing they had the proper land use designation and zoning, a conditional use permit and a license. Although grandfathered in, the Landfill voluntarily complied with this ordinance in 1988. Now the City had legal say in regulating future activities at the site and how clean up from the original cells would be conducted. In 1989, the Landfill expanded the demolition debris area. In 1991 remedial investigations related to contaminate leaving the site were initiated. The Landfill requested financial assistance from the County and City to build an active gas venting system in 1994. This type of system removes unsafe build-up of methane gas and the gas extraction pulls volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the groundwater and generates electricity. S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\CUP\CU 09-12 Elk River Landfill Inc\Staff report to PC-CU 09-12.doc Case File: CU 09-12 ERL CUP Page 3 City of Elk River In 1997 the Landfill applied for an expansion of the existing facility. This request was approved and brought the landfill from its origina140 acres to the current 93 acre footprint. The crucial land use issue at the time was the final elevation (height) of the Landfill. Additionally, comments were made about the expansion's impact on property values, aesthetics, screening, and many other land use issues. The approved elevation for the facility was set at 1,120 feet. At that time, the Landfill stated they planned on operating 30-50 years with a total capacity being 13.1 million yards of refuse. In 1998, Landfill was approved to construct additional demolition debris cells in the City and Livonia Township. In 2002 the landfill gas to electric facility was approved for construction in cooperation with Elk River Municipal Utilities, the Landfill, and Sherburne County. In 2003 the City entered into a Host Community Agreement with the Landfill. In 2004, staff informed the Council of the current proposal of the Landfill to expand to the south. This proposed expansion required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Pursuant to State law, the MPCA is the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) for the EIS, meaning that MPCA prepared and determined the adequacy of the EIS. The City commented on the EIS during its preparation, but did not prepare or approve the EIS. The MPCA made their decision on the EIS on March 28, 2006 by approving it. The Council authorized a report by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc (HKGi) on the impact an expansion would have for future land uses in the area. The study was presented to the City Council on November 10, 2008. The Landfill presented its comments on the study to the Council on January 12, 2009. On March 30, 2009, the Landfill applied for a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and License from the City. The City has worked on end use plans with the Landfill through several meetings with the Park and Recreation Committee. Comprehensive Plan 1988 Growth Management Plan The City of Elk River adopted a Growth Management Plan on August 22, 1988. The purpose of the Growth Management Plan was to enable the City to effectively manage the challenges associated with future growth. The Elk River SDA was shown as being moderately restrictive for development due to the slopes and vegetation. The landfill consisted of 160 acres at that time. The northern third of the City was to be regulated to provide for large lot, rural housing and agricultural land uses. Clustering of home sites was encouraged and can be administered through the City's planned development and conditional use permit. The Landfill site did not appear on the existing Industrial Zoning map as a SWF since they had not yet gone through rezoning to an SWF District. The Highway 169 corridor from the northern city limits south to the Brentwood Development and in about 1 mile, was depicted as a potential industrial site. The Parks and Trails Plan mentioned the city's desire to acquire the abandoned Burlington Northern railroad bed running north-south through the City. 1995 Comprehensive Plan A Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on December 18, 1995. In this plan, the current Landfill area is depicted as being part of the mining district boundaries. The Zoning map shows the area as Mineral Excavation Overlay and Solid Waste Facility Overlay District with the underlying zoning Agriculture, which is still relevant today. In this Comprehensive Plan, the northern area of the City was to be regulated to provide fox large lot, rural housing and agricultural S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\CUP\CU 09-12 Elk River Landfill Inc\Staff report to PC-CU 09-12.doc Case File: CU 09-12 ERL CUP Page 4 Ciry of Elk River land uses. Single family lots would be allowed to subdivide from larger parcels to a development density of one unit per ten acres. The goal was to protect agricultural lands from development pressure and preserve the rural character of Elk River. Cluster developments were encouraged in this area. For Highway Commercial, it was suggested that it be limited along Highway 169 to extend no farther than the 194t'' alignment on the west side of Highway 169 and 197tI' Avenue on the east side of Highway 169 as the thought was that this type of development had the greatest impact on the rural fabric of the community. The long range plan for Industrial Development in the City was to utilize the gravel mining area for future development opportunities. Although the schedule for mining was to continue for 25-75 years, it was stated that this area could be industrial. The Solid Waste Facility Overlay (SWF) District was part of this Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the SWF is to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing a specific zoning district for the use of land for the establishment and operation of Solid Waste Facilities. Since these uses are so unique, their demands upon public services, such as transportation, are so intense and their potential for causing harm to the environment and to the public health, safety, and general welfare is so great, a special zoning district is necessary. Solid waste facilities shall not be permitted nor conditional uses in any other zoning district. 2004 Comprehensive Plan The City of Elk River's current Comprehensive Plan was adopted on August 16, 2004. The Plan consists of 13 elements, including the Land Use element. The introduction to the Comprehensive Plan states that "The Land Use element forms the practical foundation of the Comprehensive Plan." The Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan is attached to this report for your reference. The Land Use Plan (figure 5-4) designates the area of the current Landfill as "Landfill." The proposed expansion area is designated "Mining." For the proposed expansion of the Landfill to move forward, the Comprehensive Plan must be amended to change the designation of the expansion area on the Land Use Plan from "Mining" to "Landfill." Land Use Amendment Although the Comprehensive Plan contemplates amendment, it also states (at page 3-10): "The Plan should not be amended capriciously. A great deal of thought, time and energy went into the creation of this Plan, and the same effort must go into any amendment." The Comprehensive Plan is the most important tool for guiding the development of Elk River. The Plan provides that a series of questions axe considered when changes to the Plan are proposed. They are as follows: • Is the project consistent with the land use plan? • Does the project move Elk River towards its vision for the future? • Is the project consistent with the policies contained in the Plan? A negative answer to one or more of these questions may illustrate flaws in the proposed project. These flaws may be fundamental and require denial of the project. S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\CUP\CU 09-12 Elk River Landfill Inc\Staff report to PC-CU 09-12.doc Case File: CU 09-12 ERL CUP Page 5 City of Elk Rivex Several general land use policies must be considered when determining if the project is consistent with the overall vision of the Plan or vision of the City. Some of the policies that should be considered for this proposal are: • Provide a balanced land use pattern that supports a sustainable mix of jobs and housing. • Guide the scale of development to be consistent with surrounding land uses and general character • Guide commercial land use to areas that can utilize an appropriately designed transportation system without infringing upon residential neighborhoods. • Allow commercial areas to develop where they can be designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses. • Include adequate buffering of commercial and industrial development when adjacent to non- compatible land uses. • Require adequate transition and buffers between differing, non-compatible land uses, making use of natural land characteristics, whenever possible. • Require development proposals to consider the impacts on transportation and natural systems beyond the boundaries of their individual projects. The Land Use Element goal is to guide the use of land in order to realize the vision for the future of Elk River. Land use patterns help define community identity and the organization of residential, business, and public uses. They influence how people choose to live, work and play in the community. The land use element in the Comprehensive Plan promotes strong residential neighborhoods, a flourishing industrial base, a vibrant downtown core, focused commercial areas and numerous recreational opportunities. This element considers broad community patterns and questions such as: • How much growth should be anticipated and accommodated? • Where should growth occur? • How do land uses relate to the natural environment and to one another? The Land Use Plan provides the framework for the growth and development of Elk River. The Plan is built on the existing community patterns and attempts to achieve the desired vision for the future of Elk River. The Plan designates the existing landfill as "Landfill" and the expansion axea as "Mining." The land to the east of the existing and proposed SDA is zoned Commercial Reserve. This land use is reserved for future commercial development such as highway business uses. The proposed SDA is currently classified "mining." The Plan provides that the gravel mining area be guided for future development of commercial and industrial uses. The proposed SDA is located adjacent to a future intersection which has great potential for locating commercial-industrial property. Throughout the Comprehensive Plan, there is emphasis on having available commercial-industrial property to attract commercial-industrial development. This is important to the City as this type of development builds a community's tax base and creates more job opportunities. Another fundamental element mentioned throughout the Comprehensive Plan is the need to establish and maintain a positive community image, by maintaining the edges and buffers that define and protect S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\CUP\CU 09-12 Elk River Landfill Inc\Staff report to PC-CU 09-12.doc Case File: CU 09-12 ERL CUP Page 6 City of Elk Rivex adjacent land uses. Preservation of open space is also an important aspect of the Comprehensive Plan. In determining whether to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation of the expansion area from "Musing" to "Landfill" to permit the expansion, the Planning Commission should consider the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the impact of the expansion on those policies and goals. To assist in this analysis, the City asked the authors of the Comprehensive Plan to take a closer look at the gravel mining area, in a report dated November 10, 2008; and then take a closer look at the immediate area impacted by the Landfill expansion, in a report dated June 2, 2009. These reports are attached. Rezoning Pursuant to Section 30-575 of the Zoning Ordinance, in reviewing a proposed land use amendment, consideration shall be given to existing conditions within the area directly and indirectly affected by the proposal, the conservation of property values, the use to which the property affected is being devoted at the time, and relevant provisions, if any, in the land use plan. Rezoning of the SDA to SWF would only be appropriate if a recommendation is made to change the land use designation from "Mining" to "Landfill". Considerations/Findings of Fact There axe pros and cons with the landfill operation. Staff would like to emphasize that the issue is not Waste Management, Inc. and how they operate the landfill. Waste Management, Inc. has been a good corporate citizen in Elk River for the past 11 years, participating in several city projects and numerous community causes. The host fee they pay gives relief to the tax burden of the City. Using state-of--the-art technology, their operation isn't environmentally unsound, according to the recent EIS. The Landfill is actively remediating past contamination caused by the original operation and has also worked with the City's Park and Recreation Commission on an end use plan. The issue is whether a significant expansion of this land use is consistent with the City's policies and goals as reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the work of its Economic Development Authority (EDA), Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), Planning Commission and City Council. The Landfill has grown from its oxigina140 acres to a facility approved fox MSW disposal on 93 acres and C&D disposal on 75 acres. The proposed expansion would increase the MSW disposal area by 69 acres or approximately 75%. There are a number of factors that could make this proposed expansion of the Landfill undesirable for the City. Image is a major factor in encouraging development in a community (See attached memo from Economic Development Director Cathy Mehelich). A landfill located at the northern entrance to the City distorts the appearance the City wishes to portray to visitors and residents of Elk River. The landfill currently stands at 1,120 feet high. The Landfill proposes to maintain that elevation through the proposed expansion area. The height of the landfill will have a lasting impression on the community since the surrounding area will either be mined or continue to be the rolling topography seen today. S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\CUP\CU 09-12 Elk Rivex Landfill Inc\Staff report to PC-CU 09-12.doc Case File: CU 09-12 ERL CUP Page 7 Ciry of Elk Rivex Additionally, there are financial and development related impacts as outlined in the most recent HKGi report. Expansion of the Landfill will prevent future development of the expansion area and could discourage new development in the surrounding area as analyzed in the attached 2009 HKGi report. This report identifies direct and peripheral areas of impact from a Landfill expansion. The direct impacts are defined as the lands within the boundary of the expansion area, or the entire SDA area. These impacts are objective and more easily quantifiable. No future development will be possible on the Landfill. The peripheral impacts axe less objective and less quantifiable. They are driven by site specific characteristics such as wind direction, topography, existing land uses and infrastructure. Without the expansion of the Landfill, the City has the potential to develop the 221" intersection into a broader mix of highway business uses which will help increase the tax base for the area thus providing more and potentially higher paying jobs. In summary, the 2009 report states the following conclusions/findings: 1. Expansion of the ERL has both direct and peripheral land use impacts on the City of Elk River. These impacts translate directly into financial impacts. 2. Lost development opportunity on the SDA and peripheral area could have an impact of approximately $400 million in cumulative property tax revenues from 2009 to 2080 and roughly 3,000 new jobs that could be ultimately absorbed upon full build-out of the area (assumed to occur between 2050 and 2080). 3. The difference in estimated market valuation and property tax revenues grows at an increasing rate over time between the two scenarios. 4. Peripheral impacts, as measured by a distance of approximately 2,000 feet from the base of the fill area of the landfill, will be felt on an additional 200 acres of land area. These peripheral impacts will result in potential lower valued development that is more likely to locate adjacent or within view of a closed landfill. The Landfill has some short-term financial benefits to the City because of the host fees paid to the City. However, these monies will no longer be received by the City once the Landfill closes in 2033. At that time, tax revenues generated by the expansion area will be minimal, and, as discussed in the HKGi report, tax revenue generated from the surrounding areas will also be impacted. The HKGi report states the expansion could cause a tax loss of approximately $400 million through 2080 and a loss of 3,000 potential jobs. Attachments • Exhibit 1 -Location Map • Exhibit 2 -Land Use Map from 2004 Comprehensive Plan • Exhibit 3 -Elk River Landfill Application to amend Comprehensive Plan and rezone and supporting documents • Exhibit 4 - HKGi report dated June 2, 2009 • Exhibit 5 -Environmental Report dated June 2, 2009, by Matt Ledvina, Landmark Environmental • Exhibit 6 - HKGi presentation dated November 10, 2008 (North Highway 169 Land Use Study) S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\CUP\CU 09-12 Elk River Landfill Inc\Staff report to PC-CU 09-12.doc Case File: CU 09-12 Page 8 • Exhibit 7 -Background History Report • Exhibit 8 -Elk River Landfill presentation dated January 12, 2009 • Exhibit 9 -Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) • Exhibit 10 - 2004 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element • Exhibit 11 -Memo from Economic Development Director dated June 4, 2009 ERL CUP City of Elk Rivex Planning Commission Action Morton by Second by Vote Follow Up S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\CUP\CU 09-12 Elk River Landfill Inc\Staff report to PC-CU 09-12.doc 4 i ( F ~ r I I - ~ i~ ~I~ I -I -- ~° i ---..._. ~~ i \\ ii,L rtrt,L...,~.__.._. ,~ ~I~~ ~ ._._ --;r- ~"~ ~-_ ~V 1 ~~ ELF R11~ER LANDFILL Land Use Application to the City of Elk River Elk River Landfill Southern Development Area Submitted by Elk River Landfill, Inc March 30, 2009 ELK RIVER LANDFILL SDA -LAND USE APPLICATION Table of Contents Application Request Summary ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Description of Project ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Infrastructure ...................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Increase in Gas to Energy Capacity ....................................................... 1-3 1.2.3 New Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF) ................................. 1-3 1.2.4 Site Screening ..................................................................................... 1-4 1.2.5 Proposed Landfill Design ......................................................................1-4 1.2.6 Grading and Drainage Plan ................................................................... 1-6 1.2.7 Landfill Closure Construction ................................................................. 1-7 1.2.8 Landfill End Use Plan ........................................................................... 1-8 Land Use Application Requirements .......................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introdu ction ................................................................................................... . 2-1 2.2 Zoning Amendment Requirements ................................................................... . 2-1 2.2.1 Map Showing Lands Proposed to be Changed ........................................ . 2-2 • 2.2.2 2.2.3 List of Property Owners Within 350 Feet ............................................... Land Use Application Form .................................................................. . 2-2 . 2-2 2.2.4 Application Fee ................................................................................... . 2-2 2.2.5 Project Narrative ................................................................................. . 2-3 2.2.6 Legal Description/Survey of Subject Property to be Amended ................. . 2-3 2.2.7 All Other Information as Determined by Staff ........................................ . 2-3 2.3 Conditional Use Permit Requirements ............................................................... . 2-3 2.3.1 Land Use Application Form .................................................................. . 2-4 2.3.2 Application Fee ................................................................................... . 2-4 2.3.3 List of Property Owners Within 350 Feet ............................................... . 2-4 2.3.4 Project Narrative ................................................................................. . 2-4 2.3.5 Site Plan ............................................................................................ . 2-4 2.3.6 Development Plan ............................................................................... . 2-5 2.3.7 Grading/Drainage Plan and Drainage Calculations .................................. . 2-7 2.3.8 Building Elevations and Floor Plans ....................................................... . 2-7 2.3.9 Outdoor Storage ................................................................................. . 2-7 2.3.10 Wetland Delineation ............................................................................ . 2-7 2.3.11 Environmental Impact Statement ......................................................... . 2-8 2.3.12 All Other Information as Determined by City Staff .................................. . 2-8 2.4 Land Use Amendment Requirements ................................................................ . 2-9 • 2.4.1 2 4 2 Land Use Application Form ................................................................. A li ti F 2-10 2-10 . . ee .................................................................................. pp ca on 2.4.3 List of Property Owners Within 350 Feet .............................................. 2-10 • 2.4.4 Project Narrative ................................................................................ 2-10 2.4.5 Legal Description/Survey of Subject Property to be Amended ................ 2-10 2.4.6 All Other Information as Determined by Staff ....................................... 2-10 Zoning Amendment - SWF Overlay District ............................................................... 3-1 3.1 Zoning Amendment Narrative ........................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Zoning Amendment Considerations ................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Written Statement Addressing Considerations .................................................... 3-4 3.3.1 Existing Conditions Within the Area Directly and Indirectly Affected by the Proposa I ............................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.2 Conservation of Property Values ............................................................ 3-4 3.3.3 The Use to Which the Property Affected is Being Devoted at the Time ..... 3-5 3.3.4 Relevant Provisions in the Land Use Plan ............................................... 3-6 Conditional Use Permit for Sanitary Landfill .............................................................. 4-1 4.1 Conditional Use Permit Narrative ....................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Conditional Use Permit Standards of Issuance .................................................... 4-2 4.3 Written Statement Addressing Required Findings ............................................... 4-3 Land Use Amendment ................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Land Use Amendment Narrative ........................................................................ 5-1 • List of Drawings Site Plan -Entire Property Site Plan -SDA Site Development Plan -Entire Property Site Development Plan -SDA Landscape Plan (Sheets L2.01, L2.02, and L5.01) Subwatersheds (Sheet 1) Drainage Plan (Sheet 2) List of Exhibits 1. Site Photos -SDA 2. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Final EIS (provided on CD) 3. Screening Plan Renderings 4. Drainage Calculations 5. End Use Plan 6. City Zoning Map, Proposed Rezoning Area and Properties Within 350 feet 7. Legal Description 8. Wetland Determination 9. Landfill Development Cross -Section A 10. ERL SDA Timeline of Public Meetings and Processes 11. City Land Use Plan Map and Pages from Comp Plan 12. January 12, 2009 Council Workshop PowerPoint Presentation 13. Letter from Scott J. Ruppert, President, Ruppert Appraisal & Consultation, Inc. e SECTION I Application Request Summary 1.1 INTRODUCTION Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL), awholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc., owns and operates a landfill under Minnesota Solid Waste Permit Number SW-74. ERL is also licensed and permitted by both Sherburne County and the City of Elk River ("City'. The existing 164-acre landfill is located along U.S. TH 169 on 476 acres of land located in the NW ~/a of Section 3, T33N, R26W, and the SW '/a of Section 34, T34N, R26W, Sherburne County, Minnesota (see Drawings titled "Site Plan -Entire Property" and °Site Plan -SDA"). The remainder of the property (312 acres) provides a buffer surrounding the property. ERL is permitted to accept Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), demolition and construction debris, yard waste for composting, industrial waste in accordance with a MPCA-approved Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan, and processing facility rejects from the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility. ERL has a long history of working collaboratively with the City of Elk River as the continued development of the landfill has been permitted in stages. ERL has maintained a solid waste facility license agreement and conditional use permits in accordance with the City of Elk River requirements since the 1970s. ERL and the City entered into a Host Community Agreement in 2003. Recital 1.10 of that agreement speaks to the cooperative efforts between ERL and the City and states that, ~~it is the parties intent to continue and to strengthen these cooperative efforts as the landfill continues to operate and expand." • The nature of landfill operations requires it to expand in order to continue its operations. The existing MSW solid waste landfill will reach its currently permitted capacity in less than five years. The proposed landfill expansion project, known as the Southern Development Area (SDA), will provide approximately 13,600,000 cubic yards of additional MSW design capacity to allow for the continued development of ERL's existing landfill facility. The ERL has harnessed energy from waste decomposition by extracting the methane gas and converting it to electricity to be distributed to local homes through Elk River Municipal Utilities since 1998. The proposed new landfill capacity would provide the opportunity to add a new gas to energy facility and provide additional green energy generation capacity. In addition, as part of the proposed project the ERL would like to work with the City and Sherburne County on a new Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF) for area residents to drop-off household hazardous waste materials and recyclables. The SDA will require the property be rezoned to be included in the Solid Waste Facility Overlay District and a Sanitary Landfill Conditional Use Permit will need to be obtained. The ERL's existing Solid Waste Facility License will also need to be updated to include the SDA. City staff has indicated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is needed for the SDA. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ERL proposes the continued development of its existing landfill facility by developing an additional 8.6 acres on the southern-most portion of the existing landfill property and 60.2 acres extending onto the 109-acre SDA parcel located immediately south of the existing landfill property (see Drawings titled "Site Development Plan -Entire Property" and "Site Development • Plan - SDA'. Elk River Landfill SDA ~' gonestroo ~WenCl< Section 1-1 Land Use Application ' ~ -~`~ RR IU11U1 t11MNIN The 109-acre property is currently used by a gravel mining operation. Photos of the SDA are • found in Exhibit 1. As has been the practice at the existing landfill facility, the SDA will follow behind mining operations by the current property owner, the Tiller Corporation. The Tiller Corporation has an approved CUP from the City of Elk River for mining the 109-acre site and continuing to operate shot-mix asphalt plant, which is located in the southeast portion of the site. Mining operations are allowed to occur to within 50 feet of TH 169 and 221St Avenue right-of way and within 200 feet of the right-of-way for the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. The proposed SDA project will consist of approximately 68.8-acres of lined MSW landfill area contiguous to the existing facility. Development of the SDA would be fully integrated into the contours, general design and operation of the existing permitted landfill. The proposed SDA will provide approximately 13,600,000 cubic yards of additional MSW design capacity over and above what was approved in the October 8, 2003 permit for the existing MSW landfill. Depending on waste flow quantities, this additional capacity would extend the operational life of the MSW landfill approximately 20-25 years, and provide long-term MSW landfill capacity for the City, Sherburne County, and the surrounding area. The proposed new MSW landfill capacity provides the opportunity to add a new gas to energy facility and provide additional green energy generation capacity. In addition, as part of the proposed project the ERL would like to work with the City and Sherburne County on a new Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF) for area residents to drop-off household hazardous waste materials and recyclables. The proposed project required a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the requirements of Minn. Rules.4410.4400, subp. 13(E). The Draft and Final EIS is provided in Exhibit 2. The EIS was completed in 2005 and approved in 2006. The Minnesota Pollution Control • Agency (MPCA) was the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the EIS, the purpose of which was to evaluate and disclose information about the significant environmental effects of the proposed action and evaluate alternatives. The EIS findings concluded that environmental impacts would likely be minimal, and that the proposed management and mitigation standards would meet or exceed regulatory standards. 1.2.1 INFRASTRUCTURE Expansion of the following existing infrastructure systems will be required as part of the SDA: Leachate collection and storage facilities. A new aboveground leachate storage tank is proposed. Gas extraction wells, piping, and monitoring probes will be installed in accordance with the site's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) design plan that has been approved by the EPA. Groundwater monitoring wells in accordance with the site's permits and MPCA approved workplans. The SDA will be served by existing access points along TH 169. No access points along 221St Avenue are proposed. Once mining operations cease, the existing mining access along 221~t Avenue will be closed during landfill operations. Elk River Landfill SDA ~ Section 1-2 Land Use Application ~ ,.,~., ,~o , ~ Bonestroo WenCl< • • 1.2.2 INCREASE IN GAS TO ENERGY CAPACITY With the development of the SDA, it is envisioned that a new landfill gas to energy building will be constructed. Harnessing the methane emissions from decomposing municipal solid waste directly reduces greenhouse gas emissions while generating a renewable green energy. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas with a relatively short atmospheric life. Because methane is both potent and short lived, reducing methane emissions from MSW landfills is one of the best ways to achieve anear-term beneficial impact in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and potentially mitigating global climate change.l The use of landfill generated gas for power production also indirectly reduces air pollution by offsetting the use of non- renewable resources such as coal, oil, or natural gas to produce the same amount of energy. It also improves the air quality of the surrounding community by reducing landfill odors and destroys most of the non-methane organic compounds that are present at low concentrations in uncontrolled landfill gas. Additionally, the landfill gas project at the ERL creates jobs associated with the design, construction, and operation of the energy recovery system. Engines generate electricity that is sent back to Elk River Community Gas is collected and used to fuel electrical generating engines Waste decomposition creates methane gas Equipment places and compacts waste The layout of the new gas to energy building is envisioned to be larger in size, but somewhat similar in layout to the existing gas to energy building, which is shown in the above photo. r The landfill gas to energy building will be permanent structure, most likely constructed of pre- cast concrete and will utilize on-site septic facilities for sewer and the on-site potable water well, and will require electrical and phone service. 1.2.3 NEW HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY (HHWF) ERL would like to work with the City of Elk River and Sherburne County on plans to place a Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF) for drop-off of household hazardous waste materials. The proposed location of a future HHWF is near the existing office building and is shown on the Site Development Plan -Entire Property. The HHWF will be a permanent structure, most likely constructed of pre-cast concrete and will utilize on-site septic facilities for sewer and the on-site potable water well, and will require electrical and phone service. Development of the SDA and this additional structure will provide much needed services to the Elk River community through the implementation of a Household Hazardous Waste Facility for drop-off of recyclables and waste materials. ' Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). www.epa.gov/Imop/benefits.htm Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~ BOnll?Sti'00 .,,~Wencl< Section 1-3 Land Use Application ...„„„~,„,,,« Community Generates Waste Waste is taken to Elk River Landfill Waste is weighed and deposited at Elk River Landfill 1.2.4 SITE SCREENING • The region surrounding the SDA consists of rolling terrain and heavily wooded areas that effectively screen the SDA from many views of the surrounding area without additional screening features. Photos of views from the area surrounding to the SDA are included in Exhibit 1. Mining is currently allowed to occur within 50 feet of the property line along Hwy 169 on the east and along 221St Avenue NW on the south. Mining is also allowed to occur within 200 feet from the property line along the west side of the property. The current screening plan for the SDA was developed by Tiller Corporation to screen mining activities. The Landscape/Screening Plan is shown in the drawings labeled L2.01, L2.02, and L5.01. Renderings of the Landscape/Screening plan are presented in Exhibit 3. ERL intends to enhance the existing screening plans to effectively screen views of the landfill from TH 169, 221St Avenue and the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. To do this, the following will occur: The existing berm constructed along the eastern edge of the property to screen the current mining operations from TH 169 will be enhanced to screen the landfill. The enhanced berm will include a triple row of trees, which will consist of a mixture of hardwood and evergreen trees, along with additional shrubs to screen the SDA. The combination of the enhanced earthern berm and trees will provide year round screening along TH 169, as presented in Exhibit 3. Natural topography currently screens the majority of the current and proposed mining operations from 221St Avenue. Prior to mining activities in the vicinity of 221St Avenue, Tiller Corporation will construct an 8-10 foot landscaped berm along 221St Avenue to screen mining activities. With the construction of the berm along 221St Avenue, a triple row of trees is being proposed. The trees will be a mixture of hardwood trees and pine trees, and will provide year round of screening 221St Avenue. • A 200-foot buffer zone of has been established along the west side of the SDA between the property line and grading limits. No grading activities will occur within this buffer zone located along the west side of the landfill between the City's Railroad Hiking Trail and the landfill grading limits (see Exhibit 1, Photo 7). This setback allows for the preservation of the existing trees in the area, as well as area for establishment of enhanced screening in the future if deemed necessary. Currently, the dense vegetation located along the bike trail corridor in the buffer zone effectively screens the SDA from view of the trail users. This vegetation will remain throughout the development of the SDA since it is within the grading limits setback. The SDA will have up to a 450 foot setback along the eastern and southern property boundary, allowing for ample area for berms and plantings with a mixture of trees. The setback ranges from 250-450 feet along the east side and 300-450 feet along the south side from the property line to the cell boundary. 1.2.5 PROPOSED LANDFILL DESIGN The ERL is designed to dispose of non-hazardous solid wastes. The design as well as the construction and operation of the landfill are governed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Sherburne County, and the City of Elk River. Each of these three regulatory bodies have performed a detailed review of the design of the landfill as well as reviewed the environmental impacts of the landfill development through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Draft and Final EIS is located in Exhibit 2. 0 Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~ gonestroo VVenC~< Section 1-4 Land Use Application ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,~a.. • The current design incorporates a state of the art composite liner system; 2 feet of compacted clay soil barrier overlain by a 60 mil high density polyethylene flexible membrane liner. Together, these two components of the liner system prevent contaminants from penetrating the surrounding environment. Overlying the liner section is the leachate collection layer. The leachate collection layer consists of either 1 foot of highly permeable drainage sand or a synthetic drainage material called a geocomposite. The geocomposite is comprised of high density polyethylene channels manufactured to rapidly convey liquids and is considered equal to the transmission capacity of 1 foot of drainage layer sand. 12" GR+ 12` INTE d I HUPE GEOMEAfiRAHE CLAY 6ARR[ER LAYER • Liner System The final cover section is similarly designed with a layer of buffer material Installed over the final waste elevation prior to the placement of a 40 mil linear low density polyethylene liner material that is overlain by either a sand drainage material or a synthetic drainage material, geocomposite. The final layer of the landfill cover section is a layer of soil material that can sustain and promote vegetative growth. z ~~ z_ g V ~? N ~~ TOPSOIL COVER SOILS GEONET TEXTURED 40 mil LLDPE GEDMEMBRANE ~~., BUFFER SDILS Cover System The landfill base liner, in conjunction with the final cover liner, completely encapsulates the MSW materials from the surrounding environment. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~~ ~ 80112511'00 Section 1-5 Land Use Application £' ' ~IVI/et1C~< ttw w+rsw uwaona The site currently generates electricity from the methane gas extracted during the waste • degradation process. With the development of the SDA, the facility intends to add a second on- site electrical generation plant. The methane extraction system is developed with the landfill, and will continue operation after the landfill is final covered. The landfill gas extraction wells are constructed in accordance with industry standards. Depending on the selected end use plans for the site, modification of some of the gas extraction wells may be necessary, to locate the wellhead below grade. The modification will still allow access to the monitoring well for maintenance and monitoring, but will allow the well-head to be secured for the intended end-use. The SDA will be constructed in a series of phased construction projects. The timing of the projects will be dictated by incoming waste volumes and site operations. The following Table 1 indicates that anticipated SDA construction schedule based on current and anticipated waste volumes. Table 1. SDA Construction Phasing Cell Number Approximate Year of Construction Approximate Acres Constructed 18 2011 7.5 19 2013 7.5 20 2015 7.5 21 2017 7.7 22 2020 7.9 23 2022 8.1 24 2025 8.4 25A 2027 9.0 25B 2030 9.8 The Site Development Plan indicates the location of each of the phases of landfill development. Based on the above information and current waste flows, it appears that the final phase of the SDA will be constructed and closed during the time period from 2030-2033. 1.2.6 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN The ERL has made it their priority to handle and control all stormwater generated on the SDA on- site. The grading and drainage plans are provided on the Subwatershed Map and Drainage Plan. The drainage calculations are presented in Exhibit 4. During the initial construction phases of the SDA, stormwater generated will be piped to an interim pond located south of the active cells. As construction and mining conditions dictate, permanent sedimentation basins will be constructed and put into service for treatment of runoff from the SDA. The sedimentation ponds will control and minimize the amount of sediment-laden runoff that leaves the SDA. If the designated area for the permanent ponds is not available, an equivalent sized temporary pond will be constructed in the mined area. Perimeter ditches of equivalent capacity to those shown on the final closure plans will route stormwater to the temporary ponds. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ Section 1-6 Land Use Application «F^,~~~ ... , ~ Bonestroo ~WenCl< • The surface water runoff from the final covered landfill surface will be routed by drainage terraces that are graded into the waste structure that direct surface water to gabion-lined downslope structures. From the downslope structures, the water is subsequently routed by perimeter ditching to two sedimentation basins located on the southeast and southwest corners of the SDA. The drainage routing features have all been sized to minimize the erosion from the site. In addition to permanent control structures, the site also utilizes temporary erosion control features, such as silt fencing, biologs, and erosion control matting to minimize erosion from the site. Portions of the final closure area are covered with erosion control matting upon closure to minimize erosion from the newly graded surfaces. Stormwater generated from the site will be discharged via a storm sewer system, under the exterior roadway to the north end of the SDA, then west under the City Trail into a wetland upstream of the Rice Lake wetland complex. The discharge point will be onto property owned by the ERL. Discharge from P-1 to the wetland west of the site has been designed to minimize impacts by limiting bounce in the wetland, restricting flow rates, and treating stormwater prior to discharge in accordance with applicable permits. This wetland receiving discharge from the site currently has two existing channel outlets, both of which eventually drain into Rice Lake. The north channel outlet, currently located on property owned by Elk River Landfill will be utilized as the outlet channel for the southwest storm water pond. The channel outlet will be re-excavated to match the elevation of the more southerly outlet to ensure that flows through the south outlet onto the adjoining property are not significantly increased from the exiting condition. • Routine maintenance of the drainage control structures are initiated in response to general inspections or inspections prompted by a heavy rain. The sedimentation ponds will be cleaned periodically to maintain their optimum settling capacity. 1.2.7 LANDFILL CLOSURE CONSTRUCTION Final grading and closure of the landfill will be in accordance with the Engineering Plans prepared for the ERL and submitted as part of the permitting documents. The grades of each sequenced closure phase will provide a uniform surface with adjacent phases to facilitate surface water drainage. Each of the phased closure construction sequences will be certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, stating that the landfill closure was constructed in accordance with the approved plan, ordinances and license conditions with any exceptions explained. Upon completion of final closure of the SDA, the City of Elk River, the MPCA, and Sherburne County will be provided with a closure certification record by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota that the ERL has been closed in accordance with the approved plans and requirements with all exceptions noted and explained. Additionally, an estimate of the volume of waste types accepted at the facility and a description of what the facility had been used for with a certified plat survey of the property by a Land Surveyor registered in the State of Minnesota. Sherburne County will record a deed notation for the property that will indicate what the property had been used for with pertinent details. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~ BOnEStI'00 ~ilWencl< Section 1-7 Land Use Application .,. „~~„~,,,,,~ The SDA will be closed in a series of phased construction projects. The anticipated closure sequence and timing for the SDA is shown in the following Table 2. The timing of construction will be dictated in part by incoming waste volumes, as well as site operations to maximize gas production. This phased closure will allow the staged development of the proposed passive recreational end use of the facility. Closure of the landfill includes the engineered cover system, gas collection components, and the surface water controls as approved in the MPCA permit application documents. Table 2. Anticipated Closure Sequence and Timing Cell Number Approximate Year of Closure Approximate Acres Closed 18 2014 15 19 2016 8 20 2018 7.5 21 2020 7.5 22 2023 7.5 23 2025 8 24 2029 8 25 2033 35 The City of Elk River, as well as the MPCA and Sherburne County, will be notified of impending phased closure at the ERL prior to initiation of closure construction. The City of Elk River will also be notified of any end use construction that may take place with the phase closure construction. The details of the final closure project will be detailed in the notification for final closure and will include a notification process for regular customers and in area newspapers. Additionally, the ERL will post a sign at the site's entrance sixty days prior to closing for waste acceptance that notifies landfill customers of the closure date and alternative disposal locations. Landfill final closure activities will proceed within thirty days of receipt of the last load of waste. The ERL will update the City of Elk River as to any revisions to the closure sequence as incoming waste volumes may change over the life of the SDA. Any change in filling rates that were assumed during preparation of this closure sequencing will likely result in a change to the schedule for construction of closure stages, but would not likely change the size of the areas to be covered during the closure stage. It is possible that phased development of the selected end use for the site can be designed around the anticipated closure sequence. 1.2.8 LANDFILL END USE PLAN End use plan concepts have been prepared for the SDA and are presented in Exhibit 5. This End Use P/an was finalized in early 2009 to present a series of conceptual end use possibilities to the Elk River City Council. The end use ideas presented in the attached End Use P/an were developed for the property that includes the existing facility, as well as the SDA, and are based on a series of end use related meetings held in 2002 and 2008 with members of the Elk River community. Based on comments received recently from City Council members, City staff, and other members of the Elk River community, the ERL has recently worked with our consultants to modify the layout of the facility. The modifications made to the design represent a reduction in the landfill footprint to increase the amount of property in the vicinity of the TH 169 and 221St Avenue intersection available for future commercial development. These changes to the layout vary from those presented in 2002 and 2008 during the end use planning process, and as contained in the attached End Use Plan. Elk River Landfill SDA W ~ Bonestroo N/en~l< Section 1-8 Land Use Application «R.,... ,.o.. • • • Variations from 2002 end use layouts to 2008 end use layouts: • Location of the future TH 169 interchange at 221St Avenue as currently proposed by MNDOT varies from the layout MNDOT had proposed back in 2002. The landfill design included in the 2008 end use conceptual layouts represent MNDOT's current design for this interchange. • The footprint of the landfill has been revised multiple times from that shown on the drawing from 2002. o The western side of the landfill was modified such that there is now a 200-foot grading buffer in an effort to preserve those trees that will remain following mining of the property. This is accurately shown on the 2008 end use conceptual drawings. o As noted above, the eastern side of the landfill was modified based on MNDOT's plans for the TH 169 interchange at 221St Avenue. o The southern side of the landfill was revised to allow additional space for future commercial development along 221St Avenue. • The 2002 conceptual drawings did not account for some of the on-site infrastructure associated with the site. o The location of the existing office/shop and landfill gas to energy building are not • depicted on the 2002 end use plans. o The potential HHW facility and future additional landfill gas to energy building are not shown on the 2002 end use plans. Variations from 2008 end use layouts to the final design layout: As shown on the site development plans included with this application, the location of the potential future HHW facility is proposed near the existing office/shop building at the northern edge of the City of Elk River. The conceptual drawings included as part of the End Use P/an have the potential HHW facility located in the SDA near the future landfill gas-to-energy plant. Proposing the HHW facility near the existing office/shop building will allow for better traffic flow at the facility, as well as allow for the potential development of the HHW facility in the near term and use of existing infrastructure. The footprint of the landfill has been revised along the southern and eastern sides of the landfill from that shown on the 2008 end use conceptual drawings. The revised footprint, as shown on the site development plans, allows additional space for future commercial development along 221St Avenue and TH 169. The effort to increase the amount available space for future commercial developments was based on comments received from City staff and City Council members. • Elk River Landfill SDA Land Use Application Section 1-9 Bonestroo -~Wencl< The revised landfill footprint has relocated other features associated with the facility, • such as the location of on-site sedimentation ponds, berms, and roadways. The revised layout of these elements, as shown on the site development plans, keeps the same general configuration as shown on the 2008 conceptual end use drawings, however, allows for additional room for future commercial development opportunities along TH 169 and 221St Avenue. The end use concepts presented in Exhibit 5 provide for passive open space and recreational uses of the majority of the site, with commercial opportunity at the intersection of TH 169 and 221St Avenue. Long term, the proposed open space planned for the site would be compatible with any adjacent future residential development to the west, and actually provide an amenity for future residents. The end use concepts provide for public access of the spectacular view of the Rice Lake wetland complex to the west of the site that would otherwise not be visible from any other vantage point. The open space and recreational uses will be integrated into the planned trail system, which includes the potential for a trail connecting the existing neighborhoods to the west of the SDA to the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. These end use plans may be implemented in phases as the ERL closes the landfill. The ERL has site-specific provisions in place for the closure of the existing landfill in accordance with their site permits, as well as for the maximum gas production benefits for the community. In addition, the ERL has guaranteed these closure activities, as well as post-closure care and potential contingency actions that may be required through the use of a surety bond in accordance with the financial assurance requirements by the MPCA. Closure plans for the existing landfill have previously been approved by the MPCA, Sherburne County, and the City of Elk River. As the ERL enters the phased closure of the SDA and initial end uses for the site are • implemented, fencing may be utilized to separate the operation of the ERL from the end uses. After final closure of the ERL, security at the ERL will focus more on the passive recreational access to the site, if that is the selected end use. The ultimate fencing requirements associated with the end use will likely focus more on safety. However, it is anticipated that certain portions of the site will be secured such that only those persons authorized by the ERL will be permitted in these areas. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ Section 1-10 Land Use Application .,........o , +~' 8011@Stl'00 ~Wet1C~~ SECTION 2 Land Use Application Requirements 2.1 INTRODUCTION The SDA will require the property be rezoned to be included in the Solid Waste Facility Overlay District and a Sanitary Landfill Conditional Use Permit will need to be obtained. City staff has indicated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is needed for the SDA. In addition to the application requirements established in the Elk River Code, the City has various land use application forms that must be submitted with land use applications. The applicable forms for this application include the 2009 Land Use Application Form, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Land Use Amendment. The application requirements established by the City Code and Forms are detailed in this section. This section addresses these requirements. 2.2 ZONING AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS The Elk River Code, Chapter 30. Land Development Regulations, Article VI. Zoning, Division I. Generally, Section 30-575. Amendments, governs the zoning amendment process and application requirements: Sec. 30-575. Amendments. (a) Authorized. The council may, from time to time, by atwo-thirds vote of the entire council, adopt amendments to this arti% including the zoning map. • (b) Initiation of proceedings. (1) Proceedings to amend this artic% shall only be initiated by the council, the planning commission or a petition of the properly owners. (2) An application for an amendment shall be filed with the director of planning. Petitions by property owners requesting change in a district boundary shall be accompanied by a map or plat showing the lands proposed to be changed and all land within 350 feet of the boundaries of the property proposed for such rezoning together with the names and addresses of the owners of /and in such area. The Elk River Code, Chapter 30. Land Development Regulations, Article VI. Zoning, Division 10. Overlay Districts, Section 30-1834. Solid Waste Facility (SWF) Overlay District, governs the use of land for the establishment and operation of solid waste facilities and establishes the administrative procedures: Sec. 30-1834. SWFsolid waste facility overlay district: (d) Administrative procedures. Establishment ofsolid waste facility overlayzon/ng on a specific parcel of land shall be by amendment to the city's zoning map as provided by this artic% and pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 30-575. An application for a conditional use permit to allow a specific solid waste facility, if timely filed as provided by this arti% maybe processed by the city and considered by the city council along with an application to zone the • affected property into the solid waste facilities overlay district. Elk River Landfill SDA w ~ gone5tr00 ~WenCl< Section 2-1 Land Use Application «R,,,,,,,,,F,« In addition to the information required by Code, the Zone Change application form requires the • following: ^ Land Use Application Form ^ App/ication Fee ^ Submission ofa typewritten narrative that answers the fol%wing questions: - What are the reasons/purposes of the zone change? - What has changed to warrant the zone change? - How is the request consistent with the Comp Plan? - How compatible is it with surrounding properties? - What are the benefits to the city? ^ Legal description/survey of subject property to be amended ^ All other information as determined by City Staff 2.2.1 MAP SHOWING LANDS PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED Exhibit 6 shows the additional area proposed to be included in the SWF Overlay District and all land within 350 feet of this area. The expanded operations include developing an additional 8.6 • acres on the southern-most portion of the existing landfill property that is already included in the SWF Overlay District. The additional area being requested for inclusion in the SWF Overlay District includes all land in the SDA. According to the City's Official Zoning Map, the SDA is already labeled "Elk River Landfill" (see Exhibit 6). 2.2.2 LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 350 FEET A list of all owners of record of property location in whole or in part within 350 feet of the boundaries of the SDA, as identified in the records of Sherburne County Property Tax Division as of March 2009 were submitted with this application. Mailing labels obtained from Sherburne County were submitted with this application. 2.2.3 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM A copy of the Land Use Application Form was submitted with this application. The applicant is Elk River Landfill, Inc. The current property owner is Tiller Corporation. Waste Management has entered into a purchase agreement with Tiller Corporation for the purchase of this property. Waste Management will be the owner of the property prior to development of the landfill. 2.2.4 APPLICATION FEE The application fees will be provided to the City per the following fee calculation provided on the Land Use Application Form. The escrow is used to pay for consultants the city uses to review land use cases. Once the escrow is used, the applicant will be billed for all additional services. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ Section 2-2 Land Use Application .,..,......o , ~ Bonestr00 ~Wencl< • Application Type Fee Escrow Total Land Use Amendment $420 NA $420 Zone Change $400 NA $400 Conditional Use Permit $520 $1,000 $1,520 Grand Total $2,340 2.2.5 PROJECT NARRATIVE See Section 1.2 and 3.1 of this application. 2.2.6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION/SURVEY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO BE AMENDED See Exhibit 7. 2.2.7 ALL OTHER INFORMATION AS DETERMINED BY STAFF The applicant met with the Planning Manager and Environmental Administrator on February 20, 2009 to discuss the City's submittal requirements. No additional information was requested in regards to the Zone Change Application. 2.3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS • The Elk River Code, Chapter 30. Land Development Regulations, Article VI. Zoning, Division 2. Administration and Enforcement, Subdivision III. Conditional Use Permits, governs the conditional use permit application requirements: Sec. 30-651. Application. (b) An application for a conditional use permit shall be fi/ed with the director of planning on a form prescribed by the city. The application shall be accompanied by such plans and information as maybe required by the city, including, without limitation: (I) A site plan drawn at scale showing all abutting /ots, existing buildings, existing uses, utilities, curb cuts, and locations of trees ha ving a diameter of six inches or more. (2) A proposed development plan showing proposed ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures, yards, off-street parking and loading areas, and, where appropriate, plans for utilities, screening, buffering, landscape, lighting, signs and open space, and a deve%pment schedule. In addition to the information required by Code the Conditional Use Permit application form requires the submission of the following information: ^ Land Use Application Form ^ Application Fee • Elk River Landfill SDA w ~ gonestroo ~iWenCl< Section 2-3 Land Use Application .,F„~„~,~,,,« ^ Labels for Property Owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel obtained from the Sherburne • County Property Tax Division ^ A typewritten narrative exp/aining the request in detail ^ Grading/Drainage Plan ^ Drainage Calculations ^ Building Elevations, including one color rendering ^ Floor P/ans ^ List of items/equipment/materials associated with Outdoor Storage ^ Wet/and Delineation (if wetlands are present) ^ Wetland Mitigation Plan (if wetlands are impacted) ^ EAW/EIS Requirements ^ All other information as determined by City Staff 2.3.1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM See Section 2.2.3 of this application. 2.3.2 APPLICATION FEE • See Section 2.2.4 of this application. 2.3.3 LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 350 FEET See Section 2.2.2 of this application. 2.3.4 PROJECT NARRATIVE See Section 1.2 and 4.1 of this application. 2.3.5 SITE PLAN ERL has prepared two versions of the Site Plan. One shows the southern portion of the existing landfill property and the SDA and is titled ~~Site Plan -SDA". The second version shows the entire landfill property and is titled "Site Plan -Entire Property". The specific elements that are required for inclusion on the Site Plan and how they are addressed on the Site Plan are discussed below: 1. All Abutting Lots Abutting lots are provided on the Site Plans. 2. Existing Buildings Existing building footprints are indicated on the Site Plans. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ Section 2-4 Land Use Application .,.,......o. # Bonestroo ~WPnC~~ • 3. Existing Uses The Site Plans are provided on an aerial photograph to readily show the existing uses on the existing landfill property and the SDA. Existing uses represent a combination of natural features (woods, wetland, and natural topography) and mining activities. The proposed landfill expansion area within the existing landfill property and within the SDA is currently used for permitted mining activities including mineral excavation and operations related to the hot mix asphalt plant, which is located in the southeastern portion of the SDA. Photos of the SDA are provided in Exhibit 1. 4. Utilities No municipal utilities are provided to the subject property, nor does this application request the provision of any municipal utilities. The property will continue to be served by private wells and septic system. The existing landfill property includes a Landfill Gas to Energy Facility that provides the City of Elk River with approximately 12% of its electrical needs. The landfill expansion provides the opportunity for additional green energy generation capacity with the addition of a second landfill gas to energy plant. 5. Curb Cuts Existing public streets and curb cuts are shown on the Site Plans and Site Development Plans. No new entrances or curb cuts are required as part of the project. Private driveways and maintenance accessways on the property are shown. The curb cut along 221St Avenue serves the existing mining operations and hot mix asphalt plant. The access on 221St Avenue will not be used for landfill operations. This access will be closed when mining operations are • completed. 6. Locations of trees having a diameter of six inches or more The applicant discussed the requirements for the tree inventory with the Planning Manager and Environmental Administrator on February 20, 2009. StafF stated that the applicant only needed to survey trees that would be removed due to the landfill expansion. Trees that are removed as part of the current mining operation do not need to be inventoried. Trees that will not be removed for either the current mining operations or proposed landfill operations do not need to be surveyed. No trees will need to be removed due to the landfill expansion; therefore, a tree inventory is not provided. 2.3.6 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ERL has prepared two versions of the Development Plan. One shows the southern portion of the existing landfill property and the SDA and is titled "Site Development Plan -SDA". The second version shows the entire landfill property and is titled "Site Development Plan -Entire Property". The specific elements that are required for inclusion on the Site Development Plan and how they are addressed on the Site Development Plan are discussed below: 1. Ingress and Egress Existing public streets and curb cuts are shown. No new entrances or curb cuts are required • as part of the project. The access on 221St Avenue will not be used for landfill operations. This access will be closed when mining operations are completed. Elk River Landfill SDA w ', ~ B0n25t1'00 ~WE'llC~< Section 2-5 Land Use Application ,«„~~,~^,,,,« 2. Proposed Structures • Proposed structures are shown on the Development Plan. Proposed structures located within the SDA are a new Landfill Gas to Energy Building, scales and a scale house. Proposed structures located within the existing landfill property are a leachate storage tank and potential Household Hazardous Waste Facility. 3. Off-street Parking and Loading Areas Off-street parking would be provided for the Household Hazardous Waste Facility within the existing parking lot for the landfill office. This parking lot currently has 20 parking spaces. The proposed perimeter operations road and perimeter access road represent the °loading areas" associated with landfill operations. 4. Utilities The required utility plan is for municipal sewer and water lines and hookups. The project does not propose any use of municipal sewer and water, therefore, no utility plan is required. This was discussed and confirmed with staff on February 20, 2009. 5. Screening/Buffering/Landscape Plan The Landscape/Screening Plan is provided on Sheets L2.01, L2.02, and L5.01 and renderings of the screening plan are provided in Exhibit 3. The intended purpose of the Landscape Plan is to screen and buffer proposed landfill operations from the surrounding vicinity. A 300-foot buffer, which includes the 200-foot wooded buffer along the City's Railroad Hiking Trail, is provided between the cell boundary and the western properly line. The berm and • landscaping along 221St Avenue will provide a 300-450 foot open space buffer between cell boundary and 221St Avenue. The cell boundary will be setback approximately 250-450 feet from TH 169. The existing berm along TH 169 on the eastern edge of the property will be enhanced to screen the landfill. 6. Lighting No new lights are proposed; therefore, a lighting plan is not part of this application. 7. Signs No new signs are proposed; therefore, no signage plans are required. If future signage is proposed, then the City would review the proposed signage in accordance with its set procedures and requirements. Future signage could be related to the Household Hazardous Waste Facility and landfill closure. 8. Open Space See Section 2.3.6 (5) Screening/Buffering/Landscape Plan. Elk River Landfill SDA ~ Section 2-6 Land Use Application .,,.,.., ..o , ~ Bonestroo ~~V1/E'llC~< • The proposed end use options that are available upon closure of the facility include a large amount of open space (see Exhibit 5). End use options proposed for consideration by the City Council include passive and/or active recreational facilities, attractive open space and trail connections, along with land available for commercial development along TH 169 and 221St Avenue. Long term, the proposed open space planned for the site would be compatible with any adjacent future residential development to the west, and actually provide an amenity for future residents. The end use concepts provide for public access of the spectacular view of the Rice Lake wetland complex to the west of the site that would otherwise not be visible from any other vantage point. The open space and recreational uses will be integrated into the planned trail system, which includes the potential for a trail connecting the existing neighborhoods to the west of the SDA to the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. These end use plans may be implemented in phases as the ERL closes the landfill. 9. Development Schedule The SDA will be constructed in a series of phased construction projects. The timing of the projects will be dictated by incoming waste volumes and site operations. See Section 1.2.5 Table 1, which indicates the anticipated SDA construction schedule based on current and anticipated waste volumes. 2.3.7 GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN AND DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS See Section 1.2.6 of this application. The Grading/Drainage Plan is provided on Sheets 1 and 2 • and the Drainage Calculations are provided in Exhibit 4. 2.3.8 BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS The Development Plan includes proposed structures for a second landfill gas to energy building, leachate tank, and a potential new Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF). The specific location and design of these structures has not been determined, but is approximated on the Development Plan. The Development Plan shows the anticipated location of these structures and demonstrates the proposed access and circulation to/from these structures. 2.3.9 OUTDOOR STORAGE No additional outdoor storage is proposed. Storage will occur within existing structures and the potential new HHWF. The location of the potential new HHWF is shown on the Development Plan. 2.3.10 WETLAND DELINATION One Type 3 or 4 wetland is located in the southwest corner of the SDA. This wetland has not been delineated. This wetland will not be impacted by landfill operations as it is located within the 200 foot wooded buffer between the landfill grading limits and the western property line. The extent of wetland in the subject area southwest of the Elk River Landfill, located in the SE'/a of the SE ~/a of Section 4, T.33, R.26, was approximated by conducting a desktop review of GIS data layers and aerial photographs, which are presented in Exhibit 8. A field wetland delineation was not conducted at this time because it is outside of the growing season. A complete field delineation will be conducted during the growing season when conditions warrant to confirm the • wetland boundary, anticipated to be mid May. Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~ Bonestroo WenCk Section 2-7 Land Use Application ... ~,~~,,,~,,,,, The following tools were used for the desktop determination: S ^ The Sherburne County Soil Survey (Figure W-1) demonstrated that Seelyeville muck, a hydric soil series, is present in the subject area. ^ A review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (Figure W-2) data indicated the presence of a Type 4 deep marsh in the subject area. ^ A review of 10 foot contours on the USGS topographic map indicated a depression in the subject area. A review of aerial photographs showed surface water, an indicator of wetland hydrology, in the subject area. Based on the evidence obtained from the information review, it is likely that a Type 3 shallow marsh or Type 4 deep marsh wetland is present within the SDA. The approximated boundary of the wetland is shown on Figure W-3. The approximate total size of the wetland is 1.48 acres, of which 0.45 acres are located on ERL owned property with the remainder of the wetland area (1.03 acres) lying within the hiking trail corridor. 2.3.11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The proposed project required a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the requirements of Minn. Rules.4410.4400, subp. 13(E) for expansion by 25 percent or more of a previous capacity of a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility for 100,000 cubic yards or more of waste fill per year. The EIS was completed in 2005 and approved in 2006. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) was the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for that EIS, the purpose of which was to evaluate and disclose information about the significant • environmental effects of the proposed action. The EIS is provided in Exhibit 2. EIS prepared for the proposed project concluded that environmental impacts would likely be minimal, and that management and mitigation standards were proposed that met or exceeded regulatory standards. 2.3.12 ALL OTHER INFORMATION AS DETERMINED BY CITY STAFF The applicant met with the Planning Manager and Environmental Administrator on February 20, 2009 to discuss the City's submittal requirements. In addition to the information required by City Code and on the application forms staff, staff requested the following be submitted: Screening/Buffering/Landscaping. Renderings of the screening/landscaping plan are provided in Exhibit 3. Staff requested that views of this plan should occur from locations along TH 169, a view along 221St Avenue, and a view from the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. Staff requested that each view should be rendered at the time of planting and at the end of each 5-year interval during the operation of the landfill. The photos and rendered time points are included in Exhibit 3 and are based on the addition of specific cells. Exhibit 3 includes a rendered view from three of the viewpoints suggested by staff for each following time point: time of planting with the construction of cell 18, post construction of cells 19-21, post construction of cells 22-25 (cell 25 is the last cell). The actual timing of the cell construction may vary given actual waste volumes. We agreed that a staggered triple row of a variety of tress would be included in the screening/landscaping plan. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ Section 2-8 Land Use Application .,.., ., ,.o., ~ BonestrOO WenCl< • Grading/Drainage Plan. Staff requested that this plan must include Tiller's current mining end use plans to describe how the operations transition from mining to landfill. The application should state that Tiller's end use elevation is "x", the elevation needs to be raised to elevation "y" for landfill operations, and the landfill operations will result in an elevation of "z". Exhibit 9 includes this detailed information. • Community Outreach. Staff suggested that the application include a history of the opportunities for public involvement that have occurred over the past several years regarding the SDA. A timeline that includes the public meetings to date is included in Exhibit 10. ^ Additional Information. Staff noted that the City Engineer, City Attorney, or MNDOT may request additional information. The applicant requested to receive any comments or additional information that may be requested by the City Engineer or City Attorney in writing as they were not present at our meeting. To date, no additional information has been requested. 2.4 LAND USE AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS The City Code does not address the process or requirements for land use amendments. The Elk River Comprehensive Plan (dated August 2004) provides several statements related to implementing and amending the plan including the following (see Exhibit 11): ^ State Law sets forth a variety of requirements for putting the Comprehensive Plan into effect (p. 3-8), • The application of zoning districts and the specific regulations must support the objectives of • the Comprehensive Plan (p. 3-8). • The regulations for each zoning district should be reviewed to determine if they fit with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan (p. 3-9). ^ Zoning districts should be examined in relationship to /and use designations Changes in zoning district will be needed to match zoning with land use (p. 3-9). ^ Unlike the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minnesota Statutes, Section 473), which requires consistency between the land use plan and zoning in cities within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Elk River may choose to take a number of implementation strategies (Elk River has typically chosen to have zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan). The strategies include, but are not limited to, the fol%wing: - Keep current zoning in place until such time as the use terminates or redeve%pment is initiated - Rezone property to a zoning district compatible with a land use plan category - Deve%p an interim strategy to address current use situations as they relate to long term objectives (p. 3-9) ^ Amendments to the Plan may originate from the Planning Commission, City Council or another party with a vested interest in effected properly. Adoption of amendments, however, can only be accomplished by City Council resolution. All amendments are subject to the same pub/ic hearing and two-thirds vote requirements as adoption of the original plan (p. 3-10). • Elk River Landfill SDA ~~^ ~ 60112511'00 ~WenCl< Section 2-9 Land Use Application ,~w„,~~R„„o,,,~ The City's Land Use Amendment Form requires the following information to be submitted: ^ Land Use Application Form ^ Application Fee ^ Labels for Property Owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel obtained from the Sherburne County Property Tax Division ^ A typewritten narrative explaining the request in detail ^ Legal description/survey of subject property to be amended • All other information as determined by City Staff 2.4.1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM See Section 2.2.3 of this application. 2.4.2 APPLICATION FEE See Section 2.2.4 of this application. 2.4.3 LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 350 FEET See Section 2.2.2 of this application. 2.4.4 PROJECT NARRATIVE See Section 1.2 and 5.1 of this application. 2.4.5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION/SURVEY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO BE AMENDED See Section 2.2.6 of this application. 2.4.6 ALL OTHER INFORMATION AS DETERMINED BY STAFF The applicant met with the Planning Manager and Environmental Administrator on February 20, 2009 to discuss the City's submittal requirements. No additional information was requested in regards to the Land Use Amendment Application Elk River Landfill SDA W ~ Bonestroo -~#Wencl< Section 2-10 Land Use Application .~...~., ..o • SECTION 3 Zoning Amendment -SWF Overlay District 3.1 ZONING AMENDMENT NARRATIVE The SDA is zoned A-1, Agricultural Conservation and already labeled "Elk River Landfill" on the City's Official Zoning Map (Exhibit 6). The official request is to extend the Solid Waste Facility (SWF) Overlay District to the SDA. The City's Zone Change Form requests: Submission ofa typewritten narrative that answers the fol%wing questions: What are the reasons/purposes of the zone change? The nature of landfill operations requires it to expand in order to continue its operations. The purpose of the zone change request is to allow for the permitted expansion of the landfill within the SDA and to allow for a new landfill gas to energy facility to provide additional green energy generation capacity. Since the existing landfill already has the infrastructure, environmental monitoring systems, and operations in-place, it provides an environmentally safe area for expansion of a needed facility while providing a benefit to the community that extends beyond waste disposal needs. ^ What has changed to warrant the zone change? • The existing MSW solid waste landfill will reach its currently permitted capacity in less than five years. The SDA will provide additional MSW design capacity. The nature of landfill operations requires it to expand in order to continue its operations. ^ How is the request consistent with the Comp Plan? The 2004 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) contains the following text within its vision statement, "As Energy City, Elk River seeks to promote sustainable and energy efficient forms of developments" (pg. 2-2, See Exhibit 11). The existing landfill property includes a Landfill Gas to Energy Facility that provides the City of Elk River with approximately 12% of its electrical needs. The continued expansion of the landfill provides the opportunity for additional green energy generation capacity with the addition of a second landfill gas to energy plant. In Exhibit 5, as part of the discussion on potential end use options, there are several additional alternative energy issues discussed. Alternative energy sources available may include the use of geothermal and solar energy, as well as additional uses for landfill gas or excess heat generated at the landfill gas to energy plant. One of the conceptual end use plans presented revolves around the idea of Elk River as "Energy City", with the creation of an "Energy Park", where various forms of alternative energy are produced, and businesses located at the facility utilize and/or create the alternative energy. Portions of the expansion area are located within the existing property, which is guided "Landfill" in the land use plan. The Plan states that the "Landfill use is consistent with the current land use plan" (pg. 5-13). • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~" 60112511'00 ~WenC~< Section 3-1 Land Use Application «~.,Y...,...,,~ •` The SDA is guided "Mining" in the land use plan and already labeled "Elk River Landfill". The Plan • states that the "Mining land use designation functions similar to the Urban Reserve. The primary objective of this land use category is to allow the current mining use of the land and address future land use when development becomes imminent" (pg. 5-13). The Mining land use designation is consistent with this request as mining will continue to occur within the SDA. According to the Plan, the City anticipated that it could achieve its growth projections between 2025 and 2032. The Plan did not attribute any job or population growth to the Mining land use areas (pg. 4-9). This suggests that development of the SDA is not imminent until after 2025- 2032, which is compatible with the anticipated development schedule for the SDA (see Table 1 in Section 1.2 of this application). The Plan states that the discussions at the Comprehensive Plan Task Force meetings and public meetings has been to guide the future development of the Mining area toward a combination of Commercial and Industrial uses close to existing and proposed roadway infrastructure (pg. 5-13). The SDA is consistent with these discussions as it provides for Industrial uses associated with mining and landfilling and provides the opportunity for Commercial end uses adjacent to major roadway infrastructure. The Draft EIS found that "the proposed project is compatible with the existing and future land uses in the project area" (pg. 4, see Exhibit 2). The SDA is guided for mining, which is an industrial use, and landfilling is, per the Draft EIS, an industrial use. The Solid Waste Facility Overlay district is compatible with the underlying Agricultural Conservation zoning district since the existing landfill is zoned Agricultural Conservation and Solid Waste Facility Overlay district. • • How compatib/e is it with surrounding properties? Adjacent land uses include TH 169, landfill, mining, the City's Railroad Hiking Trail, and rural residential uses. The Draft EIS found that "the proposed Landfill expansion is compatible with the existing land uses in the project area which are primarily undeveloped or industrial (i.e., mining, landfill) in nature" (pg. 80, see Exhibit 2). The ERL intends to enhance the existing screening plans to effectively screen views of the landfill from TH 169, 221St Avenue and the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. The purpose of the proposed buffers and screening plan is to minimize potential impacts on less intensive land uses, including residential properties located near the SDA. The purpose of the 200-foot wooded buffer between the City's Railroad Hiking Trail and the grading limits of the landfill is to buffer and screen the landfill from trail users and residents located west of the SDA. The existing berm along TH 169 will be enhanced to form a triple row of evergreens and deciduous trees to screen the landfill from the residence located across TH 169 from the landfill. The proposed end use options planned for the site would be compatible with any adjacent future residential development to the west, and can provide an amenity for future residents. The end use concepts provide for public access of the spectacular view of the Rice Lake wetland complex to the west of the site that would otherwise not be visible from any other vantage point. The open space and recreational uses will be integrated into the planned trail system, which includes the potential for a trail connecting the existing neighborhoods to the west to the site and the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ # Bonestroo -~Wend< Section 3-2 Land Use Application ,~R„~,~ ..o , 4 • What are the benefits to the city? The ERL attended the City Council's January 12, 2009 workshop and presented information via a PowerPoint presentation regarding the benefits to the city, which is provided in Exhibit 12 and summarized below: - Over the past 5 years, the landfill has spent $13.9 million ($2.7 million/year) supporting local businesses. - In 2008, the landfill contributed $50,000 in local charitable donations. - Current landfill generates $145,000 in annual property taxes (2008). - Landfill employs 15 people, providing nearly $1 million in employee wages per year. - SDA will generate approximately $1 million in annual City fees through 2030, which represents nearly 10% of the City's budget. - Elk River Landfill will contribute approximately $2 million annually to Sherburne County. A portion of this goes to the Landfill Legacy Grant, from which the City of Elk River obtained over $1 million dollars in 2008 for the YMCA. - The SDA provides several layers of revenue over time for the City, including property taxes, gravel mining fees, landfill fees, end use of property when landfill is capped, and green power. - There are also several end use options that are available upon closure of the facility that are being presented for consideration by the City Council. These include passive and/or active recreational facilities, attractive open space and trail connections, along with land available for commercial development along TH 169 and 221St Avenue. In the long term, all of the end use options presented will become assets to the City upon closure. • 3.2 ZONING AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS The Elk River Code, Chapter 30. Land Development Regulations, Article VI. Zoning, Division I. Generally, Section 30-575. Amendments, provides the considerations for reviewing zoning amendments required findings: Sec. 30-575. Amendments (e) Action by council. Fol%wing planning commission consideration or the expiration of its review period, the counci/ may hold such public hearings to consider the amendment as it deems advisable. Fol%wing the conclusion of the hearings, if any, the council may adopt the amendment, or any part thereof, in such form as it deems advisable, reject the amendment, or refer it to the planning commission for further consideration. In reviewing a proposed amendment, consideration shall be given to existing conditions within the area directly and indirectly affected by the proposal, the conservation of property values, the use to which the property affected is being devoted at the time, and re%vant provisions, ifany, in the land use plan. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~ BOnE5tr00 '.~Wencl< Section 3-3 Land Use Application .~R.,...,....,~, 3.3 WRITTEN STATEMENT ADDRESSING CONSIDERATIONS • Written statements regarding each of the considerations is provided below. 3.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHIN THE AREA DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSAL ^ The 109-acre SDA property is currently used by a gravel mining operation. Landfilling will follow behind mining operations by the current property owner, the Tiller Corporation. The Tiller Corporation has an approved CUP from the City of Elk River for mining the 109-acre site and continuing to operate shot-mix asphalt plant, which is located in the southeast portion of the site. ^ Adjacent land uses include TH 169, landfill, mining, the City's Railroad Hiking Trail, and rural residential uses. The Draft EIS found that "the proposed Landfill expansion is compatible with the existing land uses in the project area which are primarily undeveloped or industrial (i.e., mining, landfill) in nature" (pg. 80, see Exhibit 2). The ERL intends to enhance the existing screening plans to effectively screen views of the landfill from TH 169, 221St Avenue and the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. The purpose of the proposed buffers and screening plan is to minimize potential impacts on less intensive land uses, including residential properties located near the SDA. The purpose of the 200-foot wooded buffer between the City's Railroad Hiking Trail and the grading limits of the landfill is to buffer and screen the landfill from trail users and residents located west of the SDA. The existing berm along TH 169 will be enhanced to form a triple row of evergreens and deciduous trees to screen the landfill from the residence located across TH 169 from the landfill. • There are also several end use options that are available upon closure of the facility that are included as Exhibit 5 for consideration by the City Council. Long term, the proposed end use options would be compatible with any adjacent future residential development to the west, and actually provide an amenity for future residents. The end use concepts provide for public access of the spectacular view of the Rice Lake wetland complex to the west of the site that would otherwise not be visible from any other vantage point. The open space and recreational uses will be integrated into the planned trail system, which includes the potential for a trail connecting the existing neighborhoods to the west to the site and the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. 3.3.2 CONSERVATION OF PROPERTY VALUES ^ The SDA is not expected to impact property values. Studies completed for the ERL's operator, Waste Management, have documented that property values adjacent to other landfill operations have not been negatively impacted by that proximity. ^ The proposed land use change is an extension of an existing land use that has been in place for decades. Any impact on property market value from the presence of a landfill operation in the vicinity is already reflected in the current market value of the properties. The SDA does not change the present/absent condition. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ Section 3-4 Land Use Application .. ~...... , ~ Bonestroo Wen~l< • Long term, the proposed end use options would be compatible with any adjacent future residential development to the west, and can provide an amenity for future residents. The end use concepts provide for public access of the spectacular view of the Rice Lake wetland complex to the west of the site that would otherwise not be visible from any other vantage point. • ERL asked Scott Ruppert, President of Ruppert Appraisal & Consultation, Inc. for an opinion regarding "conservation of property values" (i.e., whether the proposed landfill expansion will have an impact on property values within the immediate vicinity). Mr. Ruppert's opinion is provided in Exhibit 13 and his conclusion if presented below: - It is my considered opinion that the proposed expansion will not have a significant or material impact on property values within the immediate vicinity that is over and above any impacts resulting from the existing landfills and mining operations. The principle reasons for this opinion are as follows: 1. The proposed landfill expansion will not have an impact on the existing landfills and mining operations that surround the SDA to the north, east and south. 2. The proposed landfill expansion will not have an impact on the future public (trail) use of the city-owned corridor to the west. 3. The proposed landfill expansion will not have an incremental impact on the residential property further to the west of the SDA for the following reasons: • - The residential properties are already proximate to the ERL that has been in operation since the 1970s. - The residential properties are already proximate to the Tiller mining operation situated on the SDA. - The residential properties are separated from the SDA by the city-owned former railroad corridor. In the near future, this corridor will be a public trail. - Due to distance, topography and trees, the residential properties have either an obstructed or no view of the SDA. - The MSW landfill expansion on the SDA will be subject to significant federal state, county and city regulation. - ERL will take the measures previously outlined to limit any potential impact to the surrounding neighborhood. 3.3.3 THE USE TO WHICH THE PROPERTY AFFECTED IS BEING DEVOTED AT THE TIME • The 109-acre SDA property is currently used by a gravel mining operation. The Tiller Corporation has an approved CUP from the City of Elk River for mining the 109-acre site and continuing to operate ahot-mix asphalt plant, which is located in the southeast portion of the site. Photos of the SDA are provided in Exhibit 1. • Elk River Landfill SDA Section 3-5 Land Use Application ~ '# 6O1125t1'O0 WenC~< .~R .~,,., ...o..~. 3.3.4 RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN THE LAND USE PLAN • ^ The 2004 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) contains the following text within its vision statement, °As Energy City, Elk River seeks to promote sustainable and energy efficient forms of developments" (pg. 2-2, See Exhibit li). The landfill expansion provides the opportunity for additional green energy generation capacity. The SDA is guided °Mining" in the land use plan and already labeled "Elk River Landfill". The Plan states that the "Mining land use designation functions similar to the Urban Reserve. The primary objective of this land use category is to allow the current mining use of the land and address future land use when development becomes imminent" (pg. 5-13). The Mining land use designation is consistent with this request as mining will continue to occur within the SDA. According to the Plan, the City anticipated that it could achieve its growth projections between 2025 and 2032. The Plan did not attribute any job or population growth to the Mining land use areas (pg. 4-9). This suggests that development of the SDA is not imminent until after 2025-2032, which is compatible with the anticipated development schedule for the SDA (see Table 1 in Section 1.2 of this application). The Plan states that the discussions at the Comprehensive Plan Task Force meetings and public meetings has been to guide the future development of the Mining area toward a combination of Commercial and Industrial uses close to existing and proposed roadway infrastructure (pg. 5-13). The SDA is consistent with these discussions as it provides for Industrial uses associated with mining and landfilling and provides the opportunity for Commercial end uses adjacent to major roadway infrastructure. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~ BonestrOO W~nCI~ Section 3-6 Land Use Application «R.~.....o SECTION 4 Conditional Use Permit for Sanitary Landfill 4.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NARRATIVE The CUP application requires a narrative that provides the information below. ^ Detailed description/scope of project (what is being proposed) See Section 1.2 for a complete description of the proposed project. ^ Hours of operation The ERL will limit its operations to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays. During that time, the landfill will be operated in accordance with the operational requirements enforced by the MPCA permit. The landfill may accept waste during the off hours only under the following circumstances: - The wastes have been approved for disposal - Acceptance of waste is necessary during off hours because of extraordinary circumstances - Each instance of off-hour acceptance will receive the prior approval of the City Building and Zoning Administrator and such approval was granted during City business hours • Number of employees The ERL employs approximately 14 people at the current landfill site. The landfill employee numbers are not expected to increase with the development of the SDA. ^ Number of parking stalls (existing and additional) The landfill employees park their vehicles at the sites' office building located on the north side of the existing MSW landfill. There are 20 parking stalls located at the office building site as well as ample room for parking in the yard area to the north of the building. No additional parking stalls are proposed for the SDA. ^ Is there proposed screening of the site? The proposed Landscape/Screening plan is presented in Section 1.2.4. The Landscape/Screening Plan is shown in the drawings labeled L2.01, L2.02, and L5.01. Renderings of the Landscape/Screening plan are presented in Exhibit 3. ERL intends to enhance the existing screening plans to effectively screen views of the landfill from TH 169, 221St Avenue and the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. ^ Proposed building materials Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~ 80112511'00 ~W2nCl< Section 4-1 Land Use Application .,R„~..„~,,,,~ Design of the buildings has not been completed yet, although they will most likely be constructed of pre-cast concrete. The design of the additional leachate storage tank has also not been completed, but it is anticipated that it will be constructed similar to the existing tank, which is glass coated steel with concrete containment. Their locations are shown on the drawing titled Site Development Plan -Entire Property. ^ Signage (how many, proposed sizes, locations, type) The ERL will maintain a sign at each entrance to the site which describes the wastes which may be disposed at the ERL and those wastes which will not be accepted. In addition to waste acceptance information, the site signage will also indicate the schedule of days and hours the facility is open to the public, prices for waste disposal at the site, the MPCA permit number, and a contact phone number for the landfill. No new entrances are proposed for the SDA and therefore, new signage will not be required. ^ Outdoor storage (what, how much, proposed screening) No outdoor storage is proposed. Adequate on-site enclosed storage is available for the maintenance and storage of the landfill equipment that is currently needed to operate the landfill. 4.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS OF ISSUANCE The Elk River Code, Chapter 30. Land Development Regulations, Article VI. Zoning, Division 2. Administration and Enforcement, Subdivision III. Conditional Use Permits, governs the issuance of conditional use permits and establishes the following required findings: • Sec. 30-654. Standards for issuance. (a) Required dndings. The p/arming commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the council sha/l order the issuance of such a permit only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: (1) Will not endanger, injure or detrimentally affect the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience orgeneral welfare of the neighborhood or the city. (2) Wi/l be consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) Will not impede the normal and orderly deve%pment and improvement of surrounding vacant properly. (4) Will be served adequately by and will not adversely affect essential public facilities and services including streets, police and dre protection, drainage, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, parks and schools; and will not, in particular, create traffic congestion or interference with traffic on adjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares. (5) Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons or properly because of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, dust or vibrations • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ Section 4-2 Land Use Application , ,,,~« ,~o , ~, Bonestroo WenCl< • (6) Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. (7) Will fully comply with all other requirements of this Code, including any applicab/e requirements and standards for the issuance of a license or permit to establish and operate the proposed use in the city. 4.3 WRITTEN STATEMENT ADDRESSING REQUIRED FINDINGS Written statements regarding each of the required findings are provided below. (1) Will not endanger, injure or detrimentally affect the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared and approved in 2006 for this project (see Exhibit 2). The EIS evaluated potential impacts to groundwater, adjacent wetlands, and air quality and determined that impacts from the proposed expansion were expected to be minimal, or that adequate mitigation plans were in place to address potential impacts. Consistent with its approved CUP for the existing MSW landfill, the following standards will continue to be met for the proposed SDA: • Groundwater. The SDA, as designed, is a modern, lined landfill that meets or exceeds all health and safety regulatory requirements. Modern landfills are designed to protect groundwater by preventing a release from contacting the environment outside of the landfill and by minimizing the volume of liquid (leachate) that could impair groundwater quality in • the event of a release. Groundwater monitoring networks and monitoring programs are additional design features that detect changes in water quality that can indicate a failure of the liner system before it becomes a health risk and to allow for implementation of corrective actions to prevent an impact to the environment. Federal, state, and county regulations establish siting, monitoring, water quality, and other standards to protect groundwater resources. The site development and analysis and monitoring well network proposed for the SDA meet or exceed those standards and requirements. Grass Protective Clay ~~ Foundation Groundwater Cap Cap Venting Gas tJbnitorin ,,~- Layer Monitorin 9 9 Wel I Probe Leachate ~ ~~~' L7rainage Collection Clay ~"'" Pratectian System '~- Liner Layer Synthetio ~ Compacted Liner Subsoi l Groundwater Table - Backup Leachate Pumps. ERL will maintain backup pumps for use in the event of pump failure at the leachate sump, wet well and leachate storage tank on-site. As an alternative, ERL will maintain provisions for restoring temporary leachate pumping within a 24-hour period and adhere to the current "Leachate Management • Plan" as approved by MPCA. Elk River Landfill SDA ,A Section 4-3 Land Use Application W ~ Bonestroo ,~ v1/enC~< R..~..,,...,,, - Leachate-Holding Tank. ERL will ensure that the existing and proposed leachate- • holding tanks are pumped out on a regular schedule. Leachate will not be allowed to collect on the liner to a depth exceeding one foot due to the leachate-holding tank being full. An additional leachate-holding tank with a minimum 150,000-gallon capacity will be added to the system. - Leachate Recirculation. Remedies for problems arising from leachate recirculation include, but are not limited to, the cessation of leachate recirculation and reverting back to traditional leachate treatment. - On-site Groundwater. ERL will perform on-site water quality testing at the monitoring wells in the manner required by the MPCA permit. The wells shall meet current Department of Health Well Code Standards. The Water Quality Report shall be submitted to the City when it is submitted to the MPCA. - Surface Water Ouality. ERL will have surface water quality tests performed in conjunction with sampling events when water is present as may be required by the MPCA permit. - Off-Site Groundwater Oualitv. ERL will annually sample the individual private wells identified in the Phase IV Water Quality Monitoring Work Plan required by Section 4(05) of the approved CUP. All private wells shall be analyzed for pH, COD, ammonia, chlorides, specific conductance, and volatile organic compounds (MDH method 465C and EPA method 601, 602). - Phase IV Water Quality Monitoring Work Plan. The Phase IV Water Quality Monitoring Work Plan which describes the sampling frequency, parameters, protocols and reporting frequency for Landfill gas, leachate, leachate piezometers, leachate, lysimeter, residential wells, groundwater monitoring wells and surface water will be updated annually to reflect changes in the monitoring systems. - Gas Venting System. ERL shall conduct active Landfill gas collection in accordance with approved plans and shall construct additional phases of the gas system at the • time of final cover construction. - Annual Gas Vent System Assessment. Annually assess the effectiveness of active Landfill gas collection operations based on the results of groundwater and Landfill gas monitoring. Incorporate the evaluation in the MPCA Annual Report for the Landfill. - Heavy Metal Contaminant Monitoring and Assessment. Heavy metal contaminants for surface water and groundwater must be addressed in addition to VOC contaminants. Based on the need for additional monitoring to confirm exceedances and identify trends, the Landfill shall continue monitoring and prepare evaluation reports which shall be submitted with the MPCA Annual Reports. - Heavy Metal Contamination Feasibility Study. If heavy metal concentrations in groundwater and surface water exceed regulatory standards, the Landfill will be required to conduct a Feasibility Study and submit it to City staff on schedule determined by City staff. - Hvdroaeoloaic Reports. The investigation of the hydrological and geophysical characteristics of the site will be continued and any other new information relating to the hydrogeologic impact of the site will be reported to the City. Hydrogeologic reports will be updated, amended, and modified as warranted by newly discovered or additional data acquired in the continued hydrogeologic investigation. ERL will notify City at least two (2) days in advance of any soil boring or well construction required. s Elk River Landfill SDA ~ Section 4-4 Land Use Application «~~, ~ ,.o.. ~, Bonestroo ~Wencl< • Stormwater. Stormwater generated from the site will be discharged via a storm sewer system, under the exterior roadway to the north end of the SDA, then west under the City Trail into a wetland upstream of the Rice Lake wetland complex. The discharge point will be onto property owned by the ERL. Discharge from P-1 to the wetland west of the site has been designed to minimize impacts by limiting bounce in the wetland, restricting flow rates, and treating stormwater prior to discharge in accordance with applicable permits. The stormwater management system will be regularly inspected and maintained to ensure it is functioning properly. See also the statement regarding CUP finding number 4. City Notifications and Access. ERL will notify the City at least two days in advance of liner barrier layer installation or final cover barrier layer installation. ERL will assist the City in arranging inspection of the site at any reasonable time the City requests. ERL will keep the City informed of ongoing construction progress and shall specifically notify the City of significant changes encountered in the geological, hydrological, or construction conditions. The City may reasonably require work which is covered or otherwise obscured prior to City inspection, to be re-excavated for City Inspection. Construction Quality Assurance Reports. A Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Report will be submitted to the City prior to the placement of waste on newly constructed lined areas. A CQA Report shall also be submitted for landfill areas which receive final cover. The report shall demonstrate that the work is completed to the plan specifications. The Report shall be certified by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and shall include but not be limited to: - All relevant construction specifications; - All shop drawings for prefabricated components; • = Photo documentation of all critical aspects of construction; Deflection testing results for leachate collection and transmission pipes; - Narrative description of all as-built variances from the plans and/or specifications; - As-built cross-sections of the liner sub grade; - As-built elevations for all pipe inlets and outlets and pump-on/pump-off controls; - Completed manufacturer warranties; - All physical testing results for soils and other materials used for construction. Aesthetics. Visual impacts will be minimized through buffers, new berms, and trees. The existing Conditional Use Permit requires a 200-foot buffer zone around the existing landfill and the preservation of existing trees in the buffer zone. The proposed Landscape/Screening plan for the SDA is presented in Section 1.2.4 and increases the buffer zone in the SDA. The Landscape/Screening Plan is shown in the drawings labeled L2.01, L2.02, and L5.01. Renderings of the Landscape/Screening plan are presented in Exhibit 3. ERL intends to enhance the existing screening plans to effectively screen views of the landfill from TH 169, 221St Avenue and the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. There is an existing wooded area to the west of the SDA that would be maintained and which fully screens the SDA from the trail corridor. Berms and trees would screen the SDA from 221St Avenue. The existing berm along TH 169 would be enhanced with additional planting. Additional detail regarding existing and proposed screening is provided below. • Elk River Landfill SDA W ~ Bonestroo .,~Wenel< Section 4-5 Land Use Application ,~R„~~,~,~,~,« Litter Control. As is the current practice, ERL will engage in a regular and routine litter • maintenance and removal program extending one-half mile north and south of the entrance to the Landfill and to any other areas adversely impacted by debris related to Landfill operations as may be determined by the City. Litter will be removed from these areas not less than once per week and more often if necessary because of spills or complaints from neighboring property owners, and ensure that these areas are kept free of litter generated by truck traffic traveling to and from the Landfill. In addition: The SDA will be surrounded by a 16-foot high galvanized steel fence that prevents litter from escaping the site. ERL employs a fulltime litter picker. ERL will inspect all trucks leaving the Landfill to ensure that they are either fully enclosed or covered, and/or clean, and will not spread litter on surrounding streets and roadways as they leave. Odor. Odors will be controlled by minimizing the size of the active disposal area, properly covering the waste daily, and by incorporation of the gas collection system (gas extraction/ power generation system) for the SDA. The facility operates in accordance with an approved Odor Control Plan and constantly monitors for potential odor issues. Odor complaints received by the facility are tracked, and the Landfill promptly investigates every odor complaint and takes corrective actions when odors can be traced to a specific condition. The ERL routinely monitors and tests emissions from the landfill, enclosed flare, and landfill gas to energy plant as required by both the facility's air quality and solid waste permits, and will continue to do so. Surface scans at the existing landfill site are also regularly performed by ERL in compliance with the facility's permit. Performance testing of the enclosed flare and internal combustion engines are all • within permitted levels. There is a potential for odor releases from the SDA, however, this potential is not an increase over current conditions. The ERL has an odor complaint tracking system in place, and promptly investigates all complaints received. • Safe .The Landfill will adhere to applicable safety standards. - The landfill will have a security fence around the perimeter of the site. A gate is provided at the entrance to the site and kept locked when an attendant is not on duty. - Adequate communication facilities are provided for emergency purposes, including mobile phones and two-way radios. - Emergency first aid equipment consisting of at least one first aid kit kept near the working face, and at least one shower on site available to all personnel and customers will be supplied. - At least one of every four Landfill personnel will be trained in first aid and CPR. - ERL will, during all hours of operation, maintain and operate a separate suitable and safe disposal area for the dumping of small loads by pickup trucks, cars, and trailers. This separate site will be located and operated with due regard for the nature of the vehicles bringing such loads, and the normal frequency of such dumping. ^ Equipment and Storaoe Facilities. Adequate equipment will be supplied capable of spreading and compacting the refuse as received. At least one machine capable of covering the working face, in its entirety at the end of the day, will be supplied. As under existing conditions, adequate on-site shelter will be provided for maintenance and storage, sufficient to supply • the equipment required, during cold weather operations. Elk River Landfill SDA I~ Section 4-6 Land Use Application ~ ~ BOn25t1'00 Wencl< • Signage. ERL maintains at each entrance to the Landfill Property a sign stating the name of the facility, the schedule of days and hours the facility is open to the public, prices for use of the facility, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permit number, and contact information. No new entrances are proposed, thus additional signage will not be needed. (Z) Will be consistent with the comprehensive p/an. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) contains the following text within its vision statement, "As Energy City, Elk River seeks to promote sustainable and energy efficient forms of developments" (pg. 2-2, see Exhibit il). The existing landfill property includes a Landfill Gas to Energy Facility that provides the City of Elk River with approximately 12% of its electrical needs. The landfill expansion provides the opportunity for additional green energy generation capacity with the addition of a second landfill gas to energy plant. As part of the discussion on potential end use options there are several additional alternative energy issues discussed. Alternative energy sources available may include the use of geothermal and solar energy, as well as additional uses for landfill gas or excess heat generated at the landfill gas to energy plant. One of the conceptual end use plans presented revolves around the idea of Elk River as "Energy City", with the creation of an "Energy Park", where various forms of alternative energy are produced, and businesses located at the facility utilize and/or create the alternative energy. • Portions of the expansion area are located within the existing property, which is guided "Landfill" in the land use plan. The Plan states that the "Landfill use is consistent with the current land use plan" (pg. 5-13). • The SDA is guided "Mining" in the land use plan and already labeled "Elk River Landfill". The • Plan states that the "Mining land use designation functions similar to the Urban Reserve. The primary objective of this land use category is to allow the current mining use of the land and address future land use when development becomes imminent" (pg. 5-13). The Mining land use designation is consistent with this request as mining will continue to occur within the SDA. According to the Plan, the City anticipated that it could achieve its growth projections between 2025 and 2032. The Plan did not attribute any job or population growth to the Mining land use areas (pg. 4-9). This suggests that development of the SDA is not imminent until after 2025-2032, which is compatible with the anticipated development schedule for the SDA (see Table 1 in Section 1.2 of this application). The Plan states that the discussions at the Comprehensive Plan Task Force meetings and public meetings has been to guide the future development of the Mining area toward a combination of Commercial and Industrial uses close to existing and proposed roadway infrastructure (pg. 5-13). The SDA is consistent with these discussions as it provides for Industrial uses associated with mining and landfilling and provides the opportunity for Commercial end uses adjacent to major roadway infrastructure. • The Draft EIS found that "the proposed project is compatible with the existing and future land uses in the project area" (pg. 4, see Exhibit 2). The SDA is guided for mining, which is an industrial use, and landfilling is, per the Draft EIS, an industrial use. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~ BOnEStI'00 ~Wencl< Section 4-7 Land Use Application «F„~F~~,~,,,« (3) Will not impede the normal and orderly deve%pment and improvement of surrounding • vacant property. • Area to East and South. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan guides the area to the east of the expansion area, across TH 169, as "Commercial Reserve" (Exhibit 11), held in reserve for future commercial development by highway business uses. The Plan notes that this area is not currently served by municipal utilities, and the Plan guides development first to vacant land already served by utilities before opening up new areas for growth (pg. 5-11). The 2004 Comprehensive Plan guides the area to the south of the expansion area as "Mining" (Exhibit 11). It is currently being used for that purpose. According to the Plan, the City anticipated that it could achieve its growth projections between 2025 and 2032. The Plan did not attribute any job or population growth to the Mining or Urban Reserve land use areas (pg. 4-9). This suggests that development of the SDA and surrounding area is not imminent until after 2025-2032, which is compatible with the anticipated development schedule and closure of the SDA (see Table 1 in Section 1.2 of this application). Area to West and Southwest. The area to the west and southwest is currently zoned "Agricultural Conservation," and the 2004 Comprehensive Plan indicates the area is expected to transition to "Rural Residential". Allowed uses in Agricultural Conservation lands are agriculture and single family residential on large lots (10+ acres) or clustered development (10 units per acre). Allowed land uses in Rural Residential areas are single family residential on medium lots (2.5+ acres) or clustered development. Rural Residential uses are not served by municipal sewer and water. - The SDA will be screened from view from developable property to the west, and will • not impede the transition in land use from Agriculture to Rural Residential. The SDA is not expected to generate additional traffic, noise, fumes, odor, or impacts that may be unsightly, unattractive, or unappealing to developers or future property owners. The EIS concluded that groundwater flow in the SDA is to the southwest. Development in this area would be reliant on private wells for potable water. As described in the response to CUP finding number 1, a groundwater monitoring plan is in place to monitor groundwater and downgradient private wells for any indication of groundwater contamination well before that potential contamination would pose a health risk. ^ Perception. The presence of a landfill in the vicinity of the developable property may have negative connotations to some potential developers or buyers, but that condition already exists with the existing landfill. As units of the landfill close and are converted to their proposed End Use, attractive open space and trail connections will become an asset to the development and improvement of the "Urban Reserve" areas. (4) Wi/l be served adequate/y by and wil/not adversely affect essential public facilities and services including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, refuse disposa/, water and sewer systems, parks and schools; and will not, in particular, create trafFc congestion or interference with traffic on adjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares • Public Facilities and Services. The proposed SDA will be adequately served by existing public facilities and services. e Elk River Landfill SDA W # Bonestroo WPnC~< Section 4-8 Land Use Application .,R...F. ,~o , • - Streets and Traffic. Construction of the SDA is not expected to increase traffic or hauling, thus there would be no adverse impacts to city streets, congestion, or interference with traffic. Adequate vehicle stacking facilities are provided to ensure that no vehicle desiring entry into the Landfill site has to wait outside the perimeter of the Landfill Property. An all-weather haul road will be provided to the unloading area of the SDA and watered on a regular basis. A new scale will be added for the SDA in the future. - Police and Fire. The SDA would not require additional police and fire protection, or increased use of other emergency services. - Fire fighting equipment including at least one piece of heavy equipment, fire extinguishers in all machines working in the Landfill, and a water truck will be kept available on the site during the active life of the Landfill. - The self-contained breathing apparatus purchased for the City Fire Department is available at the Fire Department for use by ERL on a temporary basis, as approved by the Fire Chief. - ERL will make a Landfill operator available at the request of the City Fire Chief to consult and advise the fire department about Landfill fire fighting issues. - Parks and Schools. As an industrial use, the Landfill does not generate park or school needs. - The proposed End Use of the facility includes passive and/or active recreational facilities, attractive open space and trail connections, all of which will become an asset to the surrounding area upon closure of the landfill. - Sewer and Water. The site is adequately served by on-site sanitary sewer and potable water. ERL has its own well that supplies a potable water supply for site personnel. Adequate sanitary facilities and shelter will continue to be provided for • site personnel. Stormwater Management. A stormwater management plan has been developed for the site expansion that meets the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Permit requirements for erosion control and temporary and permanent stormwater management. The ERL will apply for coverage of the SDA under the existing Minnesota General Permit for Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Association with Industrial Activity. The ERL's existing Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will also be updated to include the SDA in accordance with Minnesota General Permit for Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Association with Industrial Activity. The SWPPP will be updated as necessary to comply with upcoming new stormwater regulations. - Electrical Service. Adequate electrical service is provided at the site for operations and repairs. The Landfill generates electricity at the landfill gas to energy facility. An additional landfill gas to energy facility is also being proposed. (5) Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons or property because of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, dust or vibrations. ^ Traffic. The Landfill does not generate excessive traffic. Traffic issues were addressed in the Scoping EAW for the SDA project. No additional traffic is expected to be generated by the SDA operations. The Scoping EAW concluded that since the overall operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to include significant increases in waste flow over the current operation, effects on traffic congestion would be expected to be minimal. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~ gonestroo ,,,~WeC1C~< Section 4-9 Land Use Application .~R„~r„~,„,,,~, ^ Noise. No additional operating noise is expected to be generated by the SDA operations. • As is currently the practice, noise will be minimized through the following: All equipment and vehicles utilized at the Landfill Site will be periodically inspected and maintained to minimize noise. Vegetative barriers along the boundaries of the Landfill Site will be utilized to minimize off-site noise impacts. Applicable state standards for noise pollution will not be exceeded by the Landfill operation, equipment, vehicles, or machinery. ^ Smoke. The Landfill will not generate smoke. ^ Fumes. See Odor discussion in the statements regarding CUP finding number 1. • Glare. The Landfill will not utilize lighting that will create glare or light trespass issues. • Odors. See Odor discussion in the statements regarding CUP finding number 1. • Dust. Fugitive dust emissions off-site will be controlled at the Landfill site as necessary by undertaking the following and in accordance with the facility's Fugitive Emissions Control Plan: - ERL staff regularly checks for dust and other fugitive emissions in accordance with the Fugitive Emissions Control Plan. - Road surfaces within the Landfill Site will be wetted with water or an appropriate chemical whenever off-site dust levels become unreasonable as determined by the City Zoning Administrator. • - Dust pollutives will be utilized to the extent necessary on cover material such as stockpiles to reduce wind erosion as well as on other exposed surfaces as appropriate. - Cover compaction and revegetation activities will be undertaken promptly on the completion of various fill areas and vegetative cover capable of quick growth will be utilized. - Plantings of bushes and trees will be installed if needed to buffer the Landfill Site and minimize wind erosion. ^ Vibration. See response to noise above. (6) Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. • Features of Major Importance. There are no known natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance on the proposed SDA site. - Historic and Archaeological Features. The Minnesota State Historic Preservation (SHPO) was contacted regarding archaeological and historical features. SHPO concluded that no properties within the proposed project area are listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places and that no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area will be affected by the project. • Other Features: The following addresses other natural features at the SDA. - Wetlands. Impacts to wetlands are not anticipated with expansion into the SDA. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ ~ ; . ', ~ Bonestroo ,,~wPnCl~ Section 4-10 Land Use Application ~ ~, ~~.~..~ ..~.. J • - The potential for contamination of groundwater discharging to the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex due to the development of the SDA is remote. A hydrogeologic investigation performed by the MPCA as part of the EIS determined that only a very small portion of groundwater from the SDA can move to discharge at the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. One or more monitoring wells will be situated between the SDA and the complex to provide for early detection of any releases. - No wetlands that would require mitigation under the Wetland Conservation Act will be impacted. A small (<1 acre) wetland is located in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the abandoned railroad bed. No impacts are proposed to this wetland. This wetland has not been formally delineated. If necessary, prior to obtaining any construction permits the wetland will be delineated to formally establish the boundary and the grading plan adjusted if necessary. - Oak Wilt Prevention. As a method to prevent oak wilt, ERL will not conduct any tree removal operations at the landfill property between April 15 and July 15 each year. In addition, oak stumps will be removed prior to April 15 each year. When removing trees and stumps, ERL will prevent damage to remaining trees. (7) Will fully comply with all other requirements of this Code, including any applicable requirements and standards for the issuance of a license or permit to establish and operate the proposed use in the city. The Elk River Landfill has in place an approved Conditional Use Permit (April 21, 2008) and Solid Waste Facility License Agreement. With development of the SDA, the Landfill will continue to • operate as it has in the past, in accordance with City requirements. Construction of the SDA will require other state, county, and local permits and approvals. Permits and approvals from the MPCA include modification of the Solid Waste Disposal Facility permit, NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction, modification of the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Industrial Activity, and amendment of the Title V Air Permit, and a Certificate of Need (CON) for development of the entire SDA. A CON has already been issued for a portion of the SDA capacity. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Industrial Discharge Permit will require modification as well as the ERL's Sherburne County Solid Waste License will require modification. Site and building plans will be subject to zoning, building and other code requirements. • Elk River Landfill SDA ~ •~BOneStrOa ~Wend< Section 4-li Land Use Application .~..,~..,,.o.,,. SECTION 5 • Land Use Amendment 5.1 LAND USE AMENDMENT NARRATIVE The SDA is guided "Mining" on the land use plan and already labeled "Elk River Landfill". The Land Use Amendment application form requires a typewritten narrative that provides the information below. • Detailed description/scope of project - what is being proposed See Section 1.2 for a complete description of the proposed project. • What are the reasons/purposes for the proposed Land Use Change? What has changed to warrant the Land Use Change? It is the opinion of the ERL that the proposed project does not warrant a Land Use Change and that the project is consistent with the City of Elk River Comprehensive Plan. The SDA is guided Mining on the land use plan and current mining operations will continue. The SDA is already labeled °Elk River Landfill" on the land use plan (Exhibit 11). The Draft EIS found that'~the proposed project is compatible with the existing and future land uses in the project area" (pg. 4, see Exhibit 2). The SDA is guided for mining, which is an industrial use, and landfilling is, per the Draft EIS, an industrial use. • How is the request consistent with the City of Elk River Comprehensive Plan? • The 2004 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) contains the following text within its vision statement, "As Energy City, Elk River seeks to promote sustainable and energy efficient forms of developments" (pg. 2-2, see Exhibit 11). The landfill expansion provides the opportunity for additional green energy generation capacity. Portions of the expansion area are located within the existing property, which is guided °Landfill" in the land use plan. The Plan states that the "Landfill use is consistent with the current land use plan" (pg. 5-13). The SDA is guided "Mining" in the land use plan and already labeled °Elk River Landfill". The Plan states that the "Mining land use designation functions similar to the Urban Reserve. The primary objective of this land use category is to allow the current mining use of the land and address future land use when development becomes imminent" (pg. 5-13). The Mining land use designation is consistent with this request as mining will continue to occur within the SDA. According to the Plan, the City anticipated that it could achieve its growth projections between 2025 and 2032. The Plan did not attribute any job or population growth to the Mining land use areas (pg. 4-9). This suggests that development of the SDA is not imminent until after 2025- 2032, which is compatible with the anticipated development schedule for the SDA (see Table 1 in Section 1.2 of this application). The Plan states that the discussions at the Comprehensive Plan Task Force meetings and public meetings has been to guide the future development of the Mining area toward a combination of • Commercial and Industrial uses close to existing and proposed roadway infrastructure (pg. 5-13). Elk River Landfill SDA ~ Section 5-1 Bonestroo ~WE'C1C1< Land Use Application .. ~,~~~ ..o. • The SDA is consistent with these discussions as it provides for Industrial uses associated with mining and landfilling and provides the opportunity for Commercial end uses adjacent to major roadway infrastructure. The Draft EIS found that "the proposed project is compatible with the existing and future land uses in the project area" (pg. 4, see Exhibit 2). The SDA is guided for mining, which is an industrial use, and landfilling is, per the Draft EIS, an industrial use. ^ How compatible is it with surrounding properties? Adjacent existing land uses include TH 169, landfill, mining, the City's Railroad Hiking Trail, and rural residential uses. The Draft EIS found that "the proposed Landfill expansion is compatible with the existing land uses in the project area which are primarily undeveloped or industrial (i.e., mining, landfill) in nature" (pg. 80, see Exhibit 2). The ERL intends to enhance the existing screening plans to effectively screen views of the landfill from TH 169, 221St Avenue and the City's Railroad Hiking Trail. The purpose of the proposed buffers and screening plan is to minimize potential impacts on less intensive land uses, including residential properties located near the SDA. The purpose of the 200-foot wooded buffer between the City's Railroad Hiking Trail and the grading limits of the landfill is to buffer and screen the landfill from trail users and residents located west of the SDA. The existing berm along TH 169 will be enhanced to form a triple row of evergreens and deciduous trees to screen the landfill from the residence located across TH 169 from the landfill. The proposed End Use of the facility includes passive and/or active recreational facilities, • attractive open space and trail connections, all of which will become an asset to the surrounding area upon closure of the landfill. • What are the benefits to the City? The ERL attended the City Council's January 12, 2009 workshop and presented information via a PowerPoint presentation regarding the benefits to the city, which is provided in Exhibit 12 and summarized below: - Over the past 5 years, the landfill has spent $13.9 million ($2.7 million/year) supporting local businesses. - In 2008, the landfill contributed $50,000 in local charitable donations. - Current landfill generates $145,000 in annual property taxes (2008). - Landfill employs 14 people, providing nearly $1 million in employee wages per year. - SDA will generate approximately $1 million in annual City fees through 2030, which represents nearly 10% of the City's budget. - Elk River Landfill will contribute approximately $2 million annually to Sherburne County. A portion of this goes to the Landfill Legacy Grant, from which the City of Elk River obtained over $1 million dollars in 2008 for the YMCA. - The SDA provides several layers of revenue over time for the City, including property taxes, gravel mining fees, landfill fees, end use of property when landfill is capped, and green power. • Elk River Landfill SDA Land Use Application - -----~_ W Section 5-2 Bonestroo Wencl< In addition to the above benefits to the City, there are also several end use options that are available upon closure of the facility. These include passive and/or active recreational facilities, attractive open space and trail connections, along with land available for commercial development along TH 169 and 221St Avenue. All of these end use options will become an asset to the surrounding area upon closure. Elk River Landfill SDA ~ I Section 5-3 Land Use Application ~.~ ~,~~, ..o., ~ Bonestr00 ,~Wer,d< • • • • • • 1.\3230\323008001\CAD\Dwo13230-OBOO1L201.dwq 3/26/200911:04:30 AM _ ~ Vnl A W N !' IA F _ .yam ~'i' - -_ .. I ~ • ( m~5m~~~O~v OO z mr'J' r 3D 2 ' 1 Z pT ~ r 9 P ~~~~ 2~~3~ ~~1 .s.~ ~~NWYz•sZOZZO Dm ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 , ,'~, '~~ CU -I ~ m~mD ~3A Z~O T / G A .. X00 ~(~/1~vC7C~ • ~~ ' ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ rn ~~ r }/-, ~ ~ r ~~, 1 ~ O~ = CD ~~ ~ m P y 'ice PFZ ~ • ~ ~ ~ _ Z m ~ O < w ~ ~ rn C_s (~ om zOm~~ A O ~ ~ ~ S i 4 ~~~ ~ •1 ~~ S \ ~ y ,, p ~ •~ -~ '~ , ~ ~ 2 O Z~ (C~ m ~ O 3 Z !n~ ? ( ~ C} `~a _ ,, ~~' ~„ ~ J 1~J O `~ ~ _~ ; ~ 0 p ~ Vim O ~ ;. ~ ~uvw ...,~,-r ~ ~ ~ a _ ~ ~ ~ ~V ~ ~ - , .. ~ O r~i r ~ -- - ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ `v,' ' C~f~'~ ~ ~` rn ~ z ~ O ~ r t~ \ I ~_ `S ~ ~ - ~ ~ p O ~ .~. Y ti., ~^ s o ,v. v ~ Y ~,... ~ ~.Y ~ Z , ~ • - A ," i ,-i- t :, a _~ , t ~-- • _. _ ~.. e ~. t , > ~, i % ' `~'"` ~ . \ l ~ • _ / z °v ~ m p ~n ~i~ Z 0 o k' '.S m ~ 'b' G z n n 25 m m DD~^ $ m ~ ~ D ~ ~ A '- eg ~ m ~ z 5 ~ R ~ ~e Frf7 ~ z S m ~ ~ ~ ~ N m ~ g ; ., IT1 ~ N D F-~ ~ O 3~ sDa ~ 5 rz g m .. z ~ sz ~ G ~ ~ FI z m m z n A T m N m m o+ ~ ~+ „~, N ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ O O O O O O OIIQ n in ~ ~ n n ~~ m a 's-..,3r I ~~ !i ~~ k ~ ~ i ~ J ~~. .. , ~~ - ,` ~ ~~ _ ~ ~, ~~ ., ti - ~ ~ , ~..._ ~ - I , I „~. _ , r ~ ~ a, ,~~ ,. ~ I ~ i ~ ~ I I ~ J I ~ ~ l~ i ~ t ~_ r ` ` } ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~ ` - 4 ~ // / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { f ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ i ~f ~,~ > / ~ ~,, _ ;: _ , i - 1 4 ,; I ?~ ~h0 i °,,.,_ . ~e ... -,, ~ - ~,~- f w., ~ , i_ ~ r I' ,r ~ -' I` T~ III I I( ~ t ~ I. _ ~~ ' -p ` a. - l f~) ~ - ~ - - I i- ~ ~ c~. ~ ,., ~~, ~ - ; ~ ~ l I _ - I _ o ~ ~'~ Gl rn, _ _u ; D 9j r ~ t ~J _ c . :: ~ + L7 ~~ ~~ ~r ~- ~ 4 ~_ _ r. ~ ~ it -" ~~4 \ ice, ~ Qi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~/ Ef . ~I'~ ~~ ,.. ~~- ~ rn~ ~ - _ , ._.. __ `~ -~~ • __ - \ •' D I --Io Z _.' m ' E to °z I ~ ' v m ~ z I Q I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPEC6ICATION, OR REPORT ~• WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRER SUPERWSIIXJ " ~ u = ~ ~ LAND USE APPLICATION FOR CITY OF ELK RIVER ANDTHATIAMADULYLICa9seoLANOSCAPENtCHITER - r ~ O o o UNDER THE LAWS OF THE SPATE OF MINNESOTA N ~ I ~ ° ELK RIVER LANDFILL PRINfNAME: ]EFFERYMCDOWELL ~ A W I z ~ I SHERBURNE COUNTY, MINNESOTA c{,` o °> SCREENING PLAN -PHASE 1 sIONATURE: ` --- - • 3 m r~i ~ DATE: 3/26/09 LIC. N0. 92590 - • • • I:\3730\373008001\CAD\Dwq\3230-08001L202.dwq 3/26/200911:03:28 AM LA ? W N r ~ r 2 V ~ O in T~ ~ ,. -. ~ .,~ • z~m~~`~~O~00 Z ~ Z . ~ R`~ p2Z~O a = .~.. ~ vu'i ~p V' "LL ~~O~~~r~23f~'f ~ G z n n ~" ~n ~IIS~< (ml v m !--11 ~•, vZ~AVAiwzspzzo z a~ ~" n N p g v im0mn op QF ~ 3 z ~ cT ~^ m~ C ' ~~ppm~~•FlZ'~ ~ m i'1 z S rQi n m PrTI - • minm Al^3.'OZ~OG m ^ 9b ~ ~ o ~ a I~ ~~ OSO ~n ~m ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~_ ~ r ~rn ~mmo~p~ a m 4 a .. ,, .. S ((~~ ~ ~ ~ a T .: S i ~ ,.J _,~ ~~ ~~r~Z p o • ~ ~ ~ ~~ p ~pm~~ z ~ ~~ r' ~ g ~ I ~ t.,,,, ~ , . ~ f 4 C~ ~ ~ ~~~, V' ~ 3 O 3 ~ $ m no ~ 5 3 ~ ~ ~'~ ~~ti ~" ~ !• mi ~D~zm z ~ ~ •i~ ~_ ~~ o ~ p C g m ~ z O ~ rn z 3 z ~. `2~ ~ ~ p0 (~ -~ Z G Q rnn r z z Q O N ~ mm .~ ~ ~ ~ 1 - a' ~ ~g< ~ ~ ~ I ~DD1 ((~' N ~...ti \\~~ ~ ~ Z mDp ~ D P P P N NIT c, .a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m n .~ ~ i O w _~ S ~C • 3 ~ .~ , ~_ tl a , ~ \ u • 1 a, _. ti t~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ m g N I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT ^• o o o = _ ~ ~ LAND USE APPLICATION FOR CITY OF ELK RIVER WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY OIRELT SUPERVISION ~A~H>~ ~~ „E ws~r E~ ~~w ~ ~ N " ~ N ~ w Z ELK RIVER LANDFILL PRINF NAME: 1EFFERYMmOWELL ~ N A ~ i SHERBURNE COUNTY, MINNESOTA (~,/~(~J C T RE ~ °a SCREENING PLAN -PHASE 2 sI NA U : """ " • 3 m m r~r DATE: 3/26/09 LIC. NO. 42548 ~ I:\3230\323008001\CAD\Dwg\3230-08001L203.dwg SR9/2009 2:42:36 PM • • 't ~ `l~li i fix` 1 to ~ W N ~" G~ ~ ~ ~ O t~ `n ~ ~. ~ } } _-_ m~ m Dr ~Dr 0000 Z Z j < z v~ m r "~' r 3 T II ~ rn r Ipy ~~ ~ / ~~ \ 1 ~ ~\ : \ O ~ O ~ D ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ v v m n n 0 S J -4 P^ ~ m ® \ t/zt/~~~J ~pz~vzz0 Z n ~" D ~ ~ nn p ym~mD vp~F ~ D ci o z C `~ ~trn/I~ O m-1 ~n z 1 ~ 3 z ~ R ~ mQ f ~` ~~\ ~ r=O~~DOOClO ~ p N ~ o ~ nr m ,_~,P'. ~ ~ ~~ 1~"I ^' rt ~ .~,,.,. O n ~ ~ D m ~ ~ O A ~ O z c Z 2 1 1 Or Vlr OFF D ~ "i 3 m / D D D ~.~ ~ ~ _ Om ~ x O i 1 0 r m f'n W - m ~. O ~~.~ ~ ~ l~ T ~ ~ s Z~ ~ P^D 03 Z S y S S D c3 \ u~~ i / f/ f f v m~ ~O Z m ~ ~ ~ p a 3~ t~ ~~ ~-, ~ l // f/ m I I ,vO z F vb. ~ z ~ N D ~ [Z z `.l e ~ L ~ t '~ ~ h ©LS C3 .// r~ x ~ ~` D rr. ~" -I r~* (~ m F (} \, !~ Z 1r ~r«~ ~ 3 , D o pp ~p 3 3 A _ 1.~ y ' ~„ ...~.,..~~~ M1 1 W X~" ~ "'-i, COC ~ ; ,. ~ i~ t n N Z _~ D ~ ~ T ,~„ F ~a rqx \ 1 D ~ O x ~ x ~. A rte.. ~ j ~ ~~\ ~ z ~ D ° a ~ ~ a, Ay ' I N K N w .~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~` -~,~ , F o ~ ~m <''r ~ o~z o ? ~ ~ ti W VI _. ~ I! g o 0 0 0 F °n '~~ ~ ~ x. ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0~ > ( j ~~~ ,.~ ~ tl e ~A n ~ f'i 4~ P ~ ~ l ~. ..... ~ t ) /t \~~ 3 ~4a ` t rM1 ' f ~x' ~ ~ _ r I' ~; ~~ a ~ ~t { ~ ~ ~`~~~~.. i 3u ',il`{l~~~~~ ~(li~'IIi~Iltll<< ~ ~,~ ~ ~ LTO~~ Ir ~I ~ i 1~+ 1~ ~~ ~m~,~ ;i / i , ~ ,, _M zt~ r~I~III i~~11 U ~' - ~_ F ~ I I, _ :. ~ _. -`...~~ ~' ~ '„ .., li ~~I~ ~ F ii II III ~ 1 ~~~~ - - - , J ,. II ~, v ~ ~ ~f~~~~l`~~+1}~i~ I~fl~i~~~1~1j`~~jf~I~~ll~~ ~I~ilit l{ il`~I ~~fl~~r - _ /t'^r; ~~ ~ }t ~ , ~ I » ~ iI` 1 t t ,1,,,~{~;1, yt~p , ~ ,1 ~1~' Il ~~id ~ iii ~~u~h~,l-_~__ ~~;;;,, 11 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ i I Cilf I Iff II I~~~I(~ji;l ~~l~l I~ ~I~~~~I~j~~'{~~ ~ ~i~ - ~~R~ ~ ~ 1~] f~}~~ I ~ It ~ 1 ~i~~~~~:~~ ~ ~~~~~ I14J~~ ~~ jt t ~I~l~, ~ ~I~ - i f } ~{-~ 1 ~i( It l 1 ftl, ~~ I l{1~4.~it ~ al .nib Ii ~ JJ ~il 1 I I i , ~ { 1 I l i i ~~ ,/ ,,~ ~ 4(,~,~,~~ll'r~~,,~;~h~', ~~ ~~ I~~~lit~t4~~~~.~li~~f<<~1~1~~I~~~~~~~{{~!~,a~~~~~E[,~, _ _-. __ _ - - ..,. ~ ~ ~f i ; ~ ~ ~~ ~I ~~~~~~~ ~~ii L~~f~ ~~ Iii,. - - _ ~j / :: ._ ~~ ~' ~~il! ~ ~~ k ~ i ~~ 1'j~ 11,x] ` '~5 i~~l~~~l~l~~,,,,ll~d ~ ~~~~I[~~~~}'Illiii'I`K'`~`~~1' l~,a~ ~ ~ ~~- ,~~ ~~~` ~~i~ i _ i 1 ~r/ ~')~~i~f~ I] ~ ~~~~ I~1~~ ~ i,~~`~ II~~~~~~ 11ZO- :: ,~. ~ / J l ~/~ .r,Fr ! 1.: ..III ~ ~ I ~ 1<<t ICI Iii ~ ~ __ ,. ~ _Y ~ _ ~l~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~,} ~ I _ v I"III I ~ - ~ ~~ / ~ - - - ~ r ~. It.' f ~ ~~ i ' I ~~, ~ - ~w ~ ii I-. ~ S' ~ L, -. a-~.+.i. u.. y M.vw.~i. / / i III ~. i. I w ~ ~~ /;(/ /~ ~ ~ /' I, i' ICI _ .. _. _. _.._ ~ - T~E~ .. l / ~~ - ~ ~ ~_ ~' I 9I - _ ,~ ~, - ___ I'~ q _~ ~- I ~ r , . ~i _ __ _ ~~ o _ r• I{4 -_ ._ ~ ~~~~ 1 ~ s~ _ _ _ I I to i _ - . _ _~` _._---fah _ 3hl - `1 * s _ 111 ~ _ _ ~-~ r: , 4p - I __ - - „~ r i - _ _ - -- - r ~„-' t"""---~c~ ~~-~~ t. ~ ~ a.0. ~ -`_ " ~ - ,.r . ;, -- , ,I- - s•;.- ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 -~ _ ~" 31n r - . _., __ .. _- ~~ m _. t, .. w ~ ~ _ „ ._ - _ ~ r -. ,,- ex .. _ ~-~ _ - - .:- = t - ___ ~ea _. _ mi'l' _._. _~ p „' ~/ . , ~~ 1 ~ - - _. m - 1® ---- ----~- _-~.-_._ q_ .- __ _ _ - a9 _~ ~ - I ~~ ~~ " _~. I x ., ~ ~ ~ ~4_ ,q ~ C `. ° ~ o •_ _ ~S ~- _ .. _ - _ .__o.., `\~ ~y~ ~~/~~ - ~~~- .~ a N C) D Z 8 o ~ °~ ~ ~ `p I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATIIXJ, OR REPORT • O C S S O ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ LAND USE APPLICATION FOR CITY OF ELK RIVER RUNDERMYDIRE T UPERVi I N ~ W~PREPAREDBYME AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT „ UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA N ~ ~ Z ELK RIVER LANDFILL PRINT NAME: ]EFFERY MCDOWELL ~ ~ W W p a SHERBURNE COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 r~i 5 ~ °D ~ SCREENING PLAN -PHASE 3 BIGNANRE: ~ pATE: 3/26/09 LIC. NO. 42540 ~ • • • I:\323U\323000UU1~lAU~Uwg~stsu-uuuuiuul.Dwg ~Imlcuu~ •..~~.a~..,-, o -xi o I^ A ~~~^ i FB~ I~~ ~ ~ g8 DpD ~3 ~a1 ~z0 ~ ~ pD3x ~~ ZZy D zG 2L1~ ~ 30 cDimz ~g $ai 'D"o~. z ~ 5~S J ZyZ O O~~ ~yyOrYi O ~~O m 2 ~ O y~ mOm ~ DO~ m3f 3 ^3G m r V°i~~jj2 ((~~ ~ ~ ~r~ '~' cnlD mD~ n r om~ poD ~ 'p~m8 ~ ~ ~n"pz a,,W m~mm m W °n° Sys t- ~° ~s~m '~ ~~~n ~ pm~ c> ~ gap -a ~ ~~o~ 'm Ds~o T ~=m ~'~"~ " °°~ z p ~o~~ m DmZO ~ iIiIII ~ 8 ~mi o ~~~ ~' $ o o ~Z9 ',S o~z~ ~ II Ili ~~~ ~op ~s R8S y o ~~~ Z oLlz Z I I:~ f°n 'z of iAg t>t'ff~ ~mS o p S a~i 9~xm ~ ~i~t~~yi °~< `Z;~ y-Di ~.. pOmrn Z Ammm Z III I_ ~~~ .O. ~ CCp~ ~F02 AD z ° m$°Z3A r~i ~' ~ 0 0 ~{~ ~ °DOm G1 III ~o~ o F G ~ ~ yp§~~+~i ~I [) ~myD II ~ . I.I. !' oz~ z~~m ytl oGl~ im ~ ~ m30` E/AIF 6 D zm ~ ti ,~R n ~ga57 '.(n mNmO / III/ ~ f~~ $~~~ ~~ Pmm~ ~o = C3 rl. a r li Y ~ fgm S~~° ~p ~Fo 6~ 8 ~~`~~~'~ IO F II ~ ~~ r ~ irn ~I ~ r+ (~II ~~ I ~.._'~ I F- i rr ~ I I I ~ ~ I I -- III I.I--. Ii 1I- I l ~. ~ I I I = ~ ~ I ~-1'I , I 22a D i it z p 0 a , ill O p°p - ti :~~ mA ~ to ~-1 ~T DmA Vim(lF=mO 3 ~pA Vxx~O Dm '.i D ~3 A9 F~3 cDC~j Oam~~ ~Z~CC 8DV~ F`~ yy ~ ms c0 (1 PC°xx Cx Oyi OAF "~ i,_,, A A g ~ ° m~~ s~ bb A PF gg QQ m m m ti p y ~~ D my O ti Fn III ~ ~~ ~ g> g ~ ~OF "1P~OR',~x ~~~ 3G~m~ '_'E I I„ D c g ~ ~ ~ =~moa° ~ g~~~~ =m I ~ IIII- ~- s g~, F ~ ~°~m °„H mF~ ~~~ F ° D ,.., I/ -,1_Ili II. ° 'u'Ig' ? aF piiA ~c'~~5°~g ~i° Fnm~ ~m m° i ~ 1R a ~~ AoT9 oJ~ziz]aF F$ °g~~ ~ o c x °cl~rg.° ~m mf -ii Gz !k I~ o No z unD $~a AZ g~g'a'=oS °O ~i8~~ a ', II~<+ i ~g ~' of°n 3~F ~zf~-loA $m ~m Fri y ~ ~SD ~~~ a~ °Apm~ p > m 8~ ~~m p~^' ~A3 $~mFD c 3 A gp ~n~ nz~o9~o HOC^z ~°am g ~ ti a Prn D =Z~ F=C m°~asZyyam(pt'~~m °go g 3 O a ~ 5 ~ I3 2 P Y m vAi Z~~ ~ m O ° = F 3 ~ `L m L1 N O `L O D A~ s ~ ~ ~8 ~° ~~~o~~~ ~ma ~gGN ~ ° o~ o ~ o'6'S~~g 5 G ' uAy~~ ~~ ~y ~~~F3 gF `G ~~n~~y 3< '. O y 8y NO ~2 m0 S rli x J y3 3 D O ~ ~° ~ AAy ~ m ~~ ozz~ ON /"~ ~~ v DS y ~ 33~~~C OTO~miO c> rr' it Ki o ryi `" m o~°jaz ~f°n n,y m IT my ~p ~ o ~9mm5~ ~~ ox m T$ =S ~ ~ ~~~~ti 4~~m~s ~~ z~ ~O ~i ~ ~LTim ri~i~~~ DOp zy'A m C~ 2C 2 xQLnO~m°~ ti05 z,~m Z ~R ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ F~aF$~~ ~~~~G~ ~ z~ °~ y^P'm o_ ~ Dczi °yz~fzi ~m$m~~ I~rprt "~ ~~ ~iz ~l~!tt m ~o°Z~Zr'~" ~z~'~a ° w m m~ D y m; I= mIn Ll ~ S m 4 fl ~ C~ n iNNfa t~~ i°m ~_0 t''f3~m8Fi°~ Cnpm p~Q~S Y ~ ° O m ~ Z ~ n Z ~ ~ y N ~ ~ ~ ~ D $ ~ ~ ~ o ^ Ino ,rig ,~iim< y ~r~ oz 3~zi z~~mm ~~ Z _ i-_I~~ III-.•. -I ~~III li- ii- I I M I IIII ~' ~ ~ V 4~ a p a ~ I ~ q e ~~ i-I_ Ili II:~-11~~-~11 ~ I _ =i1-_- - ~III~ ~'I I ~ I I Nti (Cl Om ~ =0 mp -13 AOT< tiv ~ iy^ F 3 >y2~ L1 0~2= ~~T~G yy~~ ~~~ 8g pp~~mo O~F> ~T ~ m =V0 F ~m-I 'm tiCF~~^ In O my~ R Ems ~ ~80 ~ ~y y x~ gg~ ~a mQ~ -a1A2v yymC PO g OF,~i F~ g ,~~~ ~ ~~3 ~ 5G m ~a F ~r7, .. iiios -I c$i~?m Pm ~,.pm pz gP : ~~ ~o E~~pF ~m° ~ F,~y ° g Q x~v~° c8 ~~ii ~ ~F S ~~ F? ~ ~m~ °~io m~aFpO 3 ~ ~ ~O zrxm i olnp~~ ' ~°n 6 pv ~~~ ~;O i<~~p `e r S~ A; OoCZi° ~3~ 5°$~S a y ~Q 30 80~~ 00~ a~Pp~p~ rR of ~~ ~ T x~ m~~0 O m ~n~ ~m ~1 O Z I HEREBY ~RT1FV THAT THIS PLAN, SPEQFICATION, O0. REPORT ~~ p A m ~ N ~ WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRER SUPERVLADN • ~ ~ - ~ LAND USE APPLICATION FOR CITY OF ELK RIVER ANDTHATIAMADULVLIlFNSED LANDSOIPEARCHITER r i p UNDER THE LAWS OF THE SPATE OF MINNESOTA ~ " Z ELK RIVER LANDFILL PRIMNMIE: JEFFERYM®OWELL O ~ ~ SHERBURNE COUNTY, MINNESOTA ,/j/(/{/~/J ~`l(~~(,(~~f~.(~ I"` a g 9GNATURE: ~ /I, / - • °n LANDSCAPE DETIALS JrzE/os uc. No. axsaD • 3 e$ti m r-Ii DATE: • • • ~~` t ~`~ '° ~.. ~:, ~ -~ ~~ ~ ,- ~ ~~ I ~`_~ 1 s w A N O O W (D U'I s D -. ~ .; _ - ~~\~ ~ ~ ._ 1. 1 ~iV`~ {{ Al ~' ~-. ~~~~ti~.~*,,ti ~~ .. ~ ~i t i = -... ._. ~. ~ .._., _ .-. . - I .. - P ... ~ d -° °__ -. ~ 1 aF ~~ ~, 1 ,.,. ~ ~ ~ t _ .. -- F ~t ~ r ~ I ~ ~a` _ .~ `''°~ 1 / s' ~^,.w.:,~° .d ~;~ '~~ ~ yam` ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ '~ ~ a ? [ 1 7 ~ a. .- ~ { I I ~ ~2~ ° ~, µ:~ l ~ : ~ ~ I J /ice-- - .,~'il,~".:.-. ~ .~. ~ ~ _ I ~ _ ~ _ _ a `- o : "- _ ~_ ` tl ~~ 1 ' ~~ ~~~.~ -.. ~ i~ - -- - -- Sao -- , `' v f ~_ ~ ~ i ~ = # f »~ i , .~ .,~ ~, fl ~ ~ ~- \~. 1 _ tir `~, `- ,I al. ' ~ 'LI. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ f" I t l ~ ,' I , ~ r n 1 ~ 1 I f .. ~' 1 'j: ~ f.I . 1' fi Inoue 1 / ~~ t~ ~ f/ r tl )III!€II i ~ ~ r ^.' 1 ~ ~--~ f 1 ~a 1 a ~;/ ~ ~ ~~ J uo , , ^ , I \ /f I I mo t l,.~ ,' I a ~ t t i `~ I ~ ~ 1 I I , ~ i I ' I II "~ i I 1 r ~ S t I ~ I _. ~. r F~+~ r+, ~ -_ ~~~ ~V, 3 I ~ ,~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ ~ - _ ___ =- ~ __ ,~ _ e~ .~ ,_ _ - ~._ __ - - k ~ - .~ . ----_.__ ~y. ._-. -- ~ -- _ W~ _ ;'i may... ...._. _ ..... _-. ^""~, _..... m ..a.. w `" - - _ ..P ..... a_ < ~ C: C A OD~ ~ ~mn ~ co Ama j;T m~; z a=o ~ Q~vm o ~_< ~~; 10 yO~ mnm N yN g~mn ~o A mn0 ~~A ;C:y Amt NOS AA{ ' yN O N m- ,,c III 4.~ ,ei- o r _~_-_ - -~-- H r ~ \ s r ~/ 4~ ~ : w. .t ,. 4 r,~ ~~ ~ (~ i I i i • • I~ ~ ~ !~ a $ v ~ m ; f rn ~ X O m O F O r VI rAi in V t/1 < C ~ O A p ~ r A Z y rn ~ r -~ tl m O S I !- m n ~ y n ti O 2 s m ~ ~ ~ g ~ g ~ c ~ z < y ~ m m O A O A py~ y C !~f N m N _ ; Y Z 3 m - ~ ~ Wenc •enck Associates. Inc. 1800 Pkzlaer Gaak Center 17631 e79•~200 En~rironmental Services Yapk PIOiI. NN 55359 Foz: f763~ ~79.42e2 ptOJ[Ci LAND USE APPLICATION FOR CITY OF ELK RIVER ELK RIVER LANDFILL SHERBURNE COUNTY, MINNESOTA PREPARED FOR ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. $NEET TITLE SUBWATERSHED MAP OATE~NARCN, 2009 REVISIONS DATE OWN JWT CHK'0 APP'O 0 O O 0 Q N Q 7 cw N N O O A (] D • • • ~~, ~<A 1 ~ pp po ~~An \\\, \\\~~•".\ Orw ~ Nm0 In ' a °• ~ aa°^ a tiv°° ~ yy11O~ rNn ~y rs-rAwrn 1 :A< `.,,a `... a`+ .~, ~Q'fV O ADO r^_O _1s ~, ~ 4 ~~ raw. pp A V ~ t •'''.~ 1 ~~\\ 9 ~4 AF rnA s7 1 ~O °`*: .~ Syr !°. ~j v~~ 1 phi ~, ~~~ ~ ..'~- :``~, ~ ;:~!.-'gy'p^'~,,,,g2io~ - . ~ " AG ~ sYri :. 1 ~ .. rCf s0 O~ KO ~ ~ •~ ,- °~' 1 b r ,` ~ ~ rgi r r A 1'r -,~~~`~,~, ~ ~. _. ~ ~ / i~. .w _ ,.~ e 1 ~ `~ ` , 1 ®a. '" f t ~ ~ .." o \ '~ 1 ! ~~ _ ._„ ,., / I j ~T `vi.<''f ~ 1 ~; u ..- .- -. ~ ~~ .." , m _ , f ~ -«., ~ - - ..... w ' ~ °-°- ~~ t / 4 ~ 1 ~ _ A z r. a ~. 8 1, ~ ~ ~% ~#j ~ ~ ti ~~'~~ 'I • ~ ~ ~q .,, ~..... 1t1 1 ~, 7j \~. i II I ~l~,^., ~.. ,,, ~ ll~ l~j~ ~ n ~q~ -i~.. 1f~ /~~°''~'~~ fI~ ` .i 7f, 1 . ~~ „~ ~- ~. ~~ ~ ~ no 1 \i. ~1. g 1 17}1~~\'~I}SI11 ~ ~ I I I ~~ / "" /i°" ' I i l~jli'll I:% 1 '1 s . ~ ino 1 ..,._,.. _s - . j /j~°jj ft~ .Iii! ljlJ r! 1 ~ ~ _ ._ ._ _ ._ - r i - _ _. _ _ a, , ~'~ :. g 4 a ~ ti ~ 1 "b., ~wb .~. m m ~&770'~ ~v It'. ADOO 1 ....__...._...,....~...~h~.... a -m ~ Av '' ~ KZyA10 ~-.a.... ~~ ~ *' ~.~ ~ / ~ 9 -O 1 ~ .~ ~ r ~ s V f12 ~ '*~~..„YF j ~.\ ~ 1.~~ a< _ 1 .. SC ~` ~` i /` ~y a,~~~--e ~..~ a ~~;, r 1 _ ~ I / ~ ~~.e......__.....,......_._...... _ m .,.,. .. ~ i~ ~ ~ 1 I ~„_.._ .. ,. ,,_. ~~ 1 ~ ~~/ ~~ O.IXSL _. - ~ ~ ~rre. ~~ ~- 0.1% SLOPE ......~...... ~....~.._ w_..._„ / l •< ~ i r ' o 0 ~ o I ! ~i !~ ~ ~ s ~ i= i ~ i It'. ~~~ ''~ ~t iiI tip 1 ;T ~+p ~~ ° ~i' ~~ t;i y ~ '.t~`~ Q 1 ~ ~ 3 fc'1 g 11 I I ti .r~..+'~' !~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ .~ - .~- --X { '~A~' i _ .mom ,• _ .•-~ r ~. _ - .__. ».» -- ^- ;-~ ,.. ,. _, ~ a., ..._ r - . ...- -.. -" ~_ -_ .~ ~ ... ,. _. _ 9 s V A V 1A 9 ~\~ i O AA ~ N > ZN ~~ N~ r n ~ ~ r0 A m v OA ~ pp C~ _ ~N pp pp N CA 1A0 ~ INn'Cp ~ y A9 yCj ` A O Z AO ='~ K~ Ke'f K O ~ N O ~~ ~ OZ A "~V Qo 20 Z Irl w~ NV1 N r I O ~ y j N inCnn is1e .9A K t K~ > pp N N m ~ ~i i v ~ N -i N D ~ s Orn A ~ y A < mC;y A SOU -+ Nm~ m CCO AO V C <;m ~ mi. A Z oW ~O ~ (yy~mm O AZ ti ; z ~ mr0r~ NyN ZNp A ~n0 m~D rWimO A• Z N A~j • yN O ~N 1 ^ T nQ~o.- o ~ J ~ / _,,.,. _ . _.. _ _..~,.., i ` ~ -"""'. "' ~i ! r ~ - i ~~~~' -~" _ \ , ~ .» ~ t ~ ~ , i ~~ a ~ -~~ N sN~ y ApQO4a ENV ~ m ~~Xj 2N ~z ~°u e~i~ ~nr°~r~nZ. ° 'o ~.., ~v j O Z A~ ~ ry r x g~ A y O v ~ H 1 ~ '~ I N 9 ~ • ~ ~ I~ ' (~ A A A A € A A C ; F m ~ x m ° ~ ° ° rn O F O ? rn x m in v v v < v o ~ ~ m m N O m Z y ~ m Z r ~ r m O m O O r i O N n i y cl = rn f l n + ~ y ~ A O o m 2 m O O N A c ~ a m r_ 7T{ n E g Z o O F ; ~ A r i O A 1 N C r' A p p ti m C1 9 D < m O m -~ m A O Z A ° "q ~ o n g A b ~ ZZ ~ v N N y y ~ n ~ ~ 9 R y ,'2 ~-Z~~1a- i 1-1 N ~~~~ ~ LANG USE APPLICATION Wenck FOR CITY OF ELK RIVER SNEET TITLE REVISIONS GATE ELK RIVER LANDFILL DRAINAGE PLAN "' € ~ SHERBURNE COUNTY, MINNESOTA Msnck Associates. Ino. 1800 Pionser Gsek Cenlsr t7631179•a200 PREPARED FOR ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. EnQfneerfna apd 11apN Pfon. NN 55359 Foxy f7637 s79-a2s2 DATE~wARCN, 2009 pwN 3wT CNK'D APP'0 nvironmants Services 0 rn 0 N 1 N 0) n _rt C7• D W N N O O (D O D • • • ELEVATION IN FEET ~nln~oooooo~-~ a m m o N a m m o N 0000000000 O N II o II O i~ PROPERTY FINE w 0 . ' o i I a o I I I I I ~ N O I ~ I I I °o I ,i r m~ °o N I O{I O'~ O O n .~ N N O I o N m n ~ c ~ n o Z = O rn D Z m G ~~ ° 0 ~, 0 ° O O m ° ° O ° N °o O 0 •Imcpp~~ N N Ilt 9fh °o Im Ar' II~~ 1u1~= NpN ~o~ N T W ` OI O I `~ N °o I I PRO 1P1~Eu,1pRpTY ' O FJ'y.~ < cl AI N ~A 71 V, I~ y n m o i yo : I ' X > N IMF n I '^ o <rn A I. y I N Z ~ N I fn a p,0 10 In ~ -. -. ~ ~ ~ ~ D O+m00000' -`~ O O O O N a Ol m O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ELEVATION IN FEET 0 / ~~ ' ` o o I a - ~ ~ '. I~ ~ N °o I` I ~ ~ ~ PR~ERTT l,~,NFi _____ _ w __r,~ __________ __ _~___~.______ ; , o ° ...., :.. .. ..... ...... .... 2,~19nA '=A$ a ~ v o ~_~~ I .. r,>~o ~ ` ~ ' ~ ^ ~ ' ~N ~ p N ~ Y I~ ~ fn ~ I I 1 I I' ~~ ' ~ rp o I I a~ :NO I ~~ ~ z : 00 _.I 1 \ 1 ~ y I~ o ~ r I. ~ I ~\. I ~° ~ sr 1 L' I ~ 0 O r \, , : I O ,... I N O ....I.. ..... ........~.. ... .. ...... I II ~ 0 1 .I . C z a ~ " ~ r c~ ~ I ~ m~ O O N 1 o I I_ ~s ] 0 I~ ]~Ar Dln9 ..C IA I~~ ~ s$., / 9Z N N N ~~ >E~$. O 1 ~~-rln ..r>, O r~smv ~ Ib' m ] N ts/Y /ESN I A ` a -~ :. .. .. I< o r,m \ ~ s N \ tiN a _I °o I ~.L.x.~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ PROP~RTY LINE ~. < --T------- --- ra I a ti ~ N ~o I L s~ 0 x I ~, Gni : O N I O, Z I ~ 11 ~, N X o ~ ... °a ~ m 1° m ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~_ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ELEVATION IN FEET ELEVATION IN FEET r m ~ o ~ v w a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,~ N y n 0 A O l7 v o eY N ~ 1 r r y ~ A py Z p .~ r m r ~+ N ~ y ~ , ~`~ i '~~ ~ • I ~ ai m rn ~ Ian ~ I r ~ r r r ~ ~ : ~ N N a Cc~~ Cs c ~ ~ C I AI ~ ~ AAs I ~ _~~~~ N r ~ O REVISIONS ....,.._. LAND USE APPLICATION ~ FOR CITY OF ELK RIVER SHEET TITLE ~ Wenc ELK RIVER LANDFILL CROSS-SECTION A ~ ~ SHERBURNE COUNTY, MINNESOTA xenok Aseoclslae. Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center <7631 679.200 PREPARED FOR ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. Environmental Bn`inaers Yopk Pb'vI, NH 55359 Fox~tl631 s79-s2~2 DATE~MARCH, 2009 !L~.x.x__._~ DaTE OWN JWT CrK'0 APP'D r it ~ +~ r ~` ~~ ~~~ ~~_',~~ ~I~'~ '~,,,~~ "~ ~ operty Designated , `~ ~-~~ ~~~ ~° . N , r, '~i ,€~s~i~ :~ ,%~-~~j~ ,E~ ;<fortheSDA +~" n ~ ,3 ~- ~ b Z ~ r ,~ ~ '~ ~. 1 169 ~ ~ a Y, S rr.j ~ 1 e ,~ y, ~ ~.. ~ •® ~,C ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~'~ ~-*~,,' ~;,~ cif ~/'~.. ~ ! .~, i =. ~'i~x cwt 4 ~ .,~ ~` ,. ~ I I~ a~ ~' l~. ~ ~~ ~~r °~iE ~ <~.~ '~, i ~~~ .3..Wr ~ .. ~ ~ i~ ~ ~. ~? ~,,,~~ ~ i ~,^_ _ ~ y, r~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~~ ryi `~ ~~~ ,k' y ` ~'~, ~ i r ~~ r_ '~ ~ ~ • s ~ f .,, ~ ,c ~ ~ 1 S A . . a ~ ..~~~ 22 veNW ~ ~'~ ~ .~_ ~ > ~ ~ - - ~' *~1~ ~ P t ~~" ~ ~~:k 1 ~ y' ~~ ~~~ )h ,p r ~ ^~e rig ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~. ~~.~~~~~ - - ~ ~~ ~ ~' ., 1)900 ~ ~:, ~ o; ~ { R l ' y a~ ~ - .. ~ ~ : ~~ '~ ' ~ ~` ~ e' ~ ~ t # a~. # _ I ~E ,~: b ,~, ~~ ~''~ ~f f O ,fi, `=1 uu n~St HVa ,_ a I ~ " a - °°' t ~~EA Y 1e ., 'il to ~ ~~~~ ~~" . ,.> }d t ""M1^'•u `~ S' ~' ., ~. ~. _,~ '~ ` ,. .. E _ ,r . - .,.. ,. ~ ^~e . ~, ~ ~ `,~.~ -. a ~ r ~ ~J~ i ~~. ' r ~ ~.. ~ f f 1~'`a'~`''„,~'^._.,~,s -~:~. ~~~a.~"~-waste ~.~ ~,$ "Z y r~~ ~J(r t~~ `" ~~ ,y s ~~ >. t>, , s " j"r, ~ t~p ~ ~ ~I f ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ a. , tT / .'L 'F ~r ff ryY r f/ .r ,,.~ .~~ ~ ~ W ;. ,x. ~ , ~ I ~.,~ ~ ~ r t 1 ~ ti ,,tr J .~ _ ~,~ ,~ ~. ~ _. ~._ ~ ~ , ° _ _ ~..,~ ., ~ . ~ r ,. 6~ ~a .- y ~s~ ~~-" ~- .,,(~ ~ ~ ~~ ' .vim - ~ue°~s~.j?~{ i ~4 ,~ s'` - ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~-. ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ M~~ ~ ~ '^" ~ `'' ~ '°~ -~ ' ~~ " t'~" ~~ .µ `'~ ~ tea, - ~+~`` ~ t' ~ ~... g -tt n ~~'~ a t` ~ °F~ ~~P a ~ .~" ~` ~ ~ ' _ ;~ • Photo 1. View of SDA looking south from southern edge of existing MSW landfill Photo 2. View of SDA looking northwest from intersection of TH 169/221St Ave Photo 3. View of SDA looking west from intersection of TH 169/221St Ave • Photo 5. View of SDA from 221St Ave looking north ~...,-4 ~ ,.....,. ~- - ~-- - _. ,~.. • Photo 4. View of SDA from 2215` Ave looking northwest • • ~:: `,,. `; „~ ~~~ ~ :~ y.. ~. ~~ u ,~. M. e.~ ,. Photo 7. View of SDA from 221st Ave looking northeast at City Trail, wetland & wooded buffer Photo 6. Hot mix asphalt plant (SE corner of SDA) Photo 8. View of SDA from Quinn St NW looking west $~~ ~ ~ a • Photo 10. View of SDA from parcel 75-104-4100 • • Photo 9. View of existing MSW landfill from parce175-104-4100 • _' `• a. ~~. ~VUK.. . „ - _.. i~.. ~ ~ Imo, ^" ~ Photo 11. View of SDA from Ridges of Rice Lake Trail fi: ws .~ ,#~.: • Photo. 12 View of SDA from Ridges of Rice Lake (corner of Tipton and 223`d ) • Description of View Rendering Process • The perspective views of the proposed landfill were created using a combination of AutoCAD, SketchUp, and Adobe Photoshop computer programs. The AutoCAD linework and topo information for each landfill development phase timepoint was brought into SketchUp to create an accurate three dimensional model of what the landfill will look like during each rendered expansion phase of the project. This model included accurate tree heights and the accurate size and shape of the proposed landfill expansion timepoints. Once the SketchUp model was finished, views of the model were created and brought into Photoshop. Photos of the landfill site and a variety of trees were overlaid onto the SketchUp model in Photoshop to provide a °real" image of the perspective graphics. e • Legend • Current ~;k Rver Landfill Property Boundary Future Expansion Landfill Property Line Existing Planimetrics New Facilities Full Access Intersection (Proposed) ONOff Ramps (Proposed) ~w~ Two-Way Local Road (Proposed/Reconstructed} Mainline TH 169 (Proposed/Reconstructed} Bridge (Proposed) Phases Active Area Final Closed MSW Cell Boundaries ~,'; ~. $ .~ . ~{ ,a t Y m`q t 6 b ~ ~ s .^' , $ ~` • • • Cell 18 Expansion - 2071 Cell 21 Expansion - 2017 Cell 25 Expansion - 2033 ~_: ~<~. ~_ ~~t- __ N'4w-; to ua~v.- ::lit' ...~ nitir~",t '~~,Y, - _ R~~ ,,, _~ x _. ~ ' ~~' ~: ,~ ~~~~ ~~ ~_~ ._ - - _~~pF. _ ~. t.:~ Cell 21 Expansion - 2017 F~ w ~.. r ~~ ~ ~1h ~ , F 1 . • . r .,. - - .I1fr~ r ~ ._., •e r ~. t .. `'~er P ~i.TS~°. t 'tl ..v I b Ol,..Y +~..rY..e ...: Cell 25 Expansion - 2033 • • • Cell 18 Expansion - 2011 dell 18 Expansion - 2011 }. ~ '~ a. ~ ~. . - ~ ~..rn. ~+- ~'p- _L~ ~~ wv ~~ _~ ~y~-, ., -%.~~ ~: ~ ~. • • • Cell 21 Expansion - 2017 Cell 25 Expansion - 2033 • • • Cell 18 Expansion - 2071 Cell 21 Expansion - 2017 Cell 25 Expansion - 2033 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater generated by the landfill modification will be controlled on-site. Runoff will be controlled and routed by drainage terraces, gabion lined downslope structures, and two sedimentation basins as shown in the drawings. Drainage routing features have all been sized adequately to minimize erosion from the site. Stormwater generated from the site will be discharged via a storm sewer system, under the exterior roadway to the north end of the proposed expansion, then west under the City Trail into a wetland upstream of the Rice Lake wetland complex. The discharge point will be onto property owned by Waste Management, Inc. The new sedimentation basins (P-1 and P-2) are located around the perimeter of the site at the southwest corner (P-1) and southeast corner (P-2) side of the southern development area (SDA). • HydroCAD-Stormwater Modeling, using the SCS Curve Number method, was used to calculate run-off hydrographs for the final landfill configuration. To determine surface water run-off for this analysis, the landfill was divided into subwatersheds depending on the contributing drainage areas. Subwatershed areas are shown on Figure 1. Peak flows from the subwatersheds were calculated for 2, 10, 25, 100-year, 24-hour storm events of 2.7, 4.2, 4.7, and 5.9-inches respectively along with a 2.5-inch storm. Run-off curve numbers of 77, 80, and 100 were used for the landfill top, sides and ponded water in the sedimentation basin respectively. Time of concentration was computed using hydraulic distance and flow velocity according to NRCS Hydrology Guide for Minnesota. Calculated time of concentration values were entered into the HydroCAD model as direct entry. These runoff calculations are used as inputs in sizing the various components of the surface water management system discussed below. • I:\3230\323008001\Reports\Application\Drainage Calculations -Surface Water Management.doc Gabion Lined Downslope Structures Runoff from each subwatershed is routed by drainage terraces to gabion lined downslope structures. All downslope structures have been designed to handle the peak flow generated by the corresponding watershed. Figure 2 shows the location of each downslope structure. Calculations provided below and in the model output show the range of velocity and computed water depth for flows during the 25 year, 24 hour event for the following input parameters: Bed Slo e: 33% Bottom Width: 8 feet Left & Ri ht Sideslo e: 3H:1V Mannin s n: 0.035 STRUCTURE SEGMENT PEAK Q CFS FLOW DEPTH FT FLOW VELOCITY FT/SEC 1 U er 33.2 0.36 10.2 1 Lower 46.2 0.48 10.2 2 U er 21.4 0.27 9.0 2 Lower 26.4 0.35 8.4 3 U er 21.7 0.27 9.0 3 Lower 25.9 0.33 8.8 4 U er 19.6 0.30 7.4 4 Lower 22.7 0.31 8.3 5 U er 36.3 0.38 10.6 5 Lower 51.6 0.45 12.3 6 U er 25.9 0.31 9.5 6 Lower 36.1 0.37 10.6 7 U er 24.0 0.29 9.4 7 Lower 31.8 0.3 8 9.1 8 U er 26.8 0.33 9.0 8 Lower 74.5 0.61 12.3 Based on the expected velocities, each downslope structure will be lined with rock gabions mats. Energy will be dissipated upstream of access path crossings with a line of gabions perpendicular to flow and at the toe of the slope. Flow will be forced to flow over the gabions and dissipate on gabion splash pads. • • • I:~3230~323008001~Reports~.Application~Drainage Calculations -Surface Water Management.doc • Sedimentation Basins The proposed modification design consists of two sedimentation basins. Sedimentation basin P-1 is proposed on the southwest corner of the site between 221St Avenue North and the landfill. P-1 will accept the runoff from the western half of the modification including downslope structures (DS-5, DS-6, DS-7, and DS-8) and stormwater discharge outlet from sedimentation basin P-2. Runoff from DS-5, DS-6, DS-7, and DS-8 will be routed to an open channel on the west side of the landfill. Flow from the open channel will be routed along the western side of the landfill and under the maintenance road through a 60" RCP before discharging into P-1. An 18" CPEP outlet pipe from P-1 will control stormwater run-off discharge. Details of the outlet structure are shown on the drawings. P-2 is a proposed sedimentation basin on the southeast corner of the SDA between 221St Avenue North and the landfill. P-2 will accept the runoff from the eastern half of the modification including downslope structures (DS-1, DS-2, DS-3, and DS-4). A 12" CPEP outlet pipe will transfer water into sedimentation basin P-1 before stormwater is routed off-site. Details of the outlet structure are shown on the drawings. The design parameters for the sedimentation basins are listed below: Bottom Top Elevation Inlet Outlet Total Storage Pond Elevation (ft) (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Ca aci (ac-ft P-1 986 998 989 957 17.6 P-2 1006 1020 1010 908.5 25.1 • Ia3230\323008001\Reports\Application\Drainage Calculations -Surface Water Managemen[.doc Routing the 25-year, 24-hour storm event through the sedimentation basins provides the • following information. Sedimentation basins design incorporates sediment storage equal to 0.5 inch from the final landfill cover. Peak Peak Peak Top Initial Peak Storage From Pond Inflow (cfs) Outflow (cfs) Elevation Elevation Storage (ac- Storm (ac-ft) (ft) (ft) ft) P-1 171 7.4 995.8 998 2.5 12.9 P-2 161 6.1 1013.5 1020 3.0 8.4 The calculations above demonstrate that the sedimentation basins manage the runoff from a 25 year 24 hour event with over 2-feet of freeboard in P-1 and over 6-foot of freeboard in P-2 therefore; the design of the sedimentation basins is acceptable. Routing the 100 yr-24 hr storm event through the storm water system results in the following: Peak Peak Peak Top Initial Peak Storage From Pond Inflow (cfs) Outflow (cfs) Elevation Elevation Storage (ac- Storm (ac-ft) ft) (ft) ft) P-1 213 9.4* 997.7 998 2.5 16.8 P-2 227 7.0 1014.8 1020 3.0 13.2 * 1.3 cfs is routed through an emergency overflow to the southwest wetland (0.40 ac-ft) The emergency overflow for Sedimentation Basin P-1 is utilized during the 100 year event, which is a standard design characteristic for sedimentation basins. The emergency overflow is not utilized during the 50 year event. Discharge from P-1 to the wetland west of the site has been designed to minimize impacts by limiting bounce in the wetland, restricting flow rates, and treating stormwater prior to discharge in accordance with Section D of Appendix A of the General Permit for Construction Activity. This wetland receiving discharge from the site currently has two existing channel outlets, both of which eventually drain into Rice Lake. The north channel outlet, currently located on property • Ia3230\32300g001\Reports\Application\Drainage Calculations -Surface Water Management.doc owned by Elk River Landfill will be utilized as the outlet channel for the southwest storm water • pond. The channel outlet will be re-excavated to match the elevation of the more southerly outlet to ensure that flows through the south outlet onto the adjoining property are not significantly increased from the exiting condition. The following table summarizes the existing and proposed 25-year flood conditions for the northwest wetland: Normal Water Elevation (ft 25-year Flood Elevation (ft) 25-Year Outlet Channel Flows (cfs) Existin 955.76 956.00 1.3 0.0 Pro osed 955.76 956.27 3.9 3.9 The General Permit for Construction requires wet sedimentation ponds discharge at no greater than 5.66 cfs/surface acre of pond for the water quality volume event (2.5-inches over 24-hours). The Pond 1 outlet limits discharge out of P-1 to 2.4 cfs for the 2.5" rainfall event. The surface area of the P-1 at the invert elevation (989.0') is 43,473 ft2. The resulting ratio is 2.4 cfs/surface acre of pond which is less than the requirement of 5.66 cfs/surface acre of pond and is in accordance with Part IILC. l .c of the General Permit for construction activity. • I:\3230\323008001\Itepor[s\Application\Drainage Calculations -Surface Water Management.doc • Elk River Landfill End Use Master Plan Update • ilk River, Minnesota March, 2009 • • Elk River Landfill, Inc. End Use Plan Prepared by: URS March 2009 • • • Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 A. Background ........................................................................................................... 1 B. Presentation of Information (2002 and 2008) ....................................................... 2 2002 END USE PLANNING PROCESS 1. Participants - 2002 ...................................................................................................... 4 2. 2002 End Use Planning .............................................................................................. 5 A. Background ........................................................................................................... 5 B. Approach and Methodology .................................................................................. 5 C. Inventory and Analysis/Forces and Issues ............................................................ 6 D. Major Land Use/Zoning ........................................................................................ 6 3. 2002 Concept Plan Alternatives .............................................................................. 10 1. Proposed Development 1-A: Landscape Restoration .......................................... 10 2. Proposed Development 1-B: Landscape Restoration .......................................... 10 3. Proposed Development 2: Recreational .............................................................. 15 4. Proposed Development 3: Commercial/City Park .............................................. 15 4. 2002 End Use Plan Recommendations ................................................................... 22 5. 2002 Landscape Scheme .......................................................................................... 25 Zone A: Restoration ................................................................................................... 25 Zone B: Restoration/Enhancement ............................................................................. 25 Zone C: Passive Recreation/Enhancement ................................................................. 26 Zone D: Reforested .................................................................................................... 26 6. 2002 End Use Phasing .............................................................................................. 27 2008 END USE PLANNING PROCESS 1. Participants - 2008 .................................................................................................... 31 2. 2008 End Use Planning ............................................................................................ 32 A. Background ......................................................................................................... 32 B. Approach and Methodology ................................................................................ 32 C. Inventory and Analysis/Forces and Issues .......................................................... 33 D. Land Use Categories/Existing Zoning ................................................................ 36 3. 2008 Concept Plan Alternatives .............................................................................. 39 1. 2008 Proposed Concept Plan 1: Green ............................................................... 39 2. 2008 Proposed Concept Plan 2: Recreation ....................................................... 43 3. 2008 Proposed Concept Plan 3: Energy ............................................................. 46 i 4. 2008 Proposed Concept Plan 4: Off-Site City Park ........................................... 50 5. 2008 Landscape Scheme • .......................................................................................... 52 Zone A: Restoration ................................................................................................... 53 Zone B: Restoration/Enhancement ............................................................................. 53 Zone C: Passive Recreation and Enhancement .......................................................... 53 Zone D: Reforested .................................................................................................... 53 Zone E: Park Development ........................................................................................ 53 6. 2008 End Use Phasing .............................................................................................. 55 • ii Introduction • The Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL) intends to continue development of their facility to the south, into an area commonly referred to as the South Development Area (SDA). This End Use Plan has been developed to present a series of conceptual end use possibilities to the Elk River City Council. The end use ideas presented in this document are for the property that includes the existing facility, as well as the SDA, and are based on a series of end use related meetings held in 2002 and 2008 with members of the Elk River community as further described herein. The end use information included in this plan was developed following a series of meetings to determine the needs and desires of the surrounding community, first in 2002 and then again in 2008. End use discussions with the City of Elk River for the existing facility and continued development into the SDA initially started back in 2001 with discussions with the City of Elk River staff. These discussions then evolved into a series of meetings in early 2002 with members of surrounding community, including Livonia Township. Following the completion of the process in 2002, an End Use Master Plan was developed that reflected the end use vision chosen by the stakeholders group. The concepts developed during the 2002 end use planning process, as well as the final plan recommendations from the 2002 process are included as part of this document. Then in early 2008, as the ERL began preparing to formally submit an application to the City of Elk River for the continued development onto the SDA, the 2002 end use planning materials were reviewed. However, based on discussions ERL had with City of Elk River staff and City • Council members, the ERL determined that the end use documents prepared in 2002 may need to be updated to better reflect the desires of the City and the vision the City has for the Highway 169 corridor. Thus, end use discussions were reinitiated in early 2008 with a meeting between the ERL and City staff. Following this meeting with City staff, the ERL worked with URS to take the information gained in their discussions with City Council Members and City staff and developed three sets of conceptual layouts to reflect these discussions. These conceptual plans were then presented to City staff, and after a few additional modifications, the three conceptual plans were presented the City's Parks and Recreation Commission. Over several months in the summer of 2008, the ERL modified these conceptual drawings based on comments and questions from members of the Parks and Recreation Commission. During discussions with the Parks and Recreation Commission an additional concept was added to the three originally developed, which included the ERL developing a park at an off-site location. The four end use concepts developed during the 2008 end use planning process are included as part of this document. At the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on November 12, 2008, the Parks and Recreation Commission reaffirmed the vision the stakeholders had in 2002 by again recommending the end use plan selected in 2002; thus their recommendation is that the future end use for the facility be a combination of passive recreational use with some commercial opportunity at the intersection of Highway 169 and 221St Avenue. • Presentation of Information (2002 and 2008) The information presented in this End Use Plan includes information from the End Use Master • Plan dated September 2002, developed following the end use planning process in 2002. The information presented outlines the process followed, the conceptual designs developed, as well as the final end use design as determined by the stakeholders. This End Use Plan also includes the information developed during the end use planning process done in 2008, including the end use designs, descriptions and backgrounds associated with the designs developed, and the final end use design as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. • 2 2002 End Use Planning Process Participants - 2002 City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Planning Staff Michele McPherson, Director of Planning Chris Leeseberg, Park Planner Park Commission Duane Peterson Tim Sladek Dawn Polston-Hork Dave Anderson Tom Dewall David Briggs John Kuester Jim Nystrom Livonia Township 11162 265th Ave. Zimmerman, MN 55398 • Board Members John Ortberg Don Sherper Elk River Landfill (Waste Management) 22460 Highway 169 NW Elk River, MN 56013 Debra Dehn (Walters), District Manager Debra McDonald, Project Manager Consultants - URS Corp. Planning and Urban Design Department 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1210 Augustine Wong, RLA, Project Manager Richard Koechlein, RLA, Task Manager Julie Klamar, Graphic Designer • 4 2002 End Use Planning • During the work sessions with stakeholders conducted in 2002, the overall vision for the closed Facility was as passive recreational use with some commercial opportunity at the intersection of Highway 169 and 221 sr Avenue. Other items of note from the 2002 planning sessions included: • when full closure of the facility is achieved it is anticipated that some of the existing structures could be reused as recreational and/or educational facilities • final elevations would likely fluctuate over time due to gravitational and natural causes, but would likely stabilized after twenty five years, thus it would be beneficial for the end use plan to be flexible To achieve this vision it was recommended that the City and the ERL work together to develop potential trail locations, landscape grading, and a revegetation scheme. It would also be beneficial for the City and the ERL to maintain along-term working relationship regarding future end use plans. The following describes the process conducted in 2002 that arrived at the overall vision described above. Background The intent of the 2002 planning effort was to assist the ERL in their desire to work with the community to develop an end use plan for the facility. The information compiled as part of this work could also be used to develop an end use plan that may be required as part of future re- • licensures. The 2002 End Use Master Plan was developed as a community effort and the stakeholders were comprised of the following: • City of Elk River Planning Staff • City of Elk River Parks and Recreation Commission • Livonia Township • Elk River Landfill Approach and Methodology In 2002, the planning and design process was established as apro-active approach by having all the above stakeholders involved from the beginning through completion of the final master plan. The methodology used to develop a final plan centered on completing several phases. The first phase of the process started in 2002 was to understand the facility, its operation, technical parameters, infrastructure, landfill end use precedents and other related base information. The second activity required stakeholders to be familiar with the site opportunities and constraints through site observation and walk through. After that, a third activity, which was a design working session, was scheduled to brainstorm concept ideas as well as formulating a vision for this plan. Several plans were generated and presented to the stakeholders following this third activity back in 2002. The final activity conducted during the 2002 process was • developing a final plan to incorporate comments and input from the stakeholders. This plan was developed and finalized in September 2002. • Inventory and Analysis /Forces and Issues As described in the 2002 End Use Master Plan, the ERL is located on the northern edge of the City's boundary and Highway 169 runs north/south along its eastern edge. Current use of the existing facility is an active landfill and vehicle access is from Highway 169 at the intersection of 225th Avenue. The SDA, located adjacent and to the south of the existing facility, currently includes a commercial asphalt plant and gravel mine, both of which are operating facilities, and accessible via 221St Avenue. A horse and hiking trail runs along the western edge of the site. Adjacent to the northern boundary of the existing MSW portion of the ERL is Livonia Township. Highway 169, 221St Avenue, and the hiking trail along the west side of the site provide convenient motorized and non-motorized access to the site. These access points make the site easily accessible and visible. Although automobile access is easily achievable from Highway 169 at this time, future access needs to be modified based on Mn/DOT plans for the area and to insure user safety. The hiking trail along the west side of the ERL has the potential to link the site to the City's trail system. Views from the top elevation in all directions are very commanding. To the west, the Rice Lake wetland complex offers nature views and on a clear day, downtown Minneapolis skyline can be easily seen to the southeast. Mature groves of a mixture of deciduous and evergreen native trees form the eastern edge, screening Highway 169. Mature vegetation also forms the western edge, adjacent to the hiking trail. • Major Land Use/Zoning According to the City of Elk River Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1995, the existing land use for the existing facility is "landfill" and it is zoned "agricultural conservation" with "mineral excavation" and "solid waste facility". The description of the area contained in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan identifies the site characteristics as patches of wooded areas with slopes in excess of 7%. The existing unpaved hiking path will be paved in the future. The Comprehensive Plan identified the mature vegetation, steep topography, and recreational use both as opportunities and constraints for development. The wooded area, though moderately restrictive to development, when incorporated into the design of the project could be a natural asset. The area to the south of the existing facility that is slated for continued development of the ERL is currently shown as "mining" land use and it is zoned "agricultural." • 6 I L~~4 • ' ~~ 3r ,a > ~3 EF :r ~~ sJ6" ~~' a... Picture View 10 Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update " Site Photos 0 soo tooo Ft. ~ February, 2009 Picture View 3 Pic°dure View ~ Picture View 1 Picture View 5 Picture t'iew 6 Picture View 4 Picture View 9 Picture View 8 Picture View I2 Picture View 11 Picture View ? 2002 Concept Plan Alternatives This section is based on the result of the work done with the stakeholders back in 2002. The • concept plan alternatives provided a platform for the development of the 2002 recommended end use plan, which is presented in the following section. The concept plan alternatives were: 1. 2002 Proposed Concept Plan 1-A: Landscape Restoration 2. 2002 Proposed Concept Plan 1-B: Landscape Restoration 3. 2002 Proposed Concept Plan 2: Recreational 4. 2002 Proposed Concept Plan 3: Commercial/City Park Proposed Concept Plan 1-A: Landscape Restoration Goal: The goal of this concept is to restore the landscape environment with minimum contact by users. Features for this concept would include natural areas, a nature center, hiking trail and lookout pavilion. This concept would utilize the existing facility access and parking. Anew visitor/nature center or a renovated building would be located adjacent to the parking. A secondary access and parking would be located at the Commercial Asphalt and Co. Plant. A looping hiking trail, constructed on gravel base, would be developed that could also become a cross-country skiing trail. Lookout pavilion would be installed along the looping trail to take advantage of the various vistas. The areas at the top would be "sectioned out" to create "outdoor rooms" for different plant communities. A trail would connect these areas to the overall trail system as well as to the existing trail. The top elevation would also be gradually sloped to maximize the views. Native plants with spreading roots system should be used and in areas where needed, these plants should be planted in earthen berms to prevent root penetration to the subsurface membrane. Proposed Concept Plan 1-B: Landscape Restoration Goal: The goal of this concept is similar to 1-A which is to restore the landscape environment with minimum contact by users. Features of this concept would include natural areas, hiking trails, native plantings and lookout pavilions. This concept would utilize the existing access to the facility with parking. A second access road and parking would be located at the southern edge of the property off 221st Avenue. A looping trail would connect the lookout pavilions, which would be installed to maximize the views from the site. Earthen berms would be constructed to capture the geologic features of the region. Native plants would be planted with wild flowers and grasses on the berms and slopes, and overstory plants as buffer around the perimeter of the site. • 10 i• PLANTINGS TREE PLANTINGS/ BUFFER NATURAL PLANTINGS i• OVERLOOK NATIVE GRASSES/ WILDFLOWERS ON SLOPES OVERLOOK (TYP) CONNECT TO EXISTING TRAIL VISITOR CENTER TRAI L ACCESS TI REE PLANTINGS FPARKI NG N Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update o soo ioooFC. ~ Concept SF bPaan o 9 • S TREE PLANTINGS/ BUFFER NATURAL PLANTINGS OVERLOOK NATNE GRASSES/ WILDFLOWERS ON SLOPES OVERLOOK (TYP) CONNECT TO EXISTING TRAIL ~~ ~A I ,/ ~~ E N 0 500 1000 Ft. • PLANTINGS r ~„ IIh~ a~~~_ ~~~ ~ • Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update Concept Site Plan 1-A February 2009 VISITOR CENTER ACCESS • 1 TRAILS i~ i c ,•1 -I ,OOKOUT , ; ~~ I~ ~0 BERMING LOOKOUT PARKING PARKING ACCESS TRAILS BERMING LOOKOUT I ~F -- ~- j~~ ~ y (/. r%~ ~ St ~ ~lJj~~ ~ 1 ~- Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update Concept Plan 1-B February 2009 w w..~......~E~e... N 0 500 1000 Ft. ~~ 1 TRAILS i i ~I ;OOKOUT i i ~~€ BERMING f ~~~ LOOKOUT PARKING PARKING ACCESS TRAILS BERMING LOOKOUT I i~ ,~ W».oEME..: N U~ 0 500 1000 Ft. • "~ ° `"''°I~l~~ ~ Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update Concept Site Plan 1-B February 2009 Proposed Concept Plan 2: Recreational • Goal: The goal of this concept is to utilize open areas for active outdoor use. Features of this concept would include ballfields, sledding hill, batting cages, mountain bike trails, hiking trail/cross-country skiing trail, archery range and amphitheater. In addition, other features such as a golf course, driving range and a skate park could also be constructed. This concept would utilize the existing entrance road as its primary access to the site. Two gravel parking lots would be located at the top of the facility and another at the northern part of the site. Additional batting cages and a sledding hill would be located at the north end. An outdoor amphitheater would be located at the southern part of the site. The ballfields would be a combination of soccer and softball fields. An archery range could be developed at the western part of the site. These features would be connected with a looping trail and several lookout pavilions located at key points that would provide the best views from the site. Wildflowers and native grasses would be planted on the slopes and at all natural areas. Buffer planting would be planted around the perimeter. Proposed Concept Plan 3: Commercial/City Park Goal: The goal of this concept is to promote mix-use development that could generate income. • Features of this concept would include commercial, office or warehouse development, an amphitheater, a research office, informal play areas, hiking trails/cross-country skiing trails, lookout pavilion and horseback riding. This concept would utilize the existing access road to the Research Center as well as to the southern perimeter of the park. Two secondary access points would be developed at 221st Avenue. It is envisioned that this road would have a "parkway" character with two-lane road and on-street parking. The commercial site would be located at the existing Commercial Asphalt Co. and Plant to take advantage of the visibility from the highway. The main overlook would be located at the north end of the park and three trails would emanate from this site, creating a formal character to the trails. At trail intersections, earthen berm would be established to create outdoor seating and outdoor rooms. Other earthen berms would also be constructed to create an elevation change as well as to provide planting soil for the trees. A looping trail would be planned along the slopes and connected to the existing trail. Similar to the other concept plans, wildflowers and native grasses would be planted where applicable. Trees and shrubs would act as buffers along the perimeter. • 15 ~i `Ylll ~ i~ \' IIIII I '~l I " i "1 \• 1/~ \. 1-J ~ ~\ o f d o '~ --~~ ,k. -, t 11 I ~ / LOOKOUT ~ I I ~ ~ _~ ; ~ ~~ I LI I I ~I 1~/~) ~~ I I I --~ I I / / i i ~ i l l ~ ~7 /111 j. l / ~ ,: Q: ~ '/I i ~ ~ i I ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~~ ~' I ~! ~'-' f ` l _ SLEDDING HILL it II IIII II p ~ a )I; I i I I I ~ I I ~~ ~~ ~ ~ I~u ~~~~ I '~ `-%; ~~. \' PARKING ~1~1~11l111~i~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' , ~I q; l . ... y~~~ I N I I I ~ I `~ \~d , i ~ ~"~ W .: BATTING CAGES TRAILS ~ ~ I I I I I I' i 1 ~~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ PARKING ARCHERY ~~ ,~~/~ /%/~ I ~ ~ ~~~ ' ~ \ ~; i::~. ~ ~~ I. I I I I I', I I I~ ~/ BALL FIELDS '// ~ I i iii I •~~, ~ ~ 1/I LOOKOUT ~I I I ~ ~~I f~a ~I ~ I ~ Q h'! ~ ~ LOOKOUT ~ ACCESS ' I I, ~ ~bvo o °b~, ~' I I _ II _. I I l i _.~-- ~ I 1 'I I Q~ j~ 0 ~ I ~~,_ IIII ~ I (~ I II _Q_ ~ 'III. IIII H I ~ ~ ~, : I. PARKING L ;'i'll I I ji I I I (fQP ~ I ~~ 4 1 I ;.. 'j 1/I~ IIII1~~ ~ ~I I ~~ ~~:I.~ ! ~ ~.~~ .' ~ ~ BALL FIELDS ' ;, 11,E IIII II II i ~ II I ~ ~ ~ ~ ./. ~ AMPHITHEATER ~ • l.''~ ~~ 'lll Illjll~.~. ~ I ~ l ; .:~'~~~ ~~° il'~` Illl III~III~,~: ~~ ~ I dQ ~~ LIB: ~' ~, •:` <,~'jr'lIIIIIIIIIO 111 I ~ I;~!,!~c }.~ ~, I .--,~ I+ III~IIII III % I I ~~ i!I I, s. ° a '; ~ ~ ,,% f ~ C~lil l~ III/I ~ ~l I I ~~ Q ° :N ti~ ` ~, • ~'e~W ,.~~~~/// // //~ ~~. ~-~ ~ I ~I ~ ~ _ X1.1 ~ ~ ~~~ . ~,~ ~ I _ ~ / ~' ~ I ~ I' - - ~ _ - _-~~ ~~ ~ ~I ^~ ~ r i f7 ~ .~ //(/. .~.jl j. • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~r1f ~ II ~~ //, '~ /l~ IIh~ a~_~~ rr,, CMS, N Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update ~~p~ Concept Plan 2 Viv7 o soo iooOFt. ~ Febraury 2009 ~/ " `Ill ~ i~ \' II I ~ ) '~/ `` ~`'` i "1 \• (/~ ~, ~ ~ ~- „a d©z ~ -_ - = \ d ,~ ~'~~ -,,~ ter` -~/ . • ~ 1~ -_:, _- LOOKOUT °~' ~~ ' ' = ~ ~ I >> ~ ,~ Q ,~~~~ I / ~// ~ ® ~ ~~- 111 ~ 1, ~ ...` ~ ito i , g r .I I .. h ! ~..1 / . A. ~~ ~ ~ I i I I I I I I I I ~I~p ~~ H ~~ ''0 ~~ I~ II~' SLEDDING HILL '~ ! %; I I I ~ I I I ~~ ~~ ~~ ila ~(1 ~ I PARKING I ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ .;:. ~~ ~~~~,`~;a~1~~1111i1~ ~~ I ~~-a Iw:~~ - ~~,' BATTING CAGES TRAILS I ! I I II I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~~ Aid ~ ~~~;', I ~~ ~ ; .. ~ ' PARKING ARCHERY ~~ ,~~~G I ~ ~~Il~ ~ \: ' ~.- ~,+~ ~~ it ~ ~ / II BALL FIELDS I i III p: i I~~I ~r ,,~; ' ~ IIl)'~) ~ I I a II~1111~ ~, (I~o~ I II'I.~ 'I ~I III ~ ~ ~ LOOKOUT ~ di I I I a ~~ ~ I~ ~. UII I ~ ~ LOOKOUT • ~ ~ ACCESS . .. L' I I I cwca '~ °b~ I ~ I ~ II,' I III I, _s-_ l •~ - I ~ 111; I I 1118 ~I - ~ ~~~ .i II I ~. I . I I I .'~~. h I I ~ ~ = I ~ ~,~ " ~ PARKING ~~! I l l f I I U~IIt~ ~~ I ~~ Q. I~ I ~ I G III ~' Il l 'I Q ~ 1 ~~ I ! BALL FIELDS ~II111 1111 J. ~I 1 ~, ~ ~ II ~ r AMPHITHEATER ~;~ 1111 ll i ." Il - l ' ~ ~ I ~~~ 1111 111 ~ Il.~. ~~ 1 ~ / l~ ~'~.~r~ e Ll l' 1111 1 1 tl ll ~ ~~ 1 I dQ ~. I p I, a 4 I I~ III ~II I I Q. 1 ~ I I~ ~d.~ . ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ I ,11; 1111111 1110 111 1 II! > . . ~, I I ~. I ~ I 1 r. ll~ l111~1 i4 ~~ 1 I ~~~'il~ ~•Nl \~ \11 • f // / ~~~ C//~/~///~Q ~ ~~~ I ~ ~1 ~ `,':11.1 A ~1 ~~ ~ \ i ~~ ~ /V (/~ r - ~__ _ Qr~ toa _~. I ~ /~ ~ ~ ~~ _ _ o ~I -_-- ~ _-- - -- -- / ~ ~ f" ~ ~~f~ ~ r .~ , -, 117 ,-~~ ~ c _ ~~ < ~l>~ ~ ~~l ~ II ~ I /~ i~ ~ , ~,\ ~ I I ~ 1 ~ ~ '~ ~ - -~ CJ' --. ~ _- __ ' ~ / l ~ IIh~ a~_~_ ~~~ ~~€~ ~/.~EmE.~ N Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update ~~p~ Concept Site Plan 2 VFW o soo 1oooFt. ~ February 2009 `~ 'F:. k ~ \ ~' ~ f y i~ ~) I ~-Ul ~~~ --- ~ - 11I 1 .fir; (// I / - ' (l ; / ~ , ,/ .// / ~ i I ,o; I / I viii ~I L I I I ~ _, ~ U _ HIGH POINT ~~ I • ~'' OVERLOOK (TYP) ~ ~' ~~- - ~ ; `' ~~ i~~l~ ~~'~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ , '~~~ , I DEVELOPABLE ' ~L`t"II ~ ~~~AI ~,,~~. AREA y ; I I I~I I ~ ;~ ~ LI'1 j , ~ ~, ~', ~~~~~~ ~ i I I ~~ V '~'~ LOOPING TRAIL ~, , ~ ;; ~~ ~ '~~ I I "~~.~ ~ ~ I i~, ~ TRAIL I• ~, I;~~III'I ~ ~ ~ . il~,; ~I I I ,~ II ~I~, ~ l .1 ~ ~ I I~ ! ~ ~ I ~' INFORMAL OPEN ~ ~ ///N,', ~ SPACE ~ I p I ~~ ~ ~ ~ III ~, li I~ ,III j1 ,! ~ '~ I I ACCESS • I' IIj I V~ I ~ ~-- I ~I~~ I°II I I ~~ 1 'I I I II I ~ ~ ~ l ~ II I L I,I I ~, I ~~ 'I PARKING ~ ~ I ~=~ ~ I I III ~ ~ PLANTINGS ~~ C ~ ~~~~`III I I k' ~~ I' EXISTING TRAIL ~, ~' // I I li ~ 'I I ~ ~ ~ l / , / I CONNECT TO ~ ~ / f A, I'1 l ~l I ~ ~ / 1 f .~ ~` ', ~ EVELOPMENT PROPOSED TRAIL ~ , ll' 1~ ~ I,I II ~__~' l~ ~, ~ ~ REAS I I, ~~ '/ 1~ I~ l I ~l I I 1 ~ II i~ ? I rl III II ~ ~ i ; `I'"hillll I I II ~ ~ ~I~ II ~ I II I~ ~1~. I ,~~.. ~ ~/ / I III ~~~ I~ \ ~ • y ~ (~ ~ //~ ~~ ; -; I I I i ~ . 1 X11 \~~- ~ _ _ II _ % 1 I / //I I I - -_ - - - - _ - - z/ ~1~ ~, F ~ ~ - - --- = ~ ~ ° A / ~~ ' ~--.T ~1 / % • ~ -~r - ` / /- I I i ~,~~~ III 11 ~ _ ~/ ~IV~~GMe E N Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update ~.S M Concept Plan 3 0 50o toooFt. ~ February 2009 • ESEARCH LANTI NG AREAS MAIN OVERLOOK WITH PLANTINGS NATIVE PLANTI NGS- GRASSES/ WILDFLOWERS ON SLOPES (TYP) OVERLOOK WITH PLANTINGS (TYP) RESEARCH OFFICE WITH VISITOR PARKING EARTHEN BERM TO CREATE OUTDOOR SEATING • TRAIL PARKING TO EXISTING TRAIL (~'~ ~l/~ l~ r~ ~// /~/ //, ~ /• J J ~ . ,~ W vRs N o soo ioooFC. INFORMAL PLAY TI?AILS (TYP) ~LANTINGS ON ' SMALL j ` ~ COMMERCIAL ' ~,.~~ ~ BUILDING WITH y~,l~~ ~ ~ PARKING ,,, ~~Gi F ~, ~ )~ ,~f} ~ " I 1 _,. I Ii~~ a~~~_ rr,,l ~l~lll~ Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update Concept Site Plan 3 Febraury 2009 A -~_nir~R, - `~-~ ~ ---- J ~' . ,: ,/--~ -~~ / TYPICAL TRAIL SECTION _~ •. ,~ CONCEPT 1-B BERM AREA s ~s Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update Concept Plan Sketches February 2009 l,U1Vl:hYt 1-H INTERPRETIVE BOOTH • • CONCEPT 2 BALL FIELDS Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update Concept Plan Sketches y~ August 2009 2002 End Use Plan Recommendations During the work sessions with stakeholders conducted in 2002, it was determined that the overall • vision for the closed facility was for the facility to be a passive recreational use with some commercial opportunity along the highway. Thus the goal of this plan is to provide passive recreational use for most of the facility and allow limited commercial use at the intersection of Highway 169 and 221'S` Avenue. Features of this plan would include a research center, commercial building, archery range, amphitheater, picnic area, lookout pavilions, sledding hill and hiking trails/cross-country trails. This plan would utilize the existing access road to the facility and two access roads from 221St Avenue. Internal roadway circulation would have a "parkway" character with two lanes and on- street parking. The current education center or the existing office building could also include a visitor center for year round use. Archery range would be designed around the existing trees just north of the education center. It is hoped that the future commercial building, to be located at the intersection of Highway 169 and 221St Avenue would support arecreational-type business that would utilize the outdoor areas as a product testing ground to enable customers to use products prior to purchasing them. The active product testing ground would have biking trail, rollerblading, skateboarding and putting areas and the passive product testing ground would have hiking, archery, camping gear, rock climbing and cross-country skiing areas. Plazas and other amenities could be developed to attract patrons. Along the parkway, a bituminous trail would be developed to connect the education center, the commercial area and the picnic grounds. A gravel looping trail would be constructed at the finish elevation with lookout pavilions to • capture views from the site. Detention ponds could be designed and integrated with the surrounding environment and could also function as site amenity. Native plants and wildflowers would be planted at all exposed areas. 22 i J _ J~ ~ t~ 1( I '~ ~ ~4~~~ ~ y J • ''~ - ,~ ~~ - - - ~ ' i,~ -- ~p ~`~hj` v ~ ~ _ ~1 1 I F .p '. ter. 1t j{j7f 1Y 1 )~It ~~ 11 Ijr p ,~ ~ `,,,.,. .~..~'.~- ~j ~ 1j p k- 1) ,l ~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~r ~i.°~~1:N~~ ~11_L f. ~ i~ _ ,' ~ , ~ k ~ .I [_ t__ _) h~ r-~ I ~ - ~ ~' --~ ~ 1 ~ ~ L;,.. ~..1... ~ ~~ ~ ~r 1 ~~. Y ~' ' r '~.....,.r'' ~} _ ~~ - - - .; I ,I k r I 1 1 I I~ ! j ~..~ 11 f1 hr.~ ~ I I j ~ % ~ ~' '-. f1.111 II II I 1 II ra ,~ - -~ s ~'''-~~ ~~ ~'i 'II I ~ .a~ r ~~.= I > ~ ~ ! -ik ~kr_~nar _mo ' 4 II'' I I ~ 'aOlt s~ ~ 1, 1 /~~ ±~ '~~ III ~ I ~~ -.,,ti; ~, ,II , ~ ~. ~ n.~ r~aErz~ I.a _ ~:,~ --- ti ~ li t ~'~ ~ ~: , C r _ J - _ _.Y ~. _ Elk Ri~~er Landfill Enc1 lice Plan ~~~~ ~t.rer Sits Platt -J -; -(~``~~ ~~ . ~ _ ~ I ~;,~,• r,X , i ~ ?,, ~ , ;,J . _f --_ _ s • a *1~ ,` 'i .z,-,, ~~ • Etk Ricer Landfill end L?e Fl~ln Skcr.~.hrj J,av ati?, Landscape Scheme • The goal of this landscape scheme is to enhance the rehabilitation process through the use of native plants. There are four landscape zones established for this site. Zone A: Restoration Zone B: Restoration/Enhancement Zone C: Passive Recreation and Enhancement Zone D: Reforested Zone A: Restoration This area would be planted with native grasses and shrubs that encourage wildlife and protect against erosion. Recommended species would include sumac, chokecherry, prairie rose, lead plant, little bluestem, big bluestem, Indian grass and side oats gramma. Zone B: Restoration/Enhancement This area would be planted with native perennials, grasses and shrubs that encourage wildlife and have some visual interest throughout the year. Recommended species would include Black- Eyed Susan, Spiderwort, Blazing Star, June Grass, Butterfly Weed, Aster, Prairie Rose, Lead Plant and Chokecherry. Zone C: Passive Recreation/Enhancement These areas would include turf areas on top of the hill for passive recreation as well as the • enhancement areas around the commercial district. Recommended species would include Fescue, Bluegrass and Rye Grass. Zone D: Reforested This area would comprise of native deciduous and evergreen trees. Recommended species would include oaks, birch, maple, aspen, poplar, cherry, pine and spruce. • 25 ~~ U L n r ~ ~ 1 1 I ~~ 1 I !~ 11' I I~, n 1 fJ ' J ~ ,.~':, ~ ,. _ + r:i..•:r gray-.r.5 an_a yirUb^. •~~ ,~ :Pat ±rr-.:::1-cg- 1;~ ;: rf^ aid I ~~... ._ i J F.C(pf'f7g'1 ;zr. tj ~FCGC?' ~ -~ tzf ~ i ~ k.n~r, _-ad °lar' ~r,`.I^ ;,fir,. i ESI Ir.-t'T. Paa F'li.^`Cn. ~ ~ ~ Ir,iian~ra~~. `. ~ i r ~ I :iraTna i ~ I} 1' 1't:e~'1~' ': ' .~ ~_i" I _ -. ~.... i I na L.r pr--r:n.d i9. :i3~5 ~_. ~ .f I i I(II an> >h -cb~ thdt C~~ crd.a •~ ~ II' t year ~~.p j~ - ~ - Isn•. :.h - ~ ~ r Y~..y arc a°. ~^:;I)c: ;.. -f ~ ~i Caro- •: ~ ~^.-'.aL Gi i7 nr: ~ p I .r. gun : k:-iC ' 7n rr_.-vi,al ~ 3' ~ = e I (~ ~ ' 1. r n-rr~ -, ~• ..-.Ir .. `/ • rc ~::~. i '.{r~.. ~ IFS ti ~~ ~~ a~a~9 ~ I ~, ;ricf aro~rd -;;;r.r l y~ I I '"'aks, 3rrh. RtaF lr. s. •, .'~^-~i t I ~' ~ III I~ I ~' I ,f' ~ I I I ~~ I li I {I ~ ~ ~ ~ _, I~ 1• ~I ~ ~I n ~, I V II ~" ~ _ ~ "I ~ tidy-, . _ ~rf _ III~u ~~ ," I, f - ,\ - \ 1 ~ Etk fiiver L~ndtill End Lase I'laii ..,.•. w..~A~ ~~p~ Master Landscape •>cher.:._ yi~w7 ,~ s~~: fu:a rc ~ ~.' End Use Phasing • This section presents an outline of the implementation of development for the end use vision for the ERL as presented in 2002. The end use was segmented into six phases. The starting of each phase of end use development is based and coincides with the facility's closure and development activities. Fluctuation of the final grades and length of the facility operation will determine the actual timeline and viability of each project. Some projects may overlap or be implemented concurrently while in some instances, projects may need to be advanced or delayed. Phase 1 • Review and reconstruct, if necessary, the entrance road to comply with roadway safety regulations, to accommodate increased vehicle traffic • Mill and overlay or reconstruct parking lots and access road • Renovate education center or office for year round and visitor center use • Develop archery ranch in the wooded area at north end of site • Develop detention ponds as a natural amenity to the park • Install plantings per plan recommendations Phase 2 • Develop hill slope as sledding hill • • Install a portable towrope for winter sledding use • Install plantings per plan recommendations • Construct gravel trail • Construct overlooks • Develop detention pond as a natural amenity to the park Phase 3 • Extend trail and overlooks • Install plantings per plan recommendations • Connect trail to the existing trail along the western edge of the property • Develop detention pond as a natural amenity Phase 4 • Extend trail to complete looping trail at the top of Facility • Install plantings per plan recommendations • Develop the natural amphitheater • Construct overlooks Phase 5 • Develop access road and parking at 221St Avenue and connect to Phase 1 road • Install plantings per plan recommendations • Connect trail to existing west end trail • • Construct trailhead and picnic areas 27 Phase 6 • • Develop 2215` Avenue intersection at Highway 169 to comply with road safety requirements for changes in Facility activities • Develop commercial area and other associated hard surfaces • Develop passive and active product testing areas • 28 ~~i i (.i ~ ~__,_ i t ~~ j yi . ~..~ • tit '~:,~ ~ ~• i f i• . j i I ~~~ I ~-s _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ as J'~ _~T~ I ~ ~ ... E'. ~ ~ t.; ..nom R`r - - !.-° 1 ~ ~3 ~ _. - -1 ~. ~~ i-: -rL~~ I~'I (~~~ ~ ~ ~~ - it 4. - LE,C ", ~ ~~, I f °~~ I .~ 1, .. 1.~~ ER ~~~~ ' ~~ ~ I FC ~~;-Sc~`~ I~~ ~ ti Y' r r~~ _ ~~ i I ~; ,I jlf I i ` ` ~ I I I 1~: I ~, : ~', ~ _~ h ~.~ E 5 ~.' ~I . ~ ;' • ~'~ ~ '~ I I f •.- IZt ' ~~ ~ ff~. `~~ ! I li ~; -, ,, '-~~ `~,~ ---~ ~- _ ~ ~I -~_ __ ,f i ~ --~ _ - _ ~ ~ - - r ~ _ ~ ~~ ~. // ~ F'll: Ritter Lan+`-ifill En~l LTSe Plan ~~~"~"~~-+~"~" ~ Prntz~r Phasing • 2008 End Use Planning Process 30 Participants - 2008 City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Staff Bill Maertz, Parks & Recreation Director Chris Leeseberg, Park Planner Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manager Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator Nicki Blake-Bradley, Environmental Technician Parks & Recreation Commission Dave Anderson Steve Boese Amanda Larson Charles Schuldt Mike Niziolek Jim Nystrom Nick Zerwas - Ciry Council Member • Elk River Landfill (Waste Management) 22460 Highway 169 NW Elk River, MN 56013 Debra Walters, District Manager Stephanie Stolz, Engineering Manager Jeff Vassar, Site Manager Consultant - URS Corp. Planning and Urban Design Department 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1210 Beth Keister, Project Manager Kathryn Ryan, ASLA, Planner and Graphic Designer 31 2008 End Use Planning Back round • g End use planning discussions with the City of Elk River were reinitiated in 2008 as the ERL began preparations to submit their application to the City of Elk River for continued development of the facility into the SDA. The intent of 2008 end use planning process is to outline potential end use possibilities for the facility to the City of Elk River City Council as part of the submittal for continued development. The end use planning process conducted in 2008 built upon the concepts and recommendation developed as part of the 2002 end use planning process, and updated them based on additional information now available, such as MnDOT's plans for the interchange at Highway 169 and 221St Avenue. Similar to the intent of the original end use planning done in 2002, the intent of this portion of the plan is to assist the ERL and the City Council in developing an end use plan for the future of the property owned by the ERL. This plan was developed through discussions with the following: • City of Elk River Parks Staff • City of Elk River Planning Staff • City of Elk River Parks and Recreation Commission • Elk River Landfill Approach and Methodology • As the ERL reinitiated end use planning in early 2008, the ERL discussed the overall end use planning and design process with City staff on Apri124, 2008. City staff discussed wanting to work with the facility on the creation of some conceptual plans, then present the City staff s recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Commission for any additional comment. Thus the methodology at the beginning of the 2008 planning process centered on ERL and City staff working together on the development of conceptual designs and then presenting these designs to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Ultimately conceptual designs, along with the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommended plan would then go on to the Planning Commission and City Council. The conceptual designs would be based on the City's recreational needs as well as the City's vision for the Highway 169 corridor. Upon presentation of the three conceptual end use plans developed with City staff to the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission members commented that they wanted to be more involved in the planning process. Thus the ERL chose to participate in a series of meetings with the Parks and Recreation Commission members to discuss possible development ideas and how they could or could not work as possible end uses for the facility. Through these meeting several additional end use ideas were discussed, and the three conceptual end use plans evolved into those presented as part of this document. An additional potential end use idea also arose out of the discussions with the Parks and Recreation Commission, which was to have the ERL develop a park at an off-site location in the near future and then develop the facility into a passive use. 32 • Inventory and Analysis /Forces and Issues The northern portion of the ERL extends into Livonia Township, positioning the facility along the northern boundary of the City. The current configuration of 221St Avenue runs along and makes up the southern boundary of the SDA. Highway 169 runs north south along the eastern edge of the facility. The western edge of the Facility has changed since the end use planning in 2002, as the Facility has purchased hundreds of acres of buffer property to the west of the existing facility. This buffer property is now available to be incorporated as part of the facility's end use plans. The City's trail runs along the western edge of the SDA and is located between the facility and the facility's buffer property. The City plans to pave this trail in 2009. The current use of the existin~ facility is an active landfill and vehicle access is from Highway 169 at the intersection of 2251 Avenue. The SDA, located adjacent and to the south of the existing facility, currently includes a commercial asphalt plant and gravel mine, both in active operation, and accessible via 221St Avenue. Thus Highway 169, 221St Avenue, and the hiking trail along the west side of the site provide convenient motorized and non-motorized access to the site. These access points make the site easily accessible and visible. The City trail running through the western part of the facility has the potential to link the site to the City's trail system. Although automobile access is easily achievable to the facility from Highway 169 at this time, future access needs will need to be modified based on Mn/DOT plans to make the intersection at 221St into a grade separated interchange. A copy of the schematic layout of this intersection follows. This new interchange will affect access to the site in the future, and thus the • development of the SDA has taken these future interchange proposals into account. All future end use plans for the facility need to include these future changes for the area. Views from the top elevation of the facility in all directions are very commanding. To the west, the Rice Lake wetland complex offers panoramic nature views. On a clear day, the downtown Minneapolis skyline can be easily seen to the southeast. Mature groves of a mixture of deciduous and evergreen native trees will be located within the buffer areas located along the western edge of the facility, screening the facility from the hiking trail. Some trees and mature vegetation are also present on the site's eastern and southern edges, along Highway 169 and 221St Avenue. The native vegetation along the eastern and southern perimeter of the facility will also be supplemented in accordance with the ERL's screening and landscaping plans, which includes construction of a screening berm and the planting of a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees. 33 • ~ ~a ~~ e<; ~ ~ # s i ~__ ~- Fe}F, ~, ,; ~ , ~:~ ~` ~~ ~- 'm ~ ~ ~ f'~'11.t9 ` ~~, ~~ ~ ,~ ;, j ~~ ", ~= ~~ y ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ { ~. ~ ~ ` , .~ ~ ~ -~ v ~~ '_ ~~ ~~. ~~_~ ~; ~,. ~~ s ~~ ~~ ~. S Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update Mn/DOT Grade Separated Interchange Plan March, 2009 Land Uses Categories/Existing Zoning The current City of Elk River Comprehensive Plan, ado ted in 2004 desi notes two land uses for • P g the site. The active landfill area is designated "Landfill". The intended land use for land designated as Landfill is the operation of a landfill. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the mature vegetation and steep topography of the site both as opportunities and constraints for development. The wooded areas, though moderately restrictive to some types of development, could be an asset when incorporated into the ERL's end use concept plans. The City Zoning Map identifies this area as located within the A-1 Agricultural Conservation zoning district. Permitted land uses for the Agricultural Conservation district include agriculture, clustered residential development, recreational uses such as parks and golf courses, and light-intensity commercial uses that can operate inconspicuously in single-family dwellings such as licensed day care and home occupations. The City of Elk River Land Use Map is included following this page. The City Zoning Map also identifies Solid Waste Facility (SWF) and Mineral Extraction (ME) Overlay districts on the active landfill portion of the facility. The permitted and conditional uses of the Agricultural Conservation District still apply, with the addition of conditionally allowing properly-licensed solid waste and waste burning facilities, garbage transfer stations and sanitary landfills (in the SWF) and properly licensed mineral excavation operations (in the ME). The area to the south of the existing facility that is slated for continued development, commonly referred to as the SDA, is identified as having the Mining land use category. For land designated as Mining, the Comprehensive Plan states that the objective of this land use is "to allow the current mining use of the land and address future land use when development becomes • imminent." The Plan notes that the Mining land use designation functions like the Urban Reserve land use designation. The Urban Reserve is not defined or mapped in the Comprehensive Plan. The City Zoning Map identifies this area as located within the A-1 Agricultural Conservation zoning district. The zoning of the SDA will be changed as part of the City process to include the "solid waste overlay". Similarly to the existing facility, the wooded areas that will remain following mining will be preserved, and will become a natural asset when incorporated into the end use design. The additional buffer property the ERL has purchased to the west of the existing facility will also be included as part of the end use planning discussion. This area is located within an area identified in the Land Use Map as "Phasing Plan from Agricultural to Rural Residential." Relying on the description of the Rural Residential land use category in the Comprehensive Plan, the future land use of this area will likely be low-density clustered single-family subdivisions served by private wells and septic systems. This area is currently zoned as A-1 Agricultural Conservation, and for the most part consists of areas of wetlands with some upland areas. The City of Elk River's current Zoning Map follows. An examination of the current zoning and land use categories of the area reveal that the concept plans, whether they incorporate recreational features, light commercial or landscape restoration, are well suited for this area. The site will act as a buffer from the noise and dust of the heavy vehicular traffic on Highway 169 for residential developments to the west of the site and it will serve the residents of the area as an amenity. • 36 i• i• • fits ~ -_~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~. .~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - .u I i v. ._. - -- - - ~, _a ~ ~' 4i i - ~~ •• -- I~ % ', ~i ~ ' I _ r .- i ~mm -- - -f • • • 2008 Concept Plan Alternatives • This section is based on the result of the work done with the City staff and the City's parks and Recreation Committee in 2008. Four additional conceptual plan alternatives were developed in 2008 following a series of meetings with City staff and then several meetings with City of Elk River Parks and Recreation Commission. The 2008 concept plan alternatives were all developed around the core ideas of the majority of the site being used for recreational purposes but allowing for some commercial development opportunities which could yield future tax revenue for the City. The 2008 concept plan alternatives are as follows: 1. 2008 Proposed Concept Plan 1: Green (passive use park) 2. 2008 Proposed Concept Plan 2: Recreation (active use park) 3. 2008 Proposed Concept Plan 3: Energy (park with energy related opportunities) 4. 2008 Proposed Concept Plan 4: Off-Site Park Proposed Concept Plan 1: Green Goal: The goal of this concept is similar to the 2002 Proposed Concept Plan 3, which is to provide some commercial development that could generate future income for the City, with passive recreational uses and landscape restoration. Concept Site Plan 1 emphasizes the facility as a natural area, with open space and passive recreational activities dominating. Recreational opportunities at the site may include a minimal number of undeveloped multi-purpose ball fields, some open play area, and possibly an area for some tennis courts or a children's playground, or similar slightly more active recreational use. The area could possibly also include an archery range. With the proposed "Green" concept plan, the site would have several trails winding around and through the more level upper part of the site. Overlooks would be located near the upper edges of the site in order to take advantage of views in all directions. Overlooks to the Rice Lake Wetland could also include interpretive boards to explain the significant features of the wetland and the importance of wetlands to environmental health. The trails would connect to the City owned trail system located on the old railroad bed, and may also include Rice Lake wetland trails developed on property owned by the ERL. This extensive trail system would link together a series of scenic overlooks, boardwalks, and landscape ecosystems that would offer additional environmental interpretive opportunities. The overall landscape of the facility will include prairie, woodland, savanna, and wetland. Areas within the closed landfill will be native grasses and forbs, which by their nature will attract birds, butterflies and other wildlife. These ecosystems will provide critical new habitat and diversity, which is important to overall environmental health. The zones not directly over the closed landfill will consist of transitional savanna and woodland plantings, including upland tree species and grasses. Specific plantings will be addressed in the phasing plan. In this plan parking is minimized to preserve as much open space as possible and still serve both the active and passive uses. All stormwater will be treated on-site utilizing stormwater retention • 39 ponds designed as part of the facility permitting process, and shown on the northeast and southern edges of the site. • Commercial or light-industrial development opportunities would be possible in the northeast and southern/southeasternpnrtions of the facility. Potential commercial or light-industrial development would be significantly benefited by the ability of these sites to utilize the green energy developed at the facility to reduce energy costs. These cost savings maybe in the form of reduced heating costs from the use of the excess heat from either of the landfill-gas-to-energy plants, or from several other available energy related opportunities that would be available. This plan differs from the previous plan developed in 2002 in that it includes some active recreational uses and provides vehicular access to the upper site for parking and maintenance. • 40 • r~ u Quiet Overlook to Interpretive Trail • w°=rE ~'°~°"~"~' Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update ~S Green Concept Sketches March 26, 2009 ~-- ~--r z Simple Shade Structures for Passive Use Proposed Concept Plan 2: Recreation Goal.• The goal of this conce t is similar to the 2008 Pro osed Conce t Plan 5, which is to • P P p provide some commercial development that could generate future income for the City, however, this time with the majority of the site dedicated to active recreational uses. Concept Site Plan 2 emphasizes active recreational uses and combines that with the similar commercial development opportunities outlined in Proposed Concept Plan 1. This conceptual end use proposal essentially turns the closed facility into a large park and ballfield complex. The facility would have two multi-purpose field areas that would have the ability to be either 12 soccer fields or 8 youth baseball fields with ample parking for multiple games occurring at the same time, such as during a tournament. There would also be a separate dedicated area with 4 regulation softball fields that would include additional parking. A trail system would link the southern portion of the site to the City's railroad trail. On the north side of the facility there could be six tennis courts and a picnic shelter that are served by a separate small parking area. This northern parking area would also serve as the parking the trail system, as the northern portion of the site would also be connected to the City's railroad trail. The trail system would include scenic overlooks of the Rice Lake Wetland. It is possible that an archery range or similar could also be developed in this northern portion of the facility. Two trailhead parking areas are located on the west side of the site for users of the City-owned regional trail. That trail is connected to the recreational park area by non-motorized trail only. The level top surface of the site will be dedicated to parking and active recreation uses, the majority of which will be turfgrass. This has some environmental implications due to the need for weed control and mowing. The side slopes on all sides would be prairie grass mixes varying depending on the exposure. Vehicular access is provided from the east side of the site. • 43 ~ -0 rn C (~ ; ~ ~ ° ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ «~ ~ ~ -tea,-' "", ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ": •.i Another renewable energy source available at the facility is the heat generated by the waste • mass. Geothermal energy is becoming easier to harness and a landfill offers a significant heat differential from its surroundings. Though most geothermal systems are sources of heating and cooling (the heat pumps are required to work to perform both heating and cooling functions) a landfill as a heat source only through geothermal functions with a greater heat differential and simpler mechanical operation. The wetland adjacent to the property provides another geothermal source and wetlands are being explored more frequently when this usage can be implemented with miminal impact to the ecosystem and the landscape. Solar power has been incorporated into facilities like Elk River's both as panel arrays on the final cover and as supplemental supplies on the rooftops of site buildings. Solar power is becoming more cost-effective as a source of renewable energy, as the technology improves and as the cost of traditional energy sources increase. Its role at the facility will depend on both future economics and stabilization of the waste mass to provide a foundation for larger arrays. Other forms of green and/or renewable energy in addition to solar and geothermal energy that may be available in the future. There are many potential alternative forms of energy that are currently being researched and developed, and these forms of energy will become more and more cost effective as the technology improves and becomes more feasible. Under Concept Plan 3, the commercial or light industrial businesses that develop along Highway 169 and 221St Avenue will likely benefit by deriving some of their energy from the renewable energy generated on-site, thus the idea of the "Energy Park". Radiant floor heating can be accomplished with the geothermal heat pumps and solar or other types of alternative energy will • be implemented as economics make it feasible. Products produced at the craft center or in the greenhouses can be marketed or displayed in these businesses, lowering transportation costs and reducing the overall carbon footprint. Such a "Energy Park"may also foster public interaction and become a destination for educational uses as well as recreational, business and commercial uses. C 47 - ----`~ `~ s-~r..lt ~~ ~~ _~ X11 ~` 1-- • ``~~.. `~--, Picnic Shelter with Ammenities for Active Park Use t "'"=rE m°"""M`"T Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update Recreation Concept Sketches March 26, 2009 Bird's-Eye View of Recreation Site Proposed Concept Plan 3: Energy • Goal: The goal of this concept is to provide some commercial development and an area for active recreational uses, combined with land for the use of alternative energy production, and an area for a business that can benefit from the green energy developed at the facility, such as a plant nursery. Concept Site Plan 3 capitalizes on Elk River's standing as "Energy City," emphasizing the facility's role in supplying power and providing the facility the designation of an "Energy Park". Thus in this conceptual plan, portions of the site are dedicated for alternative energy production. Additionally, while the majority of the top flat portion of the site is dedicated to passive and light active recreational uses, the southern portion of the site would be developed into a landscape nursery and greenhouse complex, or a series of specialty craft centers, or similar type of business that utilizes the green energy available at the facility (shown on the attached drawing as a nursery/greenhouse complex). Such a complex would be located in close proximity to the facility's southern gas plant, which would likely be a large source of the necessary green energy to operate such businesses. Located at the northern edge of the City of Elk River, the facility provides an opportunity to welcome new and old visitors with features that emphasize renewable energy and sustainable development and tie into the City's reputation for as a regional resource in the energy marketplace. Potential recreational uses included with this conceptual design include soccer fields that can • also be used for youth baseball. These recreational use areas include parking for smaller tournament play and shelters for spectators. Tennis courts and open play areas are included to add variety; other similar uses can be incorporated into these areas as the project is developed. Greenhouses are shown on the south side of the site. Such uses may require more stable conditions and thus may not be incorporated until the waste has achieved some degree of stability. Initially the south side may have recreational and other passive uses similar to those located on the north side of the site and then the area can be converted to greenhouse and more "structural" uses as the waste mass reaches stability. The greenhouses or other more "structural uses may also be located on the northern portion of the faility, as the north acreages will reach stable conditions earlier than the south phases. The green house concept has been implemented elsewhere and these facilities often use waste heat and electric power from the on-site landfill gas to energy plant . Other possible end uses requiring structures include craft centers that power pottery kilns or glass-blowing ovens directly with landfill gas. The craft centers also provide community interaction and serve as extensions of the educational goals and features of the facility. Classes in pottery making and glass blowing can include emphasis on their history and the means of providing energy to perform these activities in the past (renewables like wood), present (usually fossil fuels) and future (renewables like landfill gas). • 46 • ~, ~" ~~~~. Covered Parking with Solar Panel System on Canopy • March 26, 2009 PRapFRrr ~~ u~/ ~~. ~~Y Elk River Landfill End Use Plan Update Energy Concept Sketches Proposed Concept Plan 4: Off-Site City Park Goal: The goal of this concept is to rovide active recreational acilities or the Ci on • P .f f tJ' property other than the ERL site. This off-site park facility would be developed concurrently with development of the SDA, thereby giving those people in the area of the facility the opportunity to utilize the facility during the site's life. Upon closure of the facility, the site would be developed as a very passive and natural type uses, leaving select areas for future commercial development. Concept Site Plan 4 emphasizes the development of active recreational activities at an off-site location. As presented as part of this end use plan, the off-site park would include four standard soccer fields and four women's fastpitch softball fields. Ample parking and stormwater treatment ponds would be provided on-site. It is understood that the City of Elk River also has a layout for this off-site park with similar recreational activities provided. Such a design was presented to the Parks and Recreation Committee concurrently with the design included in this plan. The actual layout of any such off-site park facilities would be left up to the City. The design presented in this plan is for conceptual purposes only as a point of discussion. Concept Site Plan 8, the City Park at an off-site location, follows this page. With the development of active recreational facilities at an off-site location, the ERL would be developed as very passive and natural type uses. This would include uses similar to those presented under Concept Plan 1, the "Green" concept, but without the inclusion of the active recreational uses. Thus, under this concept plan, the end use for the facility would include a network of trails connecting some overlooks located along the upper part of the site,. These on- • site trails would also connect to the City owned trail system located on the old railroad bed, and possibly also include some additional trails developed on property owned by the ERL in the Rice Lake wetland complex. This conceptual also includes leaving the area along Highway 169 and 221St Avenue as being available for future commercial development. • 50 ~ >:. n ~' ; N a Q. z c o 0 a ~O i ~-- --- - - ~ I I I I I I I rn N I I I ~ I ~ I i I I I ro I I ~ I I I ~ i ~ z rn I ~ I I I n ~ I I I I i ~ ~-- --- - J -------- i I I rn~ I ~ 6 ~ I I i I I ~ ~~ I I rn ~ I I rn I ~ ~ I I I ~- - - - - -- -- - -- I • # ~ e,~ '' n ,q~ ~x u x: ".~ ~ , ~- ~~ # ~. N ~ , .re ~,,,;: ~ r, M W ~S z+ . O ~ ~t~ ~.: ~~ ~ ,. ,~ ~, O ~i , . n ~ fD h.~ ~ r ~ , e__ ~ ~ ~ H' ~, ,r. ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ,~, e y ~ ~ i1 1 `d ~ ,E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ .~.. w rn ~ ~ t ~. -~_-{ -i v -~ 0 z v ~~ ' ~~~ ~, h ~, ~ ~~~ ~~`-`~;: ~G .~ ~. . , ~~ The ERL end use discussions completed during the 2008 process did not result in one final • concept plan, but rather emphasized the myriad of opportunities available for this opportunely located site. The fact that the ERL currently supplies 15% of the residential power needs of the City of Elk River, and proposes to triple their power production as the facility reaches maturity, clearly makes this site an asset and future benefit to the City. The mix of recreational, educational, commercial and business uses proposed also takes advantage of the location along a major thoroughfare at the entrance to the city. Renewable energy opportunities and the desires of the community to make the most of their planning efforts will continue to have influence on final development of this facility. This process has highlighted opportunities, generated discussion and awareness of the facility, and increased overall understanding of the technologies that will be used to develop the end uses at this facility. It is a successful process that identified possibilities and gives stakeholders better information for future decision-making. As the ERL continues to operate, the phasing of end use implementation can be updated to initiate the more passive and lower-impact uses during the years of partial closure and early final closure. Recreational uses and passive green uses are more suitable for the initial stages, along with possible implementation of geothermal or other low-impact renewable energy options. The community and commercial resources requiring structural improvements and using the renewable energy generated by the facility are best suited for future years and the site may show a transition from one use to the other even within the same acreages as the landfill matures. • Landscape Scheme The goal of this landscape scheme is to enhance the rehabilitation process through the use of native plants. While the final end use has not been determined, the site will likely be broken into similar landscape zones as those established for this site in 2002. The location of the various zones will vary based on the types of end use ultimately selected. There are 5 zones we will incorporate into the phasing plan. A brief description of each follows. Zone A: Restoration Zone B: Restoration/Enhancement Zone C: Passive Recreation and Enhancement Zone D: Reforested Zone E: Park Development Since the final end use plan has not been finalized, unlike the landscape scheme developed in 2002 and presented earlier in this report, a map outlining the various zones for the chosen end use has not yet been established. Instead a potential landscape scheme is included for conceptual purposes utilizing the "Green" Proposed Concept Plan 5 as presented earlier in this plan. Upon selection of a final end use for the facility, a landscape scheme based on the actual end use planned for the facility can be created. • 52 Zone A: Restoration This area would be planted with native grasses and shrubs that encourage wildlife and protect • against erosion. Recommended species would include sumac, chokecherry, prairie rose, lead plant, little bluestem, big bluestem, Indian grass and side oats gramma. These areas will be restored wetland areas that provide additional water treatment and wildlife habitat. Invasive species will be removed and plantings restored with native species as needed. A landscape ecologist can provide specific plant and shrub species to be used. Zone B: Restoration/Enhancement This area would be restored and enhances with prairie landscapes, including both tall and short prairie grasses, forbs and shrubs that encourage wildlife and have some visual interest throughout the year. Recommended species would include Black-Eyed Susan, Spiderwort, Blazing Star, June Grass, Butterfly Weed, Aster, Prairie Rose, Lead Plant and Chokecherry. Zone C: Passive Recreation/Enhancement These areas would include turf areas on top of the hill for passive recreation as well as the enhancement areas around the commercial district. Intensely used fields will require higher maintenance blue grass-type turf. Less intensely used fields can be established with low- maintenance fescue-type grasses, which have the added advantage of being drought-tolerant. Recommended species would include Fescue, Bluegrass and Rye Grass. Zone D: Reforested This area would comprise of native deciduous and evergreen trees. A landscape ecologist would be helpful here in defining the site-specific natives most desirable for reestablishment. • Recommended species would include oaks, birch, maple, aspen, poplar, cherry, pine and spruce. Zone E: Park Development If a large area of active recreational use would be selected, a fifth, Zone E, would be added to the above that would include athletic and parking facilities. Large areas of turf would be required for ballfields. In order to reduce the negative impacts of mowing and fertilizer, low grow fescue seed mixes have been developed and could be used on fields that are not intensely used. Parking areas should be constructed with permeable pavement systems such as ag-lime, permeable concrete or porous pavers to reduce run-off. 53 End Use Phasing • This section presents a general outline of the potential implementation of development for the end use vision chosen by the City of Elk River for the facility. Since the City has not determined the final end use plan for the site, this section will serve as a general guide as to the potential project phasing that maybe possible based on the chosen end use plan. As the facility develops, portions of the facility achieve final grade, and then are capped, or essentially "closed." Upon completion of this closure construction, the area may be ready for development, depending on the chosen end use. It is anticipated that the development of the facility could be broken into approximately four to six different phases. Development as presented in this document will consist of 4 phases consisting of mostly passive uses. Each phase will coincide with the facility's closure of that area and other on-site development activities. Incoming waste volumes will determine the actual date of development activities. Additionally, fluctuations of the final grades and closure areas, as well as the length of the facility's operations will determine the actual timeline and viability of project phasing. Some projects may overlap or be implemented concurrently, while in some instances, a project may need to be advanced or delayed. Finally, phasing may occur over individual areas as uses transition form passive uses, which do not require foundations or minimal settlement, to uses requiring structures or infrastructure that rely on a more stable foundation. As the waste ages, the open spaces will stabilize and offer • more opportunity for these types of development. Phase 1 • Development of majority of screening around the perimeter of the property per plan recommendations. • Install initial phase of plantings along the berms and buffer property per plan recommendations. • Development of a trail system in the northern portion of the MSW portion of the facility, near the City's border with Livonia Township. • As necessary based on the chosen end use, modify facility infrastructure (such as gas extraction wells) with locking mechanisms to prevent damage or harm to trail users. • Development of an initial phase of a wetland trail in Rice Lake wetland complex. • Construction of scenic overlooks, educational pavilion, and environmental interpretive boards along trail system. • Connect facility's northern trail system and the wetland trail with City trail (note that access to the facility's trail system would have to be locked when the facility was not in operation). • Construct a parking area in the northern portion of the MSW portion of the facility for use by people utilizing the trail system. • Potential construction of a Household Hazardous Waste facility in cooperation with Sherburne County and the City of Elk River. • • Construction of an additional landfill-gas-to-energy facility. 55 Phase 2 • Development of additional screening around perimeter of property per plan recommendations • Extend trail and overlooks toward the south • Install additional planting per plan recommendations Phase 3 • Develop entrance from 221St Avenue and parking in southwest portion of the site for use by users of the City trail. • Complete development of screening around perimeter of property per plan recommendations • Extend trail and overlooks towards the south • Install additional planting per plan recommendations • Install additional parking per plan recommendations • Develop additional recreational uses per plan recommendations Phase 4 • Complete trail, interpretive signage, and overlook system. • Connect facility trail system to the City trail near the south of the facility. • Develop entrance from 221St Avenue for use by recreational and commercial users. • Convert access roads for use by recreational and commercial users. • Renovate on-site buildings that will no longer be utilized for on-site purposes for either commercial business use or for use as facility related buildings (educational purposes, • visitor center, park equipment storage, etc.) • Develop commercial area and other associated hard surfaces. 56 • • • • • Cit of Elk River Official Zonin Map Y g Existing Landfill and SDA labeled "Elk River Landfill" 12/23/2008 • 30-033-4100 Not Platted NE 1~ OF SE 1.4 Lega/ Descrlpfion Report 30-033-4400 Not Platted S 1-2 OF SE 1-4, WEST OF RR. 30-033-4405 Not Plafted SE1-40F5E1-4EOFRR - 30-034-3300 Not Platted THAT PT OF S 200 FT OF SW 1-4 LYING W OF FOLLOWING DES LINE: COM AT SW CORNER OF SW 1.4, THENCE E ALONG S LINE OF 5W 1.4 1722.70 FT TO ACTUAL POB OF LINE TO BE DES THENCE NELY DEF 79 DEG 26 M{N 37 SEC LEFT • TONLiNEOFS200FTOFSI-20FSW1.4& THERE TERMINATING THEREAT. 30-034-3409 TJot Platted THAT PT OF SE 1 ~4 OF SW 1 ~ LYING W OF HWY R OF W AS DES IN INST 146431: COM AT THE SW CDR OF SAID SW1 ~4; THENCE E .ALONG THE S LINE OF SAID SW 1.4, A DIST OF 1722.70 FT TO THE ACTUAL PT OF BEG; THENCE NE'LY DEFLECTING 79 DEG 26 MIN 37 SEC LEFT, A DIST OF 301.0 FT; THENCE E DEFLECTING 79 DEG 26 MIN 37 SEC RIGHT, A D[ST OF 368.03 FTTO THE CENTERLINE OF US HWY 169 AS CONSTRUCTED 8~ MONUMENTED, THENCE SW'LY DEFLECTING 100 DEG 33 MIN 23 5EC RIGHT ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, A DIST OF 301.0 FT TO THE S LINE OF SAID SW 1-4; THENCE W ALONG SAID S LINE, A DIST OF 366.03 FT TO THE PT OF BEG 30.523.0905 • REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 30 1 12/2312008 TRACT A Le al Descri tion Re ort 30-523-0110 REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO.30 TRACT, B . . 30-523-0115 REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 30 TRACT C 30.523-0120 REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0.30 TRACT D. 30-523-0125 REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0. 30 TRACT E 30-523-0130 REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0. 30 TRACT F 75-i03-2100 Not Platted N 1-2 OF NW 1.4 W OF IiWY 169 EX E 650 FT. 75-103-2105 Not Platted EAST 650 FT OF T}IE N 1I2 OF THE NW 114 LYING W OF US HWY 189. 75.103-2400 Not PJatted 51-2 OF NWI~WOFHWY169&N525FTOFW 1-2 OF SW 1-4 W OF HWY 169. ~ 75-103-3200 Not Platted 2 • • r~ • • • 12/23/2008 Leda! Description Reporf THEE 1-2 OF SW 111 LYING W OF US HUYY 169 EX NLY 525 FT 8~ W 1-2 OF 5W 1-4 EX N 625 FT & EX THAT PT OF 5W 1-0 DESC AS FOLLOWS: BEG AT SW COR OF SAID SW 1.4; THENCE S 89 DEG 58 MIN 24 SEC E,ASSUMED BEARING ALONG S LINE OF SAID SW 1.4 DIST OF 759.63 FT; THENCE N 00 DEG 01 MIN 36 SEC E DIST OF 263.05 FT TO CTRLINE OF 66.00 FT ST UTILITY 8 DRAINAGE AS DESC IN DOC #317893; THENCE NWLY ALONG SAID CTRLINE & A NON-TANGENTIAL CUR DIST QF 306.10 FT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33 DEG 39 M1N 45 5EC A RADIUS OF 521.00 FT & A CHORD BEARING N 73 DEG 27 MIN 19 SEC W; THENCE N 89 DEG 42 M1N 57 SEC E ALONG SAID CTRLINE 8 TANGENT TO LAST CUR DIST OF 473.80 FT TO W LINE OF SW 1~ OF SECT 3; THENCE N 00 DEG 32 MIN 21 SEC W ALONG SAID W LINE DIST OF 346.29 FT TO POB. EX THAT PART OF SW 114 DESC AS FOLL; COMM AT THE NW CORNER OF NW 1/4 SEC 10;THENCE S 89 DEG 58 MIN 25 SEC E ASSUMED BEARING ALONG N LINE OF NW 114 SEC 70 DIST 759.63 FT TO THE POB OF THE PROPERTY TO BE DESC;THENCE N 0 DEG 01 MIN 35 SEC E DIST 263.05 FT TO THE CENTERLINE OF 221ST AVE AS DESC IN DOC 317893;THENCE SELY DIST 74.29 FT ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 8: A NON- TANGENTIAL CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SW HAVING A RADIUS OF 521 FT A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 8 DEG 10 MIN 12 5EC 8 A CHORD BEARING OF 5 52 DEG 32 MlN 12 SEC E;THENCE S 48 DEG 27 MIN 06 SEC E TANGENT TO SAID CURVE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE DIST 141.08 FT;THENCE SWLY DIST 378.97 FT ALGNG SAID CENTERLINE BEING A TANGENTIAL CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NE HAVING A RADIUS OF 521 FT & A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41 DEG 40 MIN 36 SEC;THENCE N 89 DEG 52 MIN 18 SEC E TANGENT . . TO SAID CURVE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE DIST 627.29 FT TO THE WLY R-O-W LINE OF US HWY 169 THENCE SLY ALONG SAID WLY R-0-W LINE OF US HWY 169 TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE S LINE OF SAID N 1121.92 FT OF THE NW 1/4 SEC 70; THENCE N 89 DEG 58 MIN 25 SEC W ALONG SAID S LINE OF THE N 1127.92 FT OF THE NW 114 OF 5EC 10 DIST 1015.51 FT TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE WHICH BEARS S 0 DEG 01 M1N 35 SEC W FROM THE POB;THENCE N 0 DEG 01 M1N 35 SEC E DIST 1121.92 FT TO POB. 75.104-1101 Not Platted NEI~OFSE1-4LYINGEOFRRROFWEX N 525 FT. - 12!2312008 Legal Descripfiota Report • 75-104.1102 Nof Platted N 525 FT OF NE 1-4 OF SE 1.4 LYING E OF GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY & THAT PT OF E 1-2 OF NE 1-4 LYING E OF GREAT NORTHERN RAIL WAY. 75-104-1105 Not Platted N1-20FNE1-4WOFRR 75-104-1400 Not Platted SE1.40FNE1.4WOFRR ~ 75-104.4405. Not Plafted PT OF 51=1 OF SE 1-4, WHICH LIES ELY S SELY OF SELY LINE OF A 200 FT WIDE STRIP OF LAND & • ITS NLY EXT, 175 CENTERLINE IS DES AS FOLLWW: COM AT SE CORNER OF SAID SE 1-4 OF SE 1-4 OF SEC 4; THENCE S $9 DEG 42 MIN 21 SEC W, ASSUM ED BEARING, ALONG THE S LINE OF SAIp SE 1-4 OF SE 1-4 A DIS OF '1279.14 FT, TO P08 OF SAID CENTERLINE TO BE DES, THENCE N 26 DEG 33 MIN 44 SEC E, A DIS OF 1212.15 FT; THENCE NELY A p15 OF 238.84 ALONG A TANG CURVE, CONCAVE TO NW, WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF~ 04 DEG 46 MIN 37 - -. - . SEC & A RADIUS OF 2864.79 FT TO INTERSECTION WCI'H N LINE OF SAID NE i-4 OF 5E 1.4 OF SEC 4, & SAID CENTERLINE THERE TERM. ANp WHICH LIES NLY OF THAT PROF CENTERLINE OF 221ST AVE AS DES IN DOC #317893, DES AS FOLLOWS: COM AT SE CORNER OF SE 1~ OF SE 1-0 SEC 4, THENCE N 00 DEG 32 MIN 21 SEC W, ALONG E LINE OF SAID SE 1-4 OF SE 1~ A DiS OF 346.29 FT, TO INTERSECTION WITH DE5 CENTERLINE OF 221ST AVE, SAID INTERSECTION BEING POB OF THE CENTERLINE TO BE DES: THENCE S 89 PEG 42 MIN 57 SEC IIY, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE A DIS OF 490.54 FT, THENCE CON ALONG CENTERLINE A DIS OF 90.57 FT ALONG TANG CURVE CONCAVE TO S, HAVING A RADIUS OF 521 FT AND CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09 DEG 58 MIN 16 SEC, THENCE CON ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, S 79 DEG 44 MIN 41 SEC W, • 4 1 vz3i2ooe Le al Descri tion Re ort • TANGENT TO SAID CURVE A DIS 754.89 FT TO INTER WITH W LINE OF SE 1-4 OF SE 1d 8. SAID CENTERLINE THERE TERM. SUBJECT TO EASEMENT DOC #317893. • • 5 • Wetland Determination The extent of wetland in the subject area southwest of the Elk River landfill, located in the SE ~/a of the SE'/a of Section 4, T.33, R.26) was approximated by conducting a desktop review of GIS data layers and aerial photographs. Afield wetland delineation was not conducted at this time because it is outside of the growing season. A complete field delineation will be conducted during the growing season when conditions warrant to confirm the wetland boundary, anticipated to be mid May. The following tools were used for the desktop determination: The Sherburne County Soil Survey (Figure 1) demonstrated that Seelyeville muck, a hydric soil series, is present in the subject area. A review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (Figure 2) data indicated the presence of a Type 4 deep marsh in the subject area. A review of 10 foot contours on the USGS topographic map indicated a depression in the subject area. A review of aerial photographs showed surface water, an indicator of wetland hydrology, in the subject area. Based on the evidence obtained from the information review, it is likely that a Type 3 shallow marsh or Type 4 deep marsh wetland is present within the subject area. The approximated boundary of the wetland is shown on Figure 3. The approximate total size of the wetland is 1.48 acres, of which 0.45 acres are located on ERL owned property with the remainder of the wetland area (1.03 acres) lying within the hiking trail corridor. • I•I i•i i• -.J __ _ Non-Hydric Soil Series ~~/, Hydric Soil Series Sherburne Aerial Photograph (LMIC, 2008) N 300 150 0 300 Feet ~~ Mxd: L:\0742\0742-1400\MXD\Wetland Determination_Soils.mxd Last Modifed: 3/16/2009 3:29:33 PM ELK RIVER LANDFILL County Soil Series Wencl< MAR 2009 o Engineers • Scientists Wenck Associates. Inc 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Env ., a' o~ ~eec rli aNie F a~~,. ~1N 55359-0429 Figure W-1 • • • ~` ~ $ ~ ~ ~ O ~ _ ~ - ,„ ~. F ` ~ ~ ~ / 4 #~ ~ ~ ~ r • # ~ ~ - ` 1 r ~ A tY ~~ T r - ~ i •, ~ ~ ~~ t ~ ~~ ! d ~.~ ~ 4 n' t T ~a >. .. r , ~",~ i~ .. ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ { ' ,~ - . a ~ ~, • r t. ~ a y ~ t p~ ` ~ ~t ~r ~' _ .' a . ~ ,. ~, x, , - • - 14 ~ 4~ ~ > #~~ ,~ ~ . ~ 'e -_p R ,~ ~ ~k~ °. ~' r't ~ ~ "f. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s~ .. y: sr ' . ~~ ~ # ~' ~ ~ ~ _. ~. k ~ ~~' a ~, ~ _ - " ~ I , Y ~ t a' x ~ • ~ ` y - ~, ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ ~ # ~ ~ ~, ~. ~I ,~ • -,~ .. 3 ~+~ ~ ., ~~~; ~ ~ ~ Legend ,~` .~ ~' ~ Circular 39 ,~ ", ~ ~'~"• - ' ° ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ 4 Seasonally Flooded (Type 1) ~.. ` s ,~ ~, . ~ - ~ ~,~, ~ Wet Meadow (Type 2) "w~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~~~'~" ,,`~ '~~ ,"~_._.~ Shallow Marsh (Type 3) ~+ ~x "' ~, . ~ ~ ~ Deep Marsh (Type 4) ,'~" ~ , ~~ ,~ ~~ ~ A •~~ ~. ~"' T ~ Shallow Open Water (Type 5) - ' ~x , ~,~..~~'~'~"~ ~'" ~* Shrub Swamp (TYPe 6) ~ ~ Wooded Swamp (Type 7) Sherburne Aerial Photograph (IMIC, 2008) N 300 150 0 300 ~ Bogs (Type 8) Municipal and Industrial Activities Feet *•;. Mxd: L:\0742\0742-1400\MXD\Wetland Detertnination_NWl.mxd ~ ~ Riverine Systems ;, ~ . ELK RIVER LANDFILL ~ ~WPncl< MAR 2009 o Engineers Scientists National Wetland Invento WenckAssociates,lnc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Figure W-2 ' 7 Environmental Engineers Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429 I• ./I~l~.a~""` ~" ~t F W ~ ~1, ~'~; ,~ ` ~ ,4 ~` a .~ ~ ; ~: ~~ ~ ~ $ `f' ~` ~f r~~' ~ ~ ~~- t_~^ ~+.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :+~ ~r , ' ~{, , ~~> ~~ ~~ + ~ ~ ~~ i• • Legend Wetland Determination Boundary Elk River Landfill Property Boundary Sherburne Aerial Photograph (LMIC, 2008) N 300 150 0 300 Feet Mxd: L\0742\0742-1400\MXD\Wetland Detertnination.mxd Last Modified: 3/1612009 3:43:15 PM ELK RIVER LANDFILL Wetland Determination Landfill Development Development of the SDA MSW landfill will be coordinated with, and will follow, mining activities. Mining activities will be completed in accordance with City of Elk River Ordinances and Tiller Company's Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In accordance with their CUP, mining will be conducted to a bottom elevation of 5 feet above groundwater or approximately 960.5-feet mean sea level (MSL). Mining is permitted to proceed to within 50 feet of the property line along TH 169 and 221 Avenue NW and within 200-feet of the western property line along the former railroad right of way. Mining activities are expected to first occur along the northern portion of the site adjacent to the existing landfill and along TH 169 on the east in accordance with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for mining. Thereafter, the mining and landfill operations are expected to continue from the north to the south. Upon completion of mining activities in an area of the SDA, the ERL will proceed with grading in the area, such that the area is brought to the grades necessary for future landfill development. The native soils will be graded to provide a .5% base grade slope from west to east for each of the proposed landfill cells. Once the landfill • base grades for a particular cell have been constructed, waste will be placed in the cell until the proposed final grades are achieved. The elevations for the mining activities, landfill development, and the landfill final grades are depicted on the attached cross-section through Cell 19. The cross-section can be viewed as typical for all of the proposed cells in the SDA, as they will be developed in a similar fashion. • • • ELEVATION IN FEET .o ~o .o .o .o .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- a U e+ ti m ~e O N w a N O+ ~ m ~o O ~ N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V1 O O tr O O e~ O O O O m O O .D O O O O O O O N O O N w y = O f7 m z +~ s m p- ti N O O e+ O O v O O m O- O ~e O- O O' O S' N O N O m A H l'f N s "' r ~ m x n m N z e, s O ~ O 2 I N y X ty1 O p ~ 1INAA r r g ~ r ~ r N ~ y 1 `` I `n` ~~~ 1 - i ~ ~~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ r t• r ' r r r r r ~ ~ V a t! c c e e c c C cy ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ I , I _ E ~ ~ ~ ~~~ LANG USE .APPLICATION FOR CITY OF ELK RIVER sNEET TITLE rtEVtstoNS GATE ~ Wenck ELK RIVER LANDFILL CROSS-SECTION A ~ SHERBURNE COUNTY, Iy11NNESOTA llenek Aasoetatea. tne. (800 Pioneer Creak Canter <783) 479.4200 PREPARED FOR ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. Environ men tel EnLfneere MaPk flotn. MN 55369 Foa~ (7631 479-424$ DATErMARCN. 2009 OwN I~I1rLLT CtK'D APP'D Elk River Landfill SDA: Timeline of Public Meetings and Processes The Elk River Landfill began preliminary discussions with regard to the proposed continued development • of the existing landfill towards the south in 2001 (see "SDA Estimated Timeline" on the following page). By the end of 2001 a conceptual layout for the proposed facility had been developed. ERL staff worked with the City of Elk River staff, Livonia Township and interested members of the public in developing a future end use plan for the facility utilizing the conceptual layout that had been developed. These end use discussions consisted of a series of meetings with the interested parties, where the operations and requirements associated with the facility were discussed and possible end use options were developed. A report on this end use planning process was developed and submitted to the City of Elk River in September 2002. During the time period starting in 2001 with the development of the conceptual layout for the proposed facility, until the submittal of the MPCA's Permit Application in February 2004, the ERL was developing the design details associated with the continued development of the landfill into the southern development area (SDA). In October 2003, prior to submittal of the MPCA Permit Application, the ERL met with staff from the City of Elk River, Sherburne County, and the MPCA to discuss the pending Permit Application and ensure issues from the respective governmental entities were being addressed. The ERL submitted the Permit Application to the MPCA, County and City in February 2004. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) data was developed by ERL and submitted to the MPCA in April 2004. From April to November of 2004 the ERL worked with the MPCA to address preliminary issues and concerns raised by the various regulatory agencies prior to the official publication of the EAW. The EAW was officially published in November 2004, and included a public meeting and comment period. During December 2004 and January 2005 the MPCA and ERL worked to address the comments received during the comment period and during the public meeting. The EAW was finalized as the EIS scoping document at the end of January 2005. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process started in early 2005 with the MPCA bidding out the completion of the EIS to a third party in March 2005. Upon • selection of a contractor, the EIS process was initiated in May 2005, with the Draft EIS being published in October 2005. Following the required public meeting and comment period, the MPCA, EIS contractor and the ERL responded to all comments received. On March 28, 2006 the MPCA Citizens Board declared the Final EIS complete. Following completion of the EIS process, the ERL worked on responding to the outstanding design issues related to the facility as raised by the MPCA, City of Elk River, and Sherburne County. It should be noted that several design modifications were made to the proposed layout of the facility as a result of comments received during the EAW and EIS process, as well as from comments received from the MPCA, City and County during their review of the design throughout this process. With the submittal. of a response to comments letter in late 2008 addressing the last of the remaining design issues, the ERL has addressed all technical issues identified to date that are associated with the proposed continued development of the existing facility. In early 2008, the ERL reinitiated discussions with City of Elk River staff regarding developing a future end use plan for the facility. A series of meeting were held in April and June between City staff and the ERL to develop a series of conceptual end use plans, which were then presented to the City of Elk River Parks and Recreation Committee in August 2008. The Parks and Recreation Committee wanted to be more involved in the development of the end use design, and thus for the next few months the ERL worked with City staff and members of the Parks and Recreation Committee on refining the conceptual end use designs developed with City staff. In addition to the required public meetings, the ERL has hosted several open houses and informational meetings to discuss the proposed continued development of the facility with interested members of the public. Such meetings have been spread out over the course of the project with the first being held in • 2004, and additional meetings in 2008 and 2009. • ~~ ~+ a-+ W L Q _0 • ~ 0 L ~_ J L I.L • ~ W • • i q i g i R i i i i i i i i i i~ €_ i i i i i i i t ~ g ~_ G 3~ a s i i i g i i~~ i ~€ 1 E i ~~IJiI~~~IJ~J~I iIJ~I~IJ~ItI~J~I~IJ~I~~I~J~IaI~I~IpI.'~,IiI~I~~I~I~~I ~I :' ~;I;~sl~!~i~'IJ~IJJ~~I~I~JalJil ~IJcIJ~IJJJ ~I~~~I~I i ~ ~ ,.- - ~_ _ .. r~ _ _ _ ~,~ d ~~ ~'~_ ~I ~~ ' ~ .: i ~I- ~~ _J / n it _ __ _ _1_ ti <_~ • City of Elk River 2004 Land Use Plan Map Existing Landfill and SDA labeled "Elk River Landfill" • s ~,tyo~ Com rehensive Plan P E Building the Future of Elk River 'ver • Hoisington Koegler Group tnc. ©® • Residential development is judged on both aesthetics and function. Keel Etk Rivera "safe" place. • Elk River is a place where people feel comfortable and secure. • Traffic safety is an important factor in all aspects of community development. • A system of streets, sidewalks and trails allows safe and convenient movement throughout the city. • Municipal services {police, Ere, water treatment} create both the perception and reality of safety. Preserve and maintain the environment. • Elk River seeks to promote clean air and water in the management of development and the delivery of municipal services. • Development must be served by well maintained and reliable infrastructure. • Development seeks to incorporate and blend the built and natural environments. • Rural, undeveloped areas are part of the Elk River environment. • As Energy City, Elk River seeks to promote sustainable and enemy efficient forms of development. Make Elk River a complete place. • Community. and economic development policies will seek to attract employment opportunities and goods and services needed by the community. • The expansion of local employment creates more opportunities for people to live and work in Elk River. • Planning and decision-making must recognize that the population of Elk River is not a single commodity. Differences in age, economic status and ethnicity must be considered in planning for future development, facilities and services. • Recreational and cultural opportunities are important elements of a complete place. • A quality education system attracts and keeps people in Elk River. Work to achieve the vision. • Everyone shares responsibility for achieving the vision. It is not the sole responsibility of city government. • The City will seek collaborative efforts with other partners who have shared interests in achieving this vision. All aspects of the Comprehensive Plan work to achieve this vision far Elk River. Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River Vision for Elk River 2~2 • Usrng the Plan • that meets local needs and makes the best use of the full range of financial resources available for each pro}ect. Implementation Formal implementation is part of using the Plan. Several formal steps are needed to implement the Plan. State Law sets forth a variety of requirements' ..~._ far putting the Comprehensive Plan into effect. These owers and requirements or implementing the Plan are found in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356. Adapting the Plan The process for adopting the Comprehensive Plan begins with the Planning Commission. State Law requires that the Planning Commission hold at least one public hearing on the proposed Plan. After public comments are received, the final document is prepared and presented to the. Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. Adoption of the Plan by the City Council requires passage of a resolution by atwo-thirds vote. Modifying Land Use Controls State Law requires that the Comprehensive Plan contain guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls necessary to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the land use plan. Official controls may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps. Zoning Regulations The City has adopted zoning regulations (Chapter 30 of the City Code) for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan. The application of zoning districts and the specific' regulations must support the ob}ectives of the omprehensive Plan. As a res t, an outcome o a opttn~ t e omprehensive Plan will be the review and modification of the zoning ordinance. The land use plan provides the basis for guiding zoning decisions that will be made by the City and private property owners. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356 states: "...the planning agency [Planning Commission] shall study and propose to the governing body [City Council] reasonable and practicable means for putting the plan or section of the plan into effect. Subject to the limitations of the Following sections, such means include, but are not limited to, zoning regulations, for the subdivision of land, an official map..." This statute anticipates that the zoning regulations will be reviewed and updated to insure implementation of the land use plan. In a broad sense, this review of the zoning ordinance should examine the following items: Building the Future - A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River 3~8 Using the P1arr • The regulations for each zoning district should be reviewed to di if they Et a intent of the Comprehensive Plan. • Zoning districts should be examined in relationship to land use_designations. Changes in zoning districts will be needed to match zoning with land use. One of the policy decisions the City will need to make is how to implement the land use plan through the zoning map. Unlike the Metro olitan Land n ' Act (Minnesota Statutes, Section 473), which requires consistency between the • la~lan and zoning in cittes wtt n t e 'win Cities metropolitan area, Elk River may choose to to e a nu 'on strategies. (Elk River has typica y c osen to ave zotung consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.) Each has varying imp canons or extsttng property uses an a current zoning. The stra eg7es inc u e, ut are not necessarily limited to, the following: • Keep current zoning in place until such time as the use terminates or redevelopment is initiated. • Rezone property to a zoning district compatible with a land use plan category. • Develop an interim strategy to address current use situations as they relate to long term objectives. Nonconforming Uses Changes in zoning districts will create nonconforming uses. Such uses occur • when the existing land use is not allowed within the zoning district. In most cases, when these situations arise as the result of a new Comprehensive Plan, the goal is not to influence an immediate change in property use. Instead, the vb}ective is to guide future investments to achieve the outcomes desired by the Comprehensive Plan. Nonconfornng uses are controlled by Chapter 30, Article VI, Division 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. A review of the overall Zoning Ordinance will provide the context for an evaluation of the nonconforming provisions of the Ordinance. This evaluation, in turn, may point to Ordinance changes that will assist in the reasonable transition of nonconforming land uses. Subdivision Regulations While the land use plan has direct implications for zoning, the Comprehensive Plan does not have comparable effects on the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 30}. Changes in the Subdivision Ordinance are not required for the immediate adoption of the Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does, however, raise a series of potential changes in subdivision regulations that should be considered by the City. These changes include: • Amending the data required for preliminary plat (Chapter 30, Article V, Division 2, Section 30-353) to include the Resource Inventory required fox Open Space Preservation Plats (Section 30-514). • Building the Future - A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River 3~9 • Altering subdivision design standards to achieve more affordable housing • without sacrificing the sustainabiliry of neighborhoods. • Modifications to park dedication requirements (Chapter 30, Article V, Division 2, Section 30-327) to enhance the ability to undertake the greenway plan. Amending the Pfan The Comprehensive Plan anticipates change in Elk River. Some of these changes are addressed in the Plan, while other changes may be unexpected or even beyond the scope of the Plan. Responding to these changes may require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan should not be amended capriciously. A great deal of thought, time and energy went into the creation of this plan, and the same effort must go into any amendment. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may take several forms: • Changes in the map or categories of the Land Use element. • Changes in other elements of the Plan. • Plans and other studies that become part of the Comprehensive Plan. • Updating of entire sections of the Plan. • Revisions related to major geographic sections of the community. • Amendments to the Plan may originate from the Planning Commission, City Council or another parry wit a vested interest in a ecte property. Adoption of amen meets owever, can o e accomp s e y ity ounc resolution. All amendments are subject to the same public hearing an two-t irds vote requirements as a option of the original plan. Coun ' initiate amen meets, however, may not e a opte un ' the Council has xeceived a recommendation from the Planning Commission, or unti160 days have elapsed from the date of submission to the Planning Commission. • Project Evaluation in adopting the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Elk River makes a commitment to use the Plan as a means of evaluating a variety of private and public projects. This evaluation requires using a series of questions to consider the mexits of a project: • Is the project consistent with the land use plan? • Does the project move Elk River towards its vision for the future? • Is the project consistent with the policies contained in the Plan? A negative answer to one or more of these questions may illustrate flaws in the proposed project. These flaws may be fundamental and require denial of the Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for ilk River Using the Plan 3• 10 Community Context per unit for all other housing. The projected employment is based on a series of assumptions about the size of commercial and industrial development and the number of employees .per square foot of building area. This analysis considers the results from the development of the land use pattern and not the timing of this growth. As noted earlier, the pace of future development is difficult to predict. If the City grows at an average rate of 265 households/housing units per year, this growth will be achieved by 2025, If the average growth rate slows to 200 units per year, this population is not achieved until 2032. It is important to note that these projections do not attribute any job or ~rling or urban tceserve Tana use areas. the future of these areas would provide more development and growth capacity. • • • Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan far Elk River 4~9 These neighborhood-oriented Community Commercial areas provide a • convenience shopping alternative for adjacent neighbors. By locating convenience type services closer to neighborhoods, vehicle trips that would otherwise by destined for the intense commercial uses along Highway 169, are reduced and residents benefit by a higher quality of life do to less time coping with traffic. Highway Business The Highway Business land use is the most intensive form of commercial development in Elk River. Businesses in this category may be the largest both in terms of size and traffic generation. Market orientation tends to be regional in nature. Development orientation tends to be toward regional highways. Future Highway Business developments should be located within the Urban Service Boundary and adjacent to regional highways. Examples of Highway Business uses include discount retailers, grocery and general merchandise. The Highway Business land use follows the Highway 169 and Highway 10 corridors. On 169, the majority of land adjacent to the highway between the Highway 10 interchange and 197th Avenue is guided for Highway Business. On Highway 10, the Highway Business area extends from the 169 interchange to 165th Avenue. A small area of Highway Business use exists along Highway 10 at the west and east ends of Elk River. Of these areas, the only substantially undeveloped land lies on the north side of Highway 10 between 165th and 171st Avenues. An important planning issue is providing new areas to accommodate increased • demand for retail services. The proposed Land Use Plan provides fox future Highway Business commercial growth at the following locations: • New interchange on Highway 169 and County Road 33. • Area around intersection of Highway 10 and 165th Avenue. Commercial Reserve support immediate development in this area. This land use identifies areas held in reserve for future commercial development. The only areas designated for this use lie adajcent to Highway 169 an Highway 10 outside of the Urban Service Area. These locations are well suited to development for highway business uses. Municipal utilities are not available to to vacant new areas Eor groEVth. The reserve status allows planning to form of development in the future. Plan seeks re opening the desired light industrial The Light Industrial category includes industrial uses that are lower in intensity of activity. These uses limit the potential for adverse impacts on adjacent land uses due to factors such as noise and odor. Examples of Light Industrial uses include offices, enclosed storage and warehousing, research laboratories and light manufacturing. Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River Land Use 5• I I Coborn's Superstore is an example o~'a highway business use that !s regiona!!y oriented. Land Use but places the area under the Mining land use designation. Public -Semi Aublic This category includes larger tracts of land used for public and institutional purposes. These uses include schools, City and County governmental buildings, and religious institutions. Open Space The Open Space category contains the public and private park and recreation system. Land tvill be added to this category as new public parks are developed pursuant to the Parks element of the Comprehensive Plan. Land~il! This area represents land operated in conjunction with the sanitary landfill. The -~... Landfill use is consistent with the current land use plan. Mining In many respects, the Mining land use designation functions similar to the Urban Reserve. The primary objective of this land use category is to allow the current mining use o t e n an a ress tune land use when development becomes --~ imnvnent. Based on current information, the majority of the resources in the Mining area will be extracted over the next 20 years. An alternative use of thss property is M!n)ng activrt+es near Hwy t b4 and needed when the mineral resources are removed. It is anticipated the southern CSAH 21 portions of the Mining area (south of CR 33) will be available for development in the next five years. The ability to provide this area with municipal services is an essential factor in planning for land use. Understanding this issue involves several questions: • How much development can be supported through an extension of the existing sanitary sewer collection system? • If this capacity is inadequate, are there other feasible alternatives for sanitary sewer service to this area? • Does the cost of these sewer improvements influence the form of development? • How would the extension of sewer service to this area affect overall planning for sewer plant capacity? • How does the current and future street system affect land use decisions? It is important to note that the discussions at the Comprehensive Plan Task Force meetings as well as at other public meetings has been to guide the future development of this area toward a combination of Commercial and Industrial uses close to existing, and toward new roadway infrastructure and Residential • • • Building the Future - A Comprehensive Pian for Elk River 5t i3 • s • ~'~ir- ~~I!- i!i-~r,_r f _~rirl_~ill ~ _~ Ir~ri~-~~.~n~lir~{s rrir~rn{ Jr rJ~_.- ... .. i~~~~- ~-~rr~rr~iir~ii-~r ,,Ii~~~;,,,r~ rir~-(_ir~~~ill r;~r~n~r~~ri% ,~_-- - ~_~ rf.S [rJ _Ir_~ fi7r r-' ~~,~Si jib - r~_~_ i f v mil' ,ffiriTl~! ,';r_IrJ -I~fir~~- i~r'Lr~i' f(J ~ ~ ~J. ;~/ rl;r i l~ i`~:! _. ~ I _ Ir~~•;ri-•r~ ;*/L[~ill~i r~ I- ~~j`l~rrr'r~',7e~~L_1~~ -rre.'~ r -~~_ir~r~ ~~ rc~.trc,~~~ri_~G~;i! r~r~rrir~!i_ir~c• ii-,r~r ;ir4r! ----/ - -r - /. ~ -~---- ..~:. _ - .: 4:.'33,.'.. ~..:: ~ Y~ - #.F _t-. :..:... S s e$ § ~8 • I' ~__' n rril~frJ~l ,r~.Crri_I_~r~n Jrrrlf') ~ri~~r~r~l~i~ q _ ,J ~ Ir ~ l ~ ~ ~ rl!._tJr,_l. ~r~ r`l~~ ~_~ ri~~ fl~~ .rr ri ri'L~i_i r~r~ ~~lr j~~/ JJ~~ I ri r~r_i . - --, , ,.: r r :, ... ._.. ;~;rirlr~ll ~rri~lr~, = ~~ ~`-~~~~~ ~r~rj~rliri~ r~~_ii-1f _ _ _ `J . - u rr~illir,~i Sri ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Fay ~s ~ - ~:~F Asir.. _ • • s • • e • ,, r f ~ ~ ., ... _., .. . .. ' -`~~ ~~=C=1=I ~~~ ~ ~~!Ir(i~~I rJ rid ~ri,r=~ rti~i~ri~r~rr~r~i J(j1(j-l(j%~ ,. , ,, ~~-l,r ~5rr~~ir~rr_i'r ~_~~~~i~r~r~~ir~ri~, - ~ Irx~_in~rl~. ~C ;p_l.~_j~rr~r~ (~•~.%rrril~~ir~'r I~ri ~~r ~ r-,• r ~ -(- ~r (F" (r' - ~ ,~r~ ~ ~..~ .., _~ _~~rr _~I r~ y_~ i_'I'rj_ rfnri ~f l;l~~31 ~I ~~rl~ -~,)~~.JJ~'. ~, f~ C~J ~.I rl~~ ,,. i_`IiIrI;.I~fJ Il Jam= ~.l J.-.l. Ill Ifj ~_. fy~ ~~~J(~ ~ .. • • 54,WO,000 j~SOO,000 j3,W0,o00 32,500,000 j20001100 81,500,000 ji,ooo ono SSOO,OOn ^ IanJtJl Fees ^ Grvvel nx- C:i~~ ,Fare ^ Gravel - C~~v Fe::. ® ['~o a Taxes • 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 2035-2030 20bU-2045 2035-2050 • (~nFl~-il_I~"~rr~rc~~7f)1 fj - l~)j~j ~: ~ ... (f ~r i-1.r•~r~~rr_ir~• r_~~'_`irr~~ri~r~~ - ~ ~rn~- _!~ _~r~•:;r~,~rir~ l r1~.i~• _ - _~n~~ IJ`~` ~'-('~ ~~,_ii~~ r~i,i~ r~";~ ~~); ~_r ~~fir~r( (~(~j(j-!~i=~_~l~ _ I,I~f~~f rl.'-_ fr ('_r~ f~l I': ~II~CI _~~~_r~1 Ifl •'f-rl rl• r ~' ~~ •r~~~)`J.`J~~~ ,'~. > r .~' 1~ it ~ ~ ~ .. • • f~.ooo,ooo i9 oopoo 13,000,000 i2sou.ooo iz,oooooo S1,SOO,000 it 000000 1500,000 SO ^ ~.ameu Fens ^ cra~d ma -cry ,nary ^ Gravcl -Gry Fccs ^Prn rty Taus • • 2010.2015 2015 .020 202n-2025 2025-209!1 20911-20'}5 2095-2060 2o0U-2u15 20A5.2050 • ~o~,,,,,~~ , $242,000 Property Taxes ~°°~~~°~~ ~~ 2010-2030: • No Landfill Fees 33,000,0nc~ 1-- -- • No Uravel Tales/Fees :~,5~~,,,,~~ ~ $~.5 Million Taxes/Fees to City 2030-2050: - !~ o ~,~dt~ t=r= ^ c~woeJ co. - Ciry shore .~:~o~~-~ Fua :~°°°"°" ~ • X663,000 Gravel Taxes/Fees -~~- ~ ty o ~~~~ . Tn,a, 2030-2045 :~s~,~,,~,~, ; - - - • $1.8 1Vlillion Propcrtj~ Talcs „ooo,,,,,~ ~ 2030-2050 aso~, 2010 2~~I5 2015 2020 ?020 21125 20Z 2020 201i~2035 a~;s 205ii LI~111211J5 20{52050 • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gz~~:~~,~:,~,~„ 18,0,,,,,,,, • Landfill Fees (2010-2030) On i 1 G 000 _ ~ $ , , __ _ _ _, ~H~ 14 00 y , 0!l -..- --. 000 fi0 12 ti , 8 - - ©S¢nxno 1 $70,000;100 ~ ^ Sccnvno 2 ^ ~crnano 3 be,ooo,nun ~_ _. ___ • City Services available ____ fb.0ugouu ~ 2030 ~ - ___ . .__... &tpnque%' -.... Y - --- ~~~ i ilpi 2 1_ - - , , i T , ~ ~ ~ -~ .,pis ii ~~z~ _. ~ ..~~_ i~ ~~,u _»,.. ~ ai~~~~~~ _~~»isa w~~~ ~'~,ml • • • • • ]OOS EteWnE l~M UN Wp8x9 La~dM 04i..Y ~u. ...rwr X119.3 million -estimated market value of existing development within 2,500 feet of the Pine Bend Landfill ~~.~.. , :' '~ ~; ]006 EW1Mg LInO UM ~BarA 4aWta Q~mo„, ..o. M Sir •...,~. Y ~ ~ .^~~.. wr _va 4Ew~~ n~.~M .: ~...~.~:z -- t _ ~ ~; ~: ~~ ~~ ~ ,~,a LOOS E~MUnSiw Uw ...-...., &mnA.,m S~ivNYy LIMB Q'.n •~•~•.•••••••`• ••~••~ qtr ~ ..r ~s • EOO6 E~MOIq tuW UN EuMVMSUWWLS++Ofa 0'y _ ~ ~~ +,~ ~. +r ~ ... ...... o.. ~aRr~rw Cewny rw Oar M9eia wrOe~e W.sa 0~-_ taanry rw Wr Mea.O O.ens.+. sr.wr~.w ~~ . -aa .. ,.~ ~.._ ~.....~ .,. ....~ 4d.W.. ., .. ~'~; ~ A..,.,. J L.i~;r~r_~ r~ri rr~=ir~~;~r ~,r i~i.i,~-, rr~_r r~~~f~~~r~rr~~~~) ~sirir~ fir,' r.. -~ __-.. i. i~„~ ~riiiiir~r~ - _~rirri;~r~~~ ~n_ir~_~~~ -;~_i~~_i r~~ ~ I'~rfrirr:::: _ _ v _ ~... ~s~.~~~~rn~-rEr ~~i-riiri~ ~O(~ ~~.~r r~~ i-~i~ Jirrn~:>i~~_ ~..,~:~ -;~ inrl'~ll - ~;u ~ ~ J..J rrilli(Jrl - ~_;~irrisi[~-r ri i_ir~: r ;r_iri~ J~ ~-=i ;ti.ri~i _ ~ - ~~ J~ JIrJ~rri~~,r~r gri-fiiri / ~~)O ?~~~r r~~ r_'r~ - f~~rr ~~_iC~ • • • ~~~~ m~~~~ ~~ oY.. ...„.....__ ~ .... „_~~ r ~1, eui zat .• Aenwser ~~.5 Ire r.+. • • • .~, . r~i~~I •-n~~ ,~=, ~~f~~rrin~ _,.~ir~i.~ir~rr~= ,z.~Ii:,~~ %1~ v~~1~J,~)~J(j rr~ y'I rr~illif~n SI~r~Ft ;~r~:-flf T~J I:.I flfi f '.~ frJ .. B~ookfleld Landf +oo o ew yr • • • r:.~i~l~~r~~i~~i _;-I~-, ~Ir~~_rri~ri~ ~~~T ('[j l;I r riChl-C ~/tl rr~ r- (~~ (,~~JJ•.(I I ..., . ~i rjffl _;_; ------ SeKlen Hill landRll Lpand • • • _ -- - e =`~ __ -- r~i-~-~~ =.~JiJ. ~__ ~ J`~J Jf 'rflr ~,I~,' ref L~~.' i! I ~~~~ ~~~~'rrl~'.~~ 'i~,~~r~J _i_rir~ I J ~•~rri~r~i~~~~~ i=re r-r~ritiri,iir~a ~r~ ~~~ ~~. r ~ ~ __ - ~~~i. ~_Iri~~~i~~ ~~~~~•I ,i_ri~ri~'~~=~«r~ ~C~ _ritfJ_rr,'Ffl.~(~ f~J!~~~~, .. [fly 41ffl Jll(I [~.Jf rT (~`.. ~~I ~`I ~TCi ~I ~~I ~- ~SI (I'flll ~Il~~il ~_~.. ~~ ~ ...:.... J. J~ ... _... ,:... • RI°ri~~rl_~ J~I_; ~~ r~r--r~ - _irl _I~r~rrl_irl~f~ `;rl~.r'J~~ J~~.Ir~~~ • f ~ /Irrl ~,y'F r_I~ :i/ r;lrir I~l~_J. ~ r'~~ rJ %ri~_r'1'~'. • ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ , a,rJrrr,;~l~ ,i~r~rri r~i_~.l ~'I~rs= ,~j~rrr~ .. ~~, _i rr,rrirririrlir~ r~~!~~r~ ;i~r~,f•ri;,rrl r~r~ri'r---- f~ril~lli'r~~~ ~_r ~rr•~~ril~~ir~r~ i~ _r~~~~llir~~~ rr _. ~ . . - ~Jrr =,~C~ ~i~ri r~ri~~,7%~~~~ rig-rte ~ I I ,r~~.::_ ' J ,.1, ...1-~ J. • • • ~ ,~% i[YI r'~J ~_:~ f'[I r,fi J(I ~J7 rl~.~~,;r rJ fTl~~%-/~ti~~r ~_~r~~~ Il ~%!f rrr~rr f r''~1-rrJ-~-n;rJ;/ ~~I_ir,r iltlli~~~ rr~ ~i _ri'r~l~ ri~~.,;1 ~!:Il~~~lriCr ~~ ~ I r -_ rl_~rir;r,al r~~~~~ 1~ri=~,~r~ir1 _.:'_!I~~r,l~ _rr I~~ ~_,J r~u:`r ~_rr~rr~ 1-rr~ n _~r r~larii rrr ri ~.r~ i,r~rli~lr~rl_r1~rlllrirl~-'; ran r~'rrr~=-'r~~ -- - r (r II'rr~rrr Intl in n,lrri_r; rl_~rin r ~r~rl li•;;~~ - -_r - I _ r I ~ i~~.` '~ ['-r'. rl rl rJ'.lJ f~j -!(JI`,,~~~r _I ~ r~lflrj(I_! (j~~lJ lT ~_Lrll~l ~~ TCJ Y' f(1' r rr~_I~I~J~i r~r ~1~~~~((I.r~l'l ~i=_rer fJ~r,rJ~f~r~ i~,ll~`s~~~?. ~~ rJ~~~r~r~ri-~r~i~,~ _rn ~~r irLr~,,IrI~-~ - - ~ ran-~~r„ir~ri r~~ I In~liill rn;lc~ r! it ~ and I ~r -n~r.r,,- _ TJ_, r~~ ~I _~~ ~-fin. ~r_~~~rl s~~ ~rl~~- ~_~r~ili~ ~ i~rl ~~~~r; ir,rrrl_~I-~~;~~~ _I fJ fJ~'_I i_~rr fl~r' .. .. C • • C, Proposed ERL Expansion • March 24, 2009 Page 11 of 12 Articles and Studies on this Issue (Continued) • Research & Planning Consultants, Inc. published a major study, Effects of Sanitary Landfills on the Value of Residential Property, in December of 1983. This study employed four case studies to assess the effects landfills had on property values of adjacent neighborhoods. The sites were in Houston, TX; Baltimore, MD; Minneapolis, MN; and Atlanta, GA. An overview of the findings from this study, summarized below, indicate the following: 1. Based on the time-series analysis and t-test performed, the nominal value of residential property in three of the four case study neighborhoods had not declined since landfill development. 2. In the case of the fourth site, which relied on census data versus primary date for the other three facilities, the median value of the single family, owner- occupied housing units increase substantially. 3. The pattern of development in two of the landfill neighborhoods had not changed since development of their landfills. In the other two cases, the pattern of development became more residential since development of their • landfills. • An article titled An Evaluation of the Impact of aWell-Designed Landfill on Surrounding Property Values, was published in The Appraisal Journal in April of 1991. In this study, the housing prices in a neighborhood adjacent to a landfill in the Los Angeles area were compared to housing in comparable neighborhoods some distance from the landfill. The "control" neighborhoods were similar with regard to demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, and housing stock, but were outside the area affected by the landfill. Using 1,628 transactions over a 10 year period, a regression analysis was performed with both house-specific and neighborhood variables, were significant. The results suggest that a landfill, ifwell-designed and managed, can be a good neighbor and have no statistically measureable negative impact on surrounding property values. The effect of MSN landfills on residential property values is a subject of debate. Some literature indicates negative effects while other literature indicates no effects or even positive effects. Real estate values have always been affected by surrounding land uses. One such externality is a landfill. The literature available and studies completed to date are contradictory and do not provide any significant assistance in the subject situation, especially since no studies available have addressed the issues of incremental impact when an existing landfill is expanded. • Proposed ERL Expansion March 24, 2009 • Page 12 of 12 E. CONCLUSION For the reasons outlined above, it is my considered opinion that the proposed expansion will not have a significant or material impact on property values within the immediate vicinity that is over and above any impacts resulting from the existing landfills and mining operations. The principle reasons for this opinion are as follows: 1. The proposed landfill expansion will not have an impact on the existing landfills and mining operations that surround the SDA to the north, east and south. 2. The proposed landfill expansion will not have an impact on the future public (trail) use of the city-owned corridor to the west. 3. The proposed landfill expansion will not have an incremental impact on the residential property further to the west of the SDA for the following reasons: • The residential properties are already proximate to the ERL that has been in operation since the 1970s. • The residential properties are already proximate to the Tiller mining operation situated on the SDA. • The residential properties are separated from the SDA by the city-owned former railroad corridor. In the near future, this corridor will be a public trail. • Due to distance, topography and trees, the residential properties have either an obstructed or no view of the SDA. • The MSW landfill expansion on the SDA will be subject to significant federal, state county and city regulation. • ERL will take the measures previously outlined to limit any potential impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. RUPPERT APPRAISAL & CONSULTATION, INC. By: Scott J. Ruppert, resident SJR/jah 1tr8138 • r • PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING ERL SDA AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES (PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN MARCH 19, 2009) • • PARCEL EXHIBIT AND PLAT MAP • MBAR , _ s` ORFlWING NO~cJeER DRAWING N~UPJIBER • _ y OR~AWIfV61 • i• i• X A ,~~D 6CN.E IN FEET SCALE: 1" 400' PARCEL EXHIBIT G~DRN,~e,°„~, a° CoorEMafe Syaf°m (NAO'BJ. 19116). for Elk River Landfill °°'°' "' I"° ~""°~° `°~'" NX-XX-XXXX Oenofea SIIerDVme Covnfy Pwcel lWnN6cotbn Number. :::. ... .:::... ... - - - ,, "" ~ ry: rWea^r^k 6 .° _ TRRCT F I JO-OJJ-4/00 J9.6x ocres it I s TRACT A , JO-52{-0/OS J i )5.45X' xres J° ~ y __._._._ _..._.._... .. _..._. • •l i R ~'Y LO'A'I S ~ S 3: I I ~ ec.. ~ ~ --.• I I I TRACT H RI'/ J 55222~~~ --7hlACF rrI ~ d~+' 31 I;_ 5 . .eurk ry I_x .., " 1 _ ..' I t I i ` ~~ I ~ •t~r ~ ~ ~ ~ TRACT G ° y~.u .. ._._._JO-SA-oIOS yPA o - sJ 4fq \ __TR CT 0 R~m,..i I .il ~ N b « 5 ~ g I ~;~ I JO-OJJ-4 ]SIS% 00 es I ~ I ... ead ~ mto~ uwnio Two 1 g a b Q1 ° Jo-oSa-.Jwa e.Dx e y.o LNUni F a ] _ m. ~ _ - - - . CifY of Elk Riwr $ ! aeys CITY o/ ]5-IOJ- 05 fYk River I ~ ~ ~ i ~` crc U.Jx a S 1 ~' ~u . a.. r I r ' ~ . ~.4. 4. __.._._._.___. ` ~ ~~ ^ .•R V 1 I ]s-laa- ms 0 53.J% ~'res ~. . ..._.._ - - ~.,c ~Jx '~ o fa if¢lo%zi b 3]~]X a.__._._.. l) ` ~ ~ r ;T I a ~~ ~ ~ u,.w n~ °" ~ smpx /RS+.i I av. , ! rxu. I -___ s_._.. I . . _.1._.._.._ _. ._._J. _; ~ - I _ i _ _ r~:n::::. r.:•: .r........; .._ ......, I:::~ .r::.:. ...._ I..~.~:: ~ "o ~ u m e 0 :___.__._ ....._._._,.. . 1 I oun..0 y'-104-/aed % ....__._ .._ . 1 - I I - 4F I 1 " o I ____.____ -_________~ ]5-10J-2400 I 1 I y _._....__~ )s.6_ ac __ ~ - ~1 E .u s , y I I I I ~ ' - --- I~ - J a :--- -7- -- ~ s S . 1 1 ~ ( 0 c4 I J I I 1 bI' ]5-la-llo / e.lx o !la °° =p l I ,~ 5-:OJ-)200 ] I I I __ B4GX a __-_-I__ _ 1 - __ __ ___ _I __ i ~ t I 1 / C ]5-104- 405 I 1 1 1 I / c rr6.6x~~p, sk ! I &fumin a Sze f ~ I Rmnl l I I / _ J-f ~ ~ ! '?21st Aw.INW T ~ ~ I r~ - ~ i ` ~ _ _ - _. _ _ _ ~ _ _ _- _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _.._ q~ I _ _ 1 _ _ _ ~ THIS .5' NO] A 90Wl04RY SCRVE:r. However, s Rrel~iw svn o w~ ceunly ' m°t(n Faro b Is own ~ ar°occoy:'o by MnE`sRTnis LanrlM19 ope e1 on~s o yopDiccl ,+ew a the G ce a ~ror s P~wehOny sm ' Nea,o ~~x GATE: 04/10/08 N0. 04TE DESCRIPTION , ~, Sec. 3&4, Twp. 33, Rng. 26 rh BOGART PEDERSON i °~~~ '": w'~ u> ~ °~~ ° ~ DcslsN aX: I D 25 a Aec ell eo~ne~nea o Sec. 33&34, Tw 34, Rn 26 ~' d ASSOCIATES, INC. s""'/ " e`e ~~'"~ ~ -- - /LivoniG Twp Cit of E R -' rN~" ~' Dwc FlLE sle a"° RI -' . . . y MN ~ . Sgne1 Pmake Dnon E illE NO: OG-0259.08 - __,__ Sherburne Count y. h, .rq_xz.- ex. ,u zs .e, rnu O D°I,:.o,~y._ Reg. Na.44646 RUPPERT APPRAISAL & CONSULTATION, INC. REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, BROKERS & CONSULTANTS SCOTT J. RUPPERT , MAI. JD TEL: 952.22q..8085 •Ax: 95z.224.808~ ruppertappC~aol.com March 24, 2009 Elk River Landfill, Inc. Debra Walters, District Manager 22460 Highway 169 NW Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Proposed Landfill Expansion Elk River, MN Dear Ms. Walters: ONE CORPORATE CENTER IV 730I OHMS LANE suITE #355 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55439 Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL), owns and operates a 163.8 acre municipal solid waste (MSW) • and construction and demolition debris (CD) landfill located along U.S. Highway 169 on 476.7 acres of land in the City of Elk River (City) and Livonia Township. The remainder of the property (312.9 acres) provides a buffer surrounding the landfills and includes an existing gravel mining operation, wetland, forested areas, etc. ERL is proposing to expand operations at its existing 163.8 acre landfill by developing an additional 8.6 acres on the southern-most portion of the existing landfill property and 60.2 acres extending onto the 108.9 acre parcel located immediately south of the existing landfill property. The proposed landfill expansion project, known as the Southern Development Area (SDA), will require the property be rezoned to be included in the Solid Waste Facility Overlay District and a Sanitary Landfill Conditional Use Permit will need to obtained. City staff indicated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is needed for the SDA. Section 30-517 of the City Code discusses amendments to the zoning map. Subdivision (e), in part, states: In reviewing a proposed amendment, consideration shall be given to existing conditions within the area directly and indirectly affected by the proposal, the conservation ofproperty values, the use to which the property affected is being devoted at the time, and relevant provisions, if any, in the land use plan. As a result, I have been asked to provide a consulting opinion on the issue underlined above i.e., whether the proposed landfill expansion will have an impact on property values within the immediate vicinity. • Please note that this letter is intended to outline the issue and my opinion and reasons for that opinion related to the issue. I have been asked to provide a consulting opinion and this letter is not intended to be an appraisal report or an appraisal of surrounding properties. Proposed ERL Expansion March 24, 2009 • Page 2 of 12 A. REQUIRED NARROWING OF THE ISSUE As a threshold issue, the issue needs to be modified or narrowed to reflect the existence of the existing MSW landfill, CD landfill and Tiller mining operations. In analyzing whether the proposed MSW landfill expansion will have a significant or material impact on property values within the immediate vicinity, the analysis is substantially narrowed if the proposed or similar landfill use is already in existence and proximate to other properties in the immediate vicinity. In this particular case, the SDA is currently being mined by Tiller Corporation and is adjacent to existing MSW and CD landfills and other mining operations. Because any impact from the existing landfills and mining operations has already been incorporated into the surrounding area, the only relevant property value impact is the incremental impact, if any, caused by the proposed landfill expansion. In assessing whether a transmission line upgrade poses a significant environmental impact, "Minnesota law does not recognize the precautionary principle as the standard for determining a `significant impact.' The term `significant' is an important limitation in law... [T]he determination of significance must be made by looking to the difference between the operation of the existing power line and the upgraded line proposed." In the Matter of the Exemption • Application by Minnesota Power fora 345/250kV High Voltage Transmission Line Known as the Arrowhead Project, OAH Docket No. 10-2901-12620-2 at 20-21 (ALJ Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation dated Jan. 29, 2001) (underlining in original), aff'd 2002 WL 46991 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2002). Otherwise stated, where, as here, the proposal is to upgrade an existing transmission line, "[t]he issue of whether power lines themselves create a significant human or environmental impact is not properly before the [Court]. There is a power line currently operating in the corridor. The only question is whether the proposal so changes conditions as to create a significant human or environmental impact that does not now exist." Id. at 21 n.118. The same is true for analyzing the property value impacts of such upgraded uses. In NSP v. Sunfish Lake, No. C4-02-6854, slip op. at 21-22 (Minn. 1St Jud. Dist. May 31, 2002 Order), the district court reversed the city's denial of NSP's request to upgrade its transmission line from 69kV to 115kV because of supposed property value diminution. The district court explained, "City's denial of the CUP on grounds of property value diminution was arbitrary and capricious. The three homes in City located within 50 feet of the line were purchased or built along the existing single-circuit line with the property value impact from the line fully integrated into the price. Therefore, the only property value impact at issue is the incremental impact, if any, caused by adding the second circuit to the existing line." Given the above, the issue that I have been asked to address is restated as follows: • Whether the proposed landfill expansion will have a significant or material impact on property values within the immediate vicinity that is over and above such impacts, if any, resulting from the existing landfills and mining operations? Proposed ERL Expansion • March 24, 2009 Page 3 of 12 B. QUALIFICATIONS AND INVESTIGATION Qualifications I have been appraising agricultural, residential and industrial properties in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area for over 20 years. I am a state licensed real estate appraiser and an MAI designated member of the Appraisal Institute. Please refer to my attached appraisal qualifications. I have experience with this type of issue having completed real estate value impact studies analyzing the impact of demolition landfills, communication towers and high voltage electric transmission lines on surrounding property values. Investi ag tion I have personally inspected the 585.6 acres of land in the City of Elk River and Livonia Township which includes the SDA (proposed landfill expansion area), existing landfills, existing mining operations and undeveloped buffer area. As part of my analysis, I have also viewed the properties in the immediate neighborhood. I have also reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and other • documents and exhibits prepared in connection with the proposed landfill expansion application. C. OPINION Based on my review of all pertinent information, my opinion is as follows: The proposed landfill expansion will not have a significant or material impact on property values within the immediate vicinity that is over and above any impacts resulting from the existing landfills and mining operations. This opinion is based on the following: • Characteristics of the proposed landfill expansion. • Characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. • Conversations with real estate brokers who have experience in marketing properties proximate to landfills. • Articles and studies completed by other firms on this issue. Each of these items is discussed in more detail on the following pages. • Proposed ERL Expansion March 24, 2009 • Page 4 of 12 • D. ANALYSIS Characteristics of the Proposed Landfill Expansion ERL proposes to expand operations at its existing landfill facility by developing an additiona18.6 acres on the southern-most portion of the existing landfill property and 60.2 acres extending onto the 108.9 acre parcel located immediately south of the existing landfill property. The 108.9 acre SDA is zoned A1, Agricultural Conservation District and designated as Mining in the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is currently used by a gravel mining operation. The landfill expansion will follow behind the mining operations by the current property owner, the Tiller Corporation. Tiller has an approved CUP from the City for mining the 108.9 acre site and continuing to operate ahot-mix asphalt plant, which is located in the southeast portion of the site. SUMMARY OF EXISTING ERL AND PROPOSED EXPANSION ~ Use Existing ERL acres SDA acres Future ERL acres Permitted MSW landfill 93.0 60.2 161.8 Permitted CD landfill 70.8 - 70.8 Buffer, including mining operation, wetland, forested areas, etc. 312.9 48.7 353.0 TOTAL 476.7 108.9 585.6 * Includes 8.6 acres of existing ERL. The proposed landfill expansion will consist of approximately 68.8 acres of additional lined MSW landfill area adjacent to, and integrated with, the currently permitted landfill operation. Development of the SDA would be integrated into the contours, general design and operation of the existing landfill. The proposed SDA will provide approximately 13,600,000 cubic yards of additional MSW design capacity over and above what was approved in 2003 for the existing landfill. Depending on waste flow quantities, this additional capacity would extend the operational life of the landfill approximately 20-25 years. The existing ERL and proposed expansion area will be permitted to accept municipal solid waste, demolition and construction debris, yard waste for composting, industrial waste in accordance with aMPCA-approved Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan, and processing facility rejects from the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility. The ERL is designed to dispose ofnon-hazardous solid wastes. The design as well as the construction and operation of the landfill are governed by the MPCA who has performed a detailed review of the design of the landfill as well as reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed landfill expansion • through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). .Proposed ERL Expansion March 24, 2009 • Page 5 of 12 Characteristics of the Proposed Landfill Expansion (Continued) A Draft EIS was prepared by the MPCA in 2005 and approved in 2006. The purpose of the draft EIS was to evaluate and disclose information about the significant environmental effects of the proposed landfill expansion. The EIS findings concluded that environmental impacts would likely be minimal, and that the proposed management and mitigation standards would meet or exceed regulatory standards. The Draft EIS also resulted in the following findings related to groundwater, air quality, visual impacts and compatibility with land use. • The SDA has been adequately characterized and meets the requirements of applicable groundwater regulations. • The hydrogeologic conditions at the site are suitable for development of the facility. • The monitoring program will include testing that would provide early warning of a release should one occur. • The potential impact to downgradient receptors is low and monitoring of the nearest downgradient supply wells is part of the existing landfill sampling program. • The potential for impact to Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex is very low. • The maximum gas generation at ERL will significantly surpass the current collection and control system capacity. A proposed expansion of the existing collection and control system is included as part of the landfill permitting. • • The proposed SDA has the potential to generate odors. Monitoring of omissions sources and the use of mitigative measures should continue to be employed at ERL. • The SDA can be effectively screened from Highway 169 by berms and trees. • The SDA is effectively screened by existing trees along the corridor trail. • There are limited opportunities to effectively screen the SDA from 221St Avenue vantage points. • The proposed project is consistent with the Sherburne County Solid Management Plan. • The proposed project is compatible with existing and future land uses in the project area. • Adverse impacts to existing or planned recreational resources are not anticipated. Notwithstanding the findings of the MPCA in the Draft EIS, ERL will take the following further measures to limit any potential impact to the surrounding neighborhood. • The SDA will be served by existing access points along Highway 169. No access points along 221St Avenue are proposed. Once mining operations cease, the existing mining access along 221St Avenue will be closed during landfill operations. • To enhance screening of the landfill, a combination of earthen berm, along with a triple row of a mixture of hardwood tress and pine trees that provide year round screening is proposed to provide screening along Highway 169 and 221St Avenue. • A 200 foot buffer zone has been established along the west side of the SDA between the property line and grading limits of the perimeter berm. The buffer from the property line and the cell boundary is approximately 300 feet. Within the 200 foot buffer zone, no grading activities occur along the west side of the landfill between the City's railroad hiking trail and the landfill. This setback allows for the preservation of the existing trees in the area, as well as area for • establishment of enhanced screening in the future. Currently, the dense vegetation along the bike trail corridor effectively screens the SDA from view of the trail users. This vegetation will remain throughout the development of the SDA since it is within the grading limits setback. Proposed ERL Expansion March. 24, 2009 • Page 6 of 12 Characteristics of the Proposed Landfill Expansion (Continued) Mining is currently allowed to occur within 50 feet of the property line along Highway 169 on the east and along 2215` Avenue on the south. The current berm constructed along the eastern edge of the property to screen the current mining operations from Highway 169 will be enhanced to provide a triple row of trees and additional shrubs to screen the SDA. Natural topography currently screens the majority of the current and proposed mining operations from 2215` Avenue. Prior to mining activities in the vicinity of 2215` Avenue, Tiller Corporation will construct and 8-10 foot landscape berm along 2215` Avenue to screen mining activities. With the construction of the berm along 2215` Avenue, the SDA will have a 300-450 foot setback along the southern property boundary and a 250-450 foot setback along the eastern property line, which allows for ample area for planting with a mixture of trees. Surface water runoff will be controlled onsite. A major characteristic of the proposed landfill expansion is the phasing of development. Like the existing landfill, a phasing plan will be prepared for the expansion site which outlines how the expansion site will be developed. The SDA will be constructed in a series of phased construction projects. The timing of the projects will be dictated by incoming waste volumes and site operations. The construction schedule which is based on current and anticipated waste volumes, indicates that construction phasing will start in the year 2011 and the final phase will S be constructed and closed during the time period from 2030-2033. As with the existing ERL, the height of the expansion area is limited to a maximum elevation of 1,120 feet. Another major consideration is the end use of the property. End use plan concepts have been prepared for the SDA. These concepts provide for passive open space and recreational uses of the majority of the site, with commercial opportunity at the intersection of Highway 169 and 221St Avenue. Long term, the proposed open space planned for the site would be compatible with the adjacent future residential development to the west, and actually provide an amenity for future residents. The open space and recreational uses will be integrated into the planned trail system, which includes the potential for a boardwalk connecting the existing neighborhoods to the west to the site. The end use plan will be implemented in phases as the landfill closes. As the initial end uses for the SDA are implemented, fencing will be utilized to separate the operation of the ERL from the recreational uses. Characteristics of the Surrounding Nei borhood ERL proposes to expand operations at its existing landfill facility by developing an additional 8.6 acres on the southern-most portion of existing landfill property and 60.2 acres extending onto the 108.9 acre parcel located immediately south of the existing landfill property. The proposed landfill expansion site (SDA) is currently used for a gravel mining operation. The landfill expansion will follow behind the mining operations by the current property owner (Tiller Corporation). Tiller has an approved CUP from the City for mining the 108.9 acre site and • continuing to operate ahot-mix asphalt plant, which is located in the southeast portion of the site. Proposed ERL Expansion March 24, 2009 • Page 7 of 12 • Characteristics of the Surrounding Nei~~liborhood (Continued) The 108.9 acre SDA is zoned A1, Agricultural Conservation District and designated as Mining in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Agricultural Conservation District is to preserve, promote, maintain and enhance the use of land for commercial agricultural purposes and to prevent scattered and leap-frog nonfarm growth. Properties designated as Mining in the Comprehensive Plan are currently being mined or are set aside for future mining. As part of the landfill expansion project, the SDA will need to be included within the Solid Waste Facility Overlay District and a Sanitary Landfill Conditional Use Permit will need to be obtained. City staff indicated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would also be needed for the SDA. A major consideration in this analysis is the surrounding neighborhood and land use. The SDA (proposed expansion site) is surrounded by five properties summarized in the following chart. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Property Owner Direction Approximate Size (Acres Use ERL (Waste Management) North 476 MSW and CD landfills and minin operation E. & R. Toth East 224 Mining operation agricultural Tiller Co oration South 75 Mining o eration R. Bury South 120 Mining operation Cit of Elk River West n/a Former R/R line -future trail Immediately north of the SDA is the existing ERL which has been in operation since the 1970's. The existing ERL contains 476.7 acres and includes property in the City of Elk River as well as Livonia Township. The ERL includes an existing MSW landfill, an existing CD landfill and an existing gravel mining operation. The ERL also includes a substantial amount of undeveloped buffer land which includes wetlands and forested areas. The portion of the ERL within City limits is zoned A1, Agricultural Conservation District. The active landfill and mining areas are included within the SWF, Solid Waste Facility Overlay District and the ME, Mineral Excavation Overlay District. Land within the City limits is designated as Landfill in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the SWF Overlay District is to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing a specific zoning district for the use of land for the establishment and operation of solid waste facilities. The purpose of the ME Overlay District is to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing a • specific zoning district for the use of land for the establishment of mineral excavation operations and related facilities. Land designated as Landfill in the Comprehensive Plan is designated for use as a sanitary landfill. Proposed ERL Expansion March 24, 2009 • Page 8 of 12 Characteristics of the Surrounding Neighborhood Continued) Immediately east of the SDA is U.S. Highway 169. East of the highway is approximately 224 acres of land owned by Ernie and Richard Toth. The parcel owned by Ernie Toth is improved with an older farmhouse and related outbuildings. The primary use of this land is for aggregate mining, although the property also contains a communication tower. The portion of the Toth site where the tower is located is zoned AT, Antenna Tower District. The Toth property is zoned CRT, Commercial Reserve Transition District. Almost all of the property is within the ME Overlay District. The property is designated as Commercial Reserve in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Commercial Reserve Transition District is to allow existing uses to remain conforming until such time as redevelopment is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan, at which time the City will consider changing the zoning designation. The purpose of this district is also to provide for orderly redevelopment of continuous parcels of land and to discourage piecemeal or leap-frog development that will result in the isolation or inefficient reuse of existing parcels of land. Land designated Commercial Reserve is intended to be held in reserve for future commercial development. These areas currently lie outside of the urban service area and the reserve status allows planning to facilitate the desired form of development in the future. • Immediately south of the SDA is 221St Avenue. Immediately south of this roadway is land owned by the Tiller Corporation and Richard Bury. The approximately 75 acres located at the southwest corner of Highway 169 and 221St Avenue is owned by Tiller Corporation and currently being used as an aggregate mining operation. Richard Bury owns the approximately 120 acre parcel bounded by the Tiller parcel on the east, and the city-owned former railroad line corridor on the west. Much of this parcel is also currently being mined. Both the Tiller and Bury parcels are zoned A1, Agricultural Conservation District. Both parcels are also included in the ME Overlay District. Both parcels are designated as Mining in the Comprehensive Plan. A portion of the Bury parcel fronting on the city-owned former railroad line corridor is designated as Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan. Immediately west of the SDA is the city-owned former railroad line corridor. This corridor varies in width from about 100-200 feet and is intended for use as a future trail. This city-owned corridor runs along the west boundary of the SDA and bisects the existing ERL. The corridor is zoned A1, Agricultural Conservation District and is designated as Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan. West of the city-owned corridor are eight improved residential properties situated on tracts of land ranging in size from about 2.5 to 20 acres in size. These properties are accessed from Quinn Street which is a gravel roadway extending north from 221St Avenue. All of these parcels are zoned A1, Agricultural Conservation District and are designated Rural Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Residential category allows residential development outside of • the urban service area. Housing in these areas consists ofsingle-family detached housing units. The area consists of a combination of farmsteads, large lot rural subdivisions and cluster subdivisions. Proposed ERL Expansion March 24, 2009 • Page 9 of 12 Characteristics of the Surroundin~~Nei~hborhood (Continued Still farther west is the city-owned 27.3 acre parcel and The Ridges of Rice Lake residential subdivision. The Ridges of Rice Lake is a newer residential subdivision consisting of approximately 70 single family lots and 178 acres of open space. The single family lots are zoned Al, Agricultural Conservation District and designated as Rural Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The 178 acres of open space is designated as Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan. The city-owned parcel situated between The Ridges of Rice Lake Development and 2215Y Avenue is also designated Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan. In summary, most of the land surrounding the SDA (proposed landfill expansion site) is either currently within the ERL or is being utilized for mining purposes. The only exception is the city- owned former railroad corridor which borders the west side of the SDA. This corridor is intended for a future public trail. West of the city-owned corridor is a mix of older and newer single family homes constructed on large lots/parcels outside of the urban service area. Due to distance, topography and trees, these residential properties have either an obstructed or no view of the existing or proposed landfill operations. In addition, most of the older homes and all of the homes within The Ridges of Rice Lake Development were built after the existing ERL landfill operations began in the 1970s. • Conversations with Real Estate Brokers As part of this analysis, I interviewed a number of real estate brokers who had experience in marketing and selling properties proximate to different types of landfills. The opinions of the various brokers consulted are summarized as follows: • The type of landfill is a consideration. A potential buyer would probably be less concerned with a proximate CD landfill compared to a MSW landfill. • A potential buyer would be less concerned if there were adequate screening or distance from the landfill. Screening could take the form of a berm, fence, trees, etc. • The existing neighborhood uses or potential uses are a major consideration. For example, if a property is already located within an industrial neighborhood (including other landfills, mining operations, etc.), the addition or expansion of a landfill may have a minimal or no effect on the selling price of adjacent property. • A potential buyer of an industrial or industrial property, especially one that includes an existing landfill or mining operation, would not likely be concerned with an additional landfill in close proximity. • A potential buyer of an agricultural property, especially one that is designated for long term agricultural use in the Comprehensive Plan, would likely be less concerned with a landfill in the immediate neighborhood than if the property were guided for urban development in the foreseeable future. • • Certain buyers are more risk adverse than others. Some potential buyers will not consider purchasing a parcel proximate to a landfill. However, this does not necessarily mean that the market value or selling price of parcels proximate to a landfill will decrease. Proposed ERL Expansion • March 24, 2009 Page 10 of 12 Conversations with Real Estate Brokers (Continued • Certain buyers will recognize that there are some benefits associated with being proximate to landfills. For example, only a portion of the landfill will be actively utilized at any one time. Additionally, when the landfill is closed, the property can be utilized for recreational or agricultural uses and essentially remain undeveloped into the future. Articles and Studies on this Issue As part of this analysis, I have reviewed articles written on this issue by other firms. Unfortunately, the articles written and studies completed to date have only minimal relevance in this situation for two reasons. First, all of the articles focused on potential impacts on improved residential property as opposed to studying property value impacts on industrial properties or properties utilized for public uses. Second, none of the articles addressed the issue of incremental impact when existing landfills are expanded. Four comprehensive studies addressing the issue of landfill impacts on residential property value are summarized below: • • The results of a Pennsylvania State University study, Effects of Solid Waste Disposal Sites on Community Development and Residential Property Values, was published in November, 1982. The purpose of this study was to consider whether sanitary landfills had any adverse effects on community development and residential property values, and if so, measure their magnitudes in selected areas of Pennsylvania. The first part of the study reviewed the effects of landfills on property development in the surrounding communities. The study found that there was no evidence to indicate that the nine landfills studies had any adverse effects on growth or development of their surrounding communities. The data analysis further showed that landfills did not appear to have influenced the nature of development near them. The second part of the study dealt with the use of a multiple regression technique to measure the effects of landfills on residential property values. The research showed that different sets of property characteristics and different functional forms led to the general conclusion that things other than proximity to the sanitary landfill were more relevant in explaining property values. • An article title Price Effects of Landfills on House Values, was published in Land Economics in November of 1992. In this study, an empirical model was utilized to estimate the price effects of a Minnesota municipal solid waste landfill on the value of 708 nearby homes during the 1980's. The Anoka Regional Landfill in Ramsey, Minnesota had been expecting solid was since 1967. It had a permit to allow operations in to the 1990's. It sometimes received more than 500 tons of waste per day. Results of the study indicated that the landfill adversely affect home values in the range of 12% at the landfills boundary • and 6% at about one mile. i• i• S Farms, EAZ Marsh Famil D~ UdI S, L/i1111G1 OL Gregory 32 ri V.J ~ " Schulze Family ' ~ Schulze Family c. 63.7 Far or .64.1 Radefeldt 54 -` Farm Lmtd 62.4 -c - -_ ~ Farm Lmtd _ 20 Charles ~dges of ~ = AR N ~ ~,~ ~O~ ~- j 5 5.3 ' 18 5.5 Tho on Rice Lake 5'8 00 ~ 5 `a' fi '/ o ~ !0 t al 40 ~_o~ N .a ., ~~~ ~ ~ 70.3 1 Assoc. ~ y '" o te ~ ~ •- a ~ ~ 40 153.3 c a ~ ~ x, `~ ~ Tiller ~ ~ l v 40 L ? RRLH cv A '~ F; c ~ .~ cTlo ichard 1g,7 x~ BB orporation Y 100 Richard 4C ` si 27.3 c;ty 20 a _ a~ 16 8 84 iW Richard ~- E1 '' Thomp on 48.9 CT 11.1 ( fElkRive . - 8.1 CM6 ~ Toth, Tr. 20 TOth, Tr. 80 p 4~ Sally J .` 40 Douglas 1~ g `~~ ^' y ".I ~ 2~ .a Schuer Inc Jason Joel & Janice . ;~' Orl Tr 157 5 t ~ I 4~ •3 ~ 6~ 20 Bebeau Kr~Ocka ~ . . , 49 T r - f4 Richard ' ~ ~ W .~ 40 Thomas) Joseph A B d n r SeQ ~ Y Bur a h y ° ~, v ~ r.l ~ x X 1 11.7 60 David & Colleen 16.SD& Schurr ;,~ U hompson o nar, 1r Tr 40 a °a ~ ~s' -~', 112 _ 29 1 2n I Solors ~ °~ 40 ., . fit., ~ ~ M ~ ..~~ ~~ 70.4 9 - r, River of c S6 ~ r 40 ~ lupus & '~ ~ ~ Aggregate M& L10 D& + 17 3 0.6 Ke „ T&LV ., r, o~ ° "~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ Marian ~ v Industries North ~be< • `,~, 1 P 1 C10.4 ~ ti~ ;; ~ ~ _ Nemeth 60 ~ •„> Central 80 ~`~° J~5 12.1 Bc ~ 11.9 f' ~l (~ m a ~ ~ ~' Ziegler Family R&LS 21 2 I~ i ¢ ~' 64 2 elson 0 M C ~ o 40 1 69 Limited I8 Jason R&LH 11 3[ 1• AC S 0 1 e z a Partnershi 80 Bebeau~ R&LH 11 H a. ~ _ .._ b ~ ~ ~ ~ Donald & Betty + ! ~ ~ x ~ Lem Tr. _ awrer f~9 68 80 70 ~ ~ 09 1 ~ ~ a ~~°. J g A ' ~ a 1 c~' .~'~ . 70 ~ U [}0 ~ --o rout rg ~ & oO e .._..73 ~ N (V '24.5 N ,a N sto e t5 a~- & RJS SS f ;,, ~' ~_: _ ~ 25 ~ . 73.2 ~ ~ ~,. A rlo Azs izs; 3 3 ~ o SMP I '^ &V &M &IC _ ~ ~ ~ & ti 15 i 9.7 Sl0 9 7 1 - .~ r Toth Et 235® ~ AOS T& JRS ,~ I • PLAT MAP Proposed ERL Expansion • March 24, 2009 Page 11 of 12 Articles and Studies on this Issue (Continued) Research & Planning Consultants, Inc. published a major study, Effects of Sanitary Landfills on the Value of Residential Property, in December of 1983. This study employed four case studies to assess the effects landfills had on property values of adjacent neighborhoods. The sites were in Houston, TX; Baltimore, MD; Minneapolis, MN; and Atlanta, GA. An overview of the findings from this study, summarized below, indicate the following: 1. Based on the time-series analysis and t-test performed, the nominal value of residential property in three of the four case study neighborhoods had not declined since landfill development. 2. In the case of the fourth site, which relied on census data versus primary date for the other three facilities, the median value of the single family, owner- occupied housing units increase substantially. 3. The pattern of development in two of the landfill neighborhoods had not changed since development of their landfills. In the other two cases, the pattern of development became more residential since development of their landfills. • An article titled An Evaluation of the Impact of aWell-Designed Landfill on Surrounding Property Values, was published in The Appraisal Journal in April of 1991. In this study, the housing prices in a neighborhood adjacent to a landfill in the Los Angeles area were compared to housing in comparable neighborhoods some distance from the landfill. The "control" neighborhoods were similar with regard to demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, and housing stock, but were outside the area affected by the landfill. Using 1,628 transactions over a 10 year period, a regression analysis was performed with both house-specific and neighborhood variables, were significant. The results suggest that a landfill, ifwell-designed and managed, can be a good neighbor and have no statistically measureable negative impact on surrounding property values. The effect of MSN landfills on residential property values is a subject of debate. Some literature indicates negative effects while other literature indicates no effects or even positive effects. Real estate values have always been affected by surrounding land uses. One such externality is a landfill. The literature available and studies completed to date are contradictory and do not provide any significant assistance in the subject situation, especially since no studies available have addressed the issues of incremental impact when an existing landfill is expanded. • Proposed ERL Expansion March 24, 2009 • Page 12 of 12 E. CONCLUSION For the reasons outlined above, it is my considered opinion that the proposed expansion will not have a significant or material impact on property values within the immediate vicinity that is over and above any impacts resulting from the existing landfills and mining operations. The principle reasons for this opinion are as follows: 1. The proposed landfill expansion will not have an impact on the existing landfills and mining operations that surround the SDA to the north, east and south. 2. The proposed landfill expansion will not have an impact on the future public (trail) use of the city-owned corridor to the west. 3. The proposed landfill expansion will not have an incremental impact on the residential property further to the west of the SDA for the following reasons: • The residential properties are already proximate to the ERL that has been in operation since the 1970s. • The residential properties are already proximate to the Tiller mining operation situated on • the SDA. • The residential properties are separated from the SDA by the city-owned former railroad corridor. In the near future, this corridor will be a public trail. • Due to distance, topography and trees, the residential properties have either an obstructed or no view of the SDA. • The MSW landfill expansion on the SDA will be subject to significant federal, state county and city regulation. • ERL will take the measures previously outlined to limit any potential impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. RUPPERT APPRAISAL & CONSULTATION, INC. By: Scott J. Ruppert, resident SJR/jah 1tr8138 • • • PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING ERL, SDA AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES (PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN MARCH 19, 2009) • s PARCEL EXHIBIT AND PLAT MAP • • • MBER _ DRAWINGN U~R198ER DRAWING NUMBER __ DRAWING I PARCEL EXHIBIT W~,;~„ped °, 4~xn °re X q for Elk River Landfill CO' CovrdMofe SYefem (NAD'BJ, I988J. °°'°' "' '"' ~""°~"° `°x"fY XX-XN-XXXX Deno NS Fer°uma Goonfy v°ral ldenrrrcmvn L~J~ SCPLE IN FEET SCALE: 1" = 400' ~m~' ;::+_ :.. _-__- ... ; . i ,may. ~ ~ _ TRACT F ~ r " I 1 ' I 30-DJJ-4100 + TRACT A JD-5T.{-0105 J585X acres ~1~ ' i 'X "'" 39.6tt ocses ~ ..._._ y l:.__~._._ ..__.__... __._ B; ~ gyp-.-. ~ ~ i mu ,1. d I ~ ~:: Jo- -DIl0 TRACT B :_: ~ ~F A o.. / . ~; n " 1 _._ ._._.-__}_._____.__._._..._._. ... Q I I 1 1 ~ 1 ; I I o I 1 ~ .: 1 µ°____.___. ..` a '4 JO-5~1-Dllg ...____._. y~Aly ~ _ ,t , __ `R ICT 0 .q ~ Yc s T4ACT C ~ ~i SJ.tq eor o I ;.: ~ `k I YII `a F. ~ Y gg F `L JD iDJJ-~ I ~ 3 ~ ~~• ~ I I SX s )S 1 d Liwnb TxP. ~ ~ ~ JO-OJI-JJ00 tt 80k ZS Liwnro _ TxP' ~ - - - - - CifY of E/k River j I ~ - r,~s ~ )5-10.1-TI05 CifY of fl4 Ri,er 1 ~ 4 ~y l3 JX acre ~ j 4 I I ~ V y k- + uu ' r '~ 1 ' n 1 __- ~ . I . .r'•` 1 I + 55 Jk ~ve ~x I ! 4 JT)k .__ mcm~+wro+~{` ~ I .~' ~ ~+ I , ~ ~ I ~ i cis I I .h~ w j • i ' , I i ea. m I _ _ ':':: 'i+: i:::5 r.::.:. i.Ai:E a ~ e vex ! + i .. p _.. _.._.___..x___..__,_. .. ..._.. _... I our+., o ~ I n i ~M1 1 ceun ,IS I \ ,Iv. -+ 1 .d I e o f.. ( ml.a at ^_ ... .. _.-__ u ~ I .° ' 1 1 ~~l ~ ~ I Y o± q t~ __________ ~ Y' _._...___ )5-10.1-T4D0 1 I 1 w fi > ) I I I Ha _ ___________.__. _. _1 ~_ I I \I. f qJx 1 1 I s +, ~ 1 ~I` e51u~_e+s I /io e. xy. ~ ~° l ~ 1• I I I -_- I _ _ _-__-- _I_-- )5-.03-JTDO 84~k~a _ _ _-_ . _ _I_ _ _ 1 _ ~L.~ - _ I 1 I e 1 ' I / n )5 ~ a4-4 au 1 1 ~ }~~ I I I 6 ~ , I / k o / (lo A. xw.-ee) sl ~l4 rum+n s 5 ~~ a. I a I t vlanf - -- I I I / = ~ - _ ~ 1 _ a-J/~ ~ ~ ~ ?2bt Ave1NW T ~ ~ I ~ r~ ~ I ~~ ~ - _ _ __- ~ -__-_. _a~ __-__ ___-__-_ __ I ~ INIS i5 NDT A 9DIXlDATrY SLWVE•. Noxrver, s e prM:ovs sur+ a and county ' nofron have E,ci v+c~arp~aled ~fo by ~ E!S R1°~e L°nd8+9 represents o grwrF.iccl ev °/ Mr P ce s ormed ottup epsmtian. I ereEy esniry uel t u mi. ~an, e_ ` x DATE: G4/10/DB N~ DATE OESCRIPPON Sec. 3&4, Tw 33, Rn 26 P• 9' PEDERSON i3O~9RT a q;^°s~;; ,,"w;e;'^ m LK. M e "e DESIG4 BT: 1 o zs oa nee ceu ea~naa.lee Sec. 33&34, Tw 34, Rn 26 P 9 , ~ d dSSOCtATES, INC. -. .. et .~n / ~ a V Drown 6X. ~ eNECX n erae,= ____ --- /Livonia TW R Cit f E ~ .nc ~ ~ DWG FILE. Ste Bntl Rt _ -' P. . y o . N S~gne1 Bnon E, Praako FILE NO.: OGOG-0_58.08 ____ Sherburne Count M Y' ~, >yy=f„ .e,. .nv zb .e. ra. Date:. ~sL-- Raq. No.44646 • APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS OF SCOTT J. RUPPERT a • II APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS OF SCO1T ~. RUPPERT, MAI, !D Scott J. Ruppert is the owner and President of Ruppert Appraisal & Consultation, Inc. This firm was established in 2003. Mr. Ruppert has been an independent fee appraiser since 1984 and was previously Vice President of Ruppert & Ruppert Associates, Inc. from 1984 until 2003. Mr. Ruppert provides real estate appraisal and consultation services focusing primarily upon complex property valuation with litigation potential. Mr. Ruppert has provided real estate appraisal and consultation services on virtually all types of real property from undeveloped parcels of land to unique properties such as the Mall of America. Most of his appraisal assignments involve eminent domain/condemnation and he is often hired by both condemning authorities as well as private property owners. He has extensive experience in appraising properties taken in part or in whole through condemnation and is familiar with the specialized appraisal rules pertaining to condemnation and the 2006 amendments to Minnesota Chapter 117 dealing with eminent domain. He has testified numerous times at commissioner's hearings and at trial. In addition to providing real estate appraisal and consultation services in eminent domain/condemnation cases, he also provides appraisal and consultation services for acquisition and development, appraisal review, arbitration, asset valuation, easement valuation, estate planning, estate tax issues, impact studies, lessor/lessee interest allocation, marriage/partnership dissolution, mortgage financing, tax abatement and special assessment cases. PROFESSIDNALMEMB~ISNNrS AND LICENSES Certified General Real Property Appraiser, MN License No. 4000851 Real Estate Broker, MN License No. 0090909 MAI Designated Member -Appraisal Institute 6ENERALEDUCATION J.D. (Juris Doctor) Law Degree, William Mitchell College of Law. Elected Director of the Metro/Minnesota Chapter of the Appraisal Institute with a 2004 - 2007 term Miscellaneous Company Memberships: -Northstar Multiple Listing Service -Appraisal Data Network, Inc. -Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors -Marshall Valuation Service B.S.B. (Bachelor of Science in Business) Degree with an Accounting Major, University of Minnesota. SPECN-LI>ND EDDCATION Responsible for presenting and participating in a number of seminars such as The Land Development Cost Approach To Value presented at the Hennepin County Bar Association Eminent Domain Committee, Real Property Valuation and Appraisals-The Real Estate Attorney's Survival Guide presented at a Minnesota State Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Seminar, and Ask an Appraiser-From Condemnation to the Commission to the Courts presented at a CLE International Seminar. Continuing education/attendance at seminars in real estate, sponsored by the Appraisal Institute, Minnesota State Bar Association Continuing legal Education, International Right of Way Association and others. APPRAISAL INSTITUTE Demonstration Appraisal Report Workshop Standards of Professional Practice (Part A & B) Real Estate Appraisal Principles Basic Valuation Procedures Residential Valuation Capitalization Theory and Techniques, (Part A & B) Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation Report writing and valuation analysis Narrative Report Writing Seminar Business Valuation (Part 1 & 2) B MINNESOTA SCHOOL OF REAL ESTATE Course I, II and III Residential Appraisal Workshop Income Property Appraising Numerous Other Courses C MARSHALL AND SWIFT. INC. Building Cost Seminar D ARGUS AND PRO-JECT COMPUTERISOFTWARE Discounted cash flow analysis DISTRICT CDURT CDDIMISSIONER AND ENPERT WRNESS Appointed by District Court Judges as a condemnation commissioner in eminent domain actions in Hennepin and Ramsey counties. Qualified and testified as an expert witness in Hennepin, Ramsey, Dakota, Washington, Scott, Carver and Anoka counties. IV Page I of 2 SCOTT 1. RUPPERT, MAI -1D, continued v sARIPLE DF ct1ENTs • Ackerberg Group L.D. Martin & Associates, LTD Ameri-Bank Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, LTD Arcon Development, Inc. Leonard, Street & Deinard, P.A. Best & Flanagan, LLP Mackall, Crounse & Moore Briggs & Morgan, P.A. Malkerson, Gilliland, Martin, LLP City of Brooklyn Center Mark Warren Homes, Inc. City of Brooklyn Park Messerli & Kramer City of Edina Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) City of Falcon Heights Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDot) City of Golden Valley Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing (3M) City of Long Lake Minnegasco, Inc. City of Mendota Heights Minnesota State Colleges & Universities (MNSCU) City of Minnetonka Monycor Federal Savings Bank. City of Orono Moss & Barnett , P.A. City of Richfield Opus Northwest, LLC City of Rosemount PDO Food Stores of Minnesota, Ina City of St. Louis Park Pillsbury Company City of St. Paul Premier Mortgage Corporation City of Victoria Prudential Insurance Company Diamond ,Liszt & Brady, P.A. Real Estate Services Inc. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi Faegre & Benson Rosen & Rosen LLC Federal National Mortgage Association Scott County Highway Department Feldmann Enterprises Sherburne County Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt Speak The Word Church First Bank Systems, FBS Sprint PCS Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. Swanson Homes Hines Development Target Corporation Holiday Companies TCF Bank James Development Company Universal Outdoor Company Kennedy & Graven Chartered Veit Companies Krass, Monroe, P.A. Ventres Law Firm Key Mortgage Corporation Westwind Homes, Inc. • VI SAMPLE 8F PROPERTIES APPRAISED AI Baker's Restaurant (Eagan) Nativity of Mary Elementary School (Bloomington) Allstate U-Lok Storage Buildings (Burnsville) New Brighton View Apartments (New Brighton) Amoco Stations (Metro Area) Nicollet Arcade Parcel (Minneapolis) Billy Graham (BGEA) Properties (Minneapolis) Northwest Business Campus Office Building (Plymouth) Bodine's Office/Warehouse Facility (St. Louis Park) Northome Shopping Center (Falcon Heights) Bloomdale Shopping Center (Bloomington) Otter Lake RV Center (Lino Lakes) Brambilla Retail Properties (Shakopee) Peterson Seed Distribution Center (Shakopee) Breck Ice Arena (Golden Valley) PDO Convenience Store (Crystal) Commercia- Parking Lots (Metro Area) Physicians and Surgeons Building (Minneapolis) Cottage Grove Shopping Plaza (Cottage Grove) Pizza Hut Restaurant (Falcon Heights) Crossroad Apartments (Golden Valley) Plymouth Auto Plaza/Mini Mart (Plymouth) Denny's Restaurant (Brooklyn Center) Prudential Office Campus (Plymouth) Decathlon Athletic Club (Bloomington) Retek on the Mall Office Building (Minneapolis) Despatch, Inc. Manufacturing (Lakeville) Rialto Theater (Minneapolis) Dover Warehouse/Distribution Center (Eagan) Rich Acres and New Ford Town City Parks (Richfield) Eden Prairie Cemetery (Eden Prairie) Richfield Mitsubishi Auto Dealership (Richfield) Elk River Resource Recovery Facility (Elk River) Richfield Square Apartments (Richfield) Feldmann Imports Auto Dealership (Bloomington) Rudy Luther Toyota Auto Dealership (Golden Valley) Fountainhead Apartments (Richfield) St. Stephens Elementary School (Minneapolis) tippers Restaurant/Bar (St. Louis Park) Scandinavian Lifestyle Retail Outlet (Bloomington) Golden Valley Shopping Center (Golden Valley) Shakopee Chevrolet Auto Dealership (Shakopee) Ground Round Restaurant (Metro Area) Slade Apartments (Minneapolis) Harley Davidson Motorcycle Dealerships (Metro Area) South Metro Motorsports (Burnsville) Health Partners Office Complex (Bloomington) Specialty (Office/Ministorage) Building (St. Paul) Holiday Convenience Stores (Metro Area) SuperAmerica Station (Bloomington) Jennings Red Coach Inn (St. Louis Park) The Commons Shopping Mall (Brooklyn Park) Junior Achievement Office Building (Edina) Total Gas Station (Brooklyn Center) Kennel-Aire Retail Facility (St. Louis Park) Triple Clean Car Wash/Laundromat (Burnsville) K-mart Center (St. Paul) U.S. Swim & Fitness Building (Fridley) Laurel Estate Apartments (Golden Valley) VFW Post #1296 (Bloomington) Mann Theatre/Stimson Building (Minneapolis) Valley Green Business Park (Shakopee) Metro Office Park (Bloomington) VOA Alternative School (Minneapolis) Meyers Dairy Outlet (Wayzata) Walser Buick/BMW Auto Dealerships (Richfield) Metropolitan Office Building (St. Paul) White/GMC Truck Center (Shakopee) Minikahda Ministorage VI (Minnetonka) Woodbridge Office Building (Minnetonka) Page 2 of 2 Circa 10/25/07 • • • ~' View from ERL Facing Southwest,2009/03/19 14:04:01 View of Proposed Expansion Area Facing South,2009/03/19 14:12:01 • ~ ~ 6, k ,1 ,~ ~ w,~_ ~ h '~l u ~ ~ ~ ~, l s~ ~ ?'i ~5 rr~ ~rt~~(r~~~ View Along Quinn Street Facing North,2009/03/19 14:22:31 C ~~ r~ ~. ~` , r_ a ~ ~~ ~~ /,,..~A tf s ~G~E :`~t~ ? ~M,,„.~?1br; j~rp ~q +~~ '~a ~ .3 ~ ~T ~~ `. r ~ .i.. ~ r.1:%~ 11 ~ 1; 1 . ~, View Within The Ridges of Rice Lake Development,2009/03/ 19 14:29:20 f • 3 0 a~ 3 0 on U 4~ W bA L: .~ .k N .Ly r--~ O c: 3 • • .~ _ =~ ~r •r~ ~ ~, n„f ~' ~ ~ ,' ~~ , ;~ ~ ^ ~ 4 ~.~_ z ~, z ~ry5 ~ P~~ ~'~ ~7 w ~k, ,~ s ~' a a ` '~`» 7 ;' '~< ~ - <4 [ :~~~ Y ~ t `., S. x g .. ~ ~ u~ ~~-~ M1~ ,'. 3} -P it ~. ~ ~ ~' i $ } " $` zei: ~~ ~~~ . " ' °~ s: ~ rt. ~.• ~ d , ~~ eta: t. .~ ~ 't~J ', ~~~?'~ ~ ~~ ,~' ~ ,~ ~. ,r, ~ _y4 .~ : .,~y, ~rr s. r znµ ~ ~ -~ ~° & ~ .E h 4~~.# ~ ~ -. .. ~ a ,$ ft4 ~~~+ i~~~,.. q. .. t S<, ~ ~^ 3's 4.~, + i j 6'" ~ t, ~.~„ ~,~ ~, M. .~, ~~ - ~.~ ~. s t -k~' ~ ~~ ~ -~ c t ~ ~~ g ~, ~`~~. P~ s s 311tt~~ t~ {, ~ ~~` V.. raw t'~ , fa ~~ x i n Ads t~t~ > ~ ~!' +~' ~ ,+ , ~ `~ ' i C ,Q~.y i~l O N 3 aQ U O ~• U .~ O N • • ~ ,~ } ~/~ , S ~ e2 , t~s ~i ~ -.~ ~ 1 {, F~' ~'. ~YA~ ,~ ~ "73 3 • ~ •,~a Y lx ,~+, ~' ~ ' l ~1 ~ i ~ ~ t ~ , ~ y; ~ Y1 1 ~~i l \ ~ .y. -StL. 4 "4 ~ ~~` 1 } +i~ 7~ ~ Rte, . { k ~ . ~, . }~k 1!r~'~i R~ ;: t „.. .~ ~ ~ d~ ~ ~ !- ~a ~ '` .. {~ iP i~ ' ~ % e~911 i~. t~ ~ t ~ '~i ~ ,~:~, c~,. ~` ~ t: 1~ {~ ,- ~ + ~ L;~rh .~ {y ~ ~;~ ~ ~& r-,~= 1 ~1 ~ * ~ 3 t ~.~ ~~~ `` ~~ ~ ~-'r 4 ` ~ 'f~# ~Q ~, ,~ ~ , ~ •, ~,. ~ ~ ~' ~,rx ,, f5 k 3'~yt ~ d'~ ~ t. - 7 ;•}~5 ~~`~,s~ ~, d"yw ~, '' ~ ~~ ~? . pt :, r~ t it/~ ,~4 ~ l r,+ ~: ~ ~ 1 ii. ~~ "' ~ ~ .-J~ ~'~, ~ ~~~P~j~ Q ~++I U 0 .~ a~ '~ N O ~. O ~, Q.. w 0 ~` ~ v= ~r i~ 1 (~} . ~ & ' .~l- ~a .~ ~1 i• i• ~~. i w' `~~~ j f rs~$ `may ~"'e, '_'` ~ ?: tt77 r~ ~~ ~ .. "~$ i• I:\3230\323008001\CAD\Dwg\3230-08001L203.dw9 5/29/2009 2:42:36 PM • • ~i E \~ ~~` Y~ ~l R Ac ~ ~ ~\~ " ~ to -P W N ~+ z m~ r07~00 ~ G~ m ~ v ~ O tDif T ~ m ~ ~ Z - : ~ ~ ~ i t ~ ~ ~" I ~ \ ~\~'~ 3 D n z ~ c~ p .7 vxz~v ~~ z m rn O7 T ~ ~n ~' m in w Vin I_ ~ _ ,: ,~. ; , ~ ~ ~A ® , ~~~~~~~GZJ3D m ~ r ~ ~ n ~ n m n n W 2 ~ ,,. ~ V ~ ~ I ~ _ r~ ~~ V1~ zs ~ Z ZO n p ~~ D Z 0 D ~ ~ ~ p p g v `~ CS ~ : ~~\\ / l . . m O 0 G 1 2 000Z'7~ D N m RI 3 p C Z ~ C ~ D S A '" ~ C T .. ' " 1. % { ~ ~~' (ti. ~, ~.~ 3 tnm O D O F `2 ~ ~ z ~ rn N SJ c i N ~ rn x ~ 3 z C m ~ ~ ?t, 'l (y~ .N. ~ '~ ~ C x m Cl ~ z z z p 1 r. J'~- f ~ 44 ~. ~ ~ r V j vr.,, ~ornrm ~ ~ ~ n a `` v '~,~ o-~ 1 G i ~ v ~ ~ z 5 ~ ~ `Z a CS` :f"'S' t <'< '.'- ~ - ~ ~ 11-U `~ ~ ~ f r ~ 1 J ~~v...:l~ 'J~~- ~1 ~ / ~ a J ® r. ~ C Z~ .~- ~ ~ z= ~ D03 z m O r z m 3 ~ D ~ 5 x O 3 3 c p D ~ O 3 3 t -~,.r~ ~ _- ~ ~- „ f/F/ll ! i 1 S ~~ ! t O y m' O v ~ ~ 2 m = z 3 Z O z -. ~ u.,~".-r.~ , _ S x i ~ `~~ ~ . W "~. ~ `~ \, j ~k {/ m ~ S ~ 3 vDi p y N r o 1 z rn D D m C rv . ~~ ~ , , ~ ' `~ ~ ~~~' , rn ~ < m ~ ~ ~ ~ W m f / -[ of '' . ~ ~ "~ ~ J ~ Z n v 0 n Z ~T m ~ j n ~ ~, .,..-~ .,', Lt} t m ~~ C D p -~~ ~/` u I ~ ~/~ ~ ~_~ ,u ~- -. ~,~ " i ~ . ,._ ~;~ N'~ ~, t =f ~' ~ fl ! Ei~ ~ ~ ~. i ~ i F~ ,~ 1 ,+ \'. 3 °Ir ~. _ ~ ~~E h~` ~~: ~; " . rt, t: .. ~`~~ 1 ~., `v..., , ~~_.`~ ` i ~Zf ~~ ~~ 1 x. ~/ /~J~ ~ ? ~/ f .: ii O,i~i ~ ~ ~y®~ I J~~ ~' ~ r II ~,~.%`` l ti S ~ r., ti ti i., N n, m ~` .~. ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~' ,`1+ ~l O O O O O O Q t, \ ~ J''~~ in n ~ n n n~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ r f ~ I~ I, r t, t, ,~~~~A i I ~ O't ~ 1~~~~~t ,~"1P ~ t{ ~ ~ I „ y ~ ~ a ~B _`' „~I a 1 l~q~l ~~ F I ~ li ~ ,If I11 i fJ i i \ ~ ~=~ ~~ ~i~l~ill~l{~ hip _ ~__ -= ti ~' ~ ~I ~~ ll~~'~1 ~ ~- 1 ~ _ li r lli~i~~{~~ i ~'~! {l~l' - II II _ ~" ~ ,~ III I /.. , I I !~I{! i~it ~ fti~ ~~li~li ~~4{I I I I III LFi~~ _ _ - - -- `/ '- .> i It/ lil..,/. -•~ ~li~t{{~Eii{Irlii~li{ i~ ~i i I Ilf~~ll III ~'~iE ~ ~ 9II- ~r I ,i I I 1 ~tl ~i~~~J (i , n{~ , i~~ ill~~~l~~~;~~liiil~~ll~~~~~~I~~~~{~~~JJ~iI ~ ~~ -~ rl I lip ~ 114'rl~ i } I I ~I~ ~ I~r Ei ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ` Ii I ~ ~{1}tk ~'~iFi~lF~ f 1 ~ i 14 f Il~f~(~ C,ll i ~~~~, ti i n l Ii i E s, 1 ~ . { ~ 11 J4 ii i;Ui {I i~lltl ~ i ~~4 I - Illr rtttr4~4h,,1{,.I{E E~II'I~~{ -.-~. ~r 4~~ i~~ili~~j~~'I~E I~11 ~~lij~li{i~illl ~Il ~jijl~tli{i~~lil~~r-_~ _ i !i I1i41~jkll~, t4 t~Ef„l ~ it Irl~ll'f i{ ~ ~ ~ lllir 1 ~Irf n ~ li iii, In Illll~i - ' I 1 v ~~= a t, ,~{, Iii+G 1! r 1 I I Illt~ih ~ ~1 `~ { , ttt tt J ~ ,~l JNtiiiulil~ ii~f~. ~~ ~ ~I j~/~i~ ~ ~I I~Ill~lj~ ~~~~~ ~ r ~.{ f k I f 1 I I I I ~} ~ ~IIh~I"~~il,,~'i~'rii~~~ viii'E4tI~llili~irlirrt~I4~l~~IIII~~~~II~,i,'~I.~~Ih{rllil~~~l~~~ -- _ ~nan---'` 1 ~~ ~ ;,~, t ,,,~fl ~ „ IE i~ i I{ I Ir l~, ,~,la I ~{ 14,{ ~ ~{ - I I~ i r I t, ~ ~ { q ,. i I EI ~ I It ~~L}~i'~If ~I I I~ Ir ~ 1~~~~ .~~ III ~~~~~~~ ~(~I,II:~iil t i'It 11 ill~~!II~ EII E~ -- I~~~IEI~t~l~;lll{I ~~„ ~ ~ ~~~Irll+ ~ I~ i, lili ~ - - ~ _ - - ~~. PI~'~I' ' I "I' "ll Iln I - - - I L I~il ~ ~~~~~il'~`II ~ tt~}~I _ It ~- fl~'ir~lii~~~ti(;{i~l 11,i1i~ -_. _~__, E., r 1 E t - - ,. ~ ~~ i~ I ~,~ - ~,za -- - ~ ~~ ,; { i / / ~ I Ii t~~~i{ ~~~Ilih} ~ 3 2 i ~~ ~~~ ~ rll _ -.J _ ~' ~ I ~1 / i ~''~.. ., ,- i~ ~ .,.~,~i ~7~ ~~ i 1} _..-... r~ r I 1 Ili II ... .... .. ? ) _`~ „~ ~ ~ - ,, ~~ ~~ { - - _ -~-: t ~, - --_ _ -- - .~ Y '; -~ =- I1^' _ ~ ~- ~__ __ %/ `/ /~ _ - ~. .. .. :~. __ _ _.~_- - - _ -~ ~ ,_ i - ~ . -E . ". v 4 0 ; _ 1 9 -_ t i' s- . \~ ~ - _:_ ter,, } _~ ,. _ ~ _,~ C r 1i.Iy ~ , Lowy-?` .~ ~ ~ ~r,,n~~ ; ~ - _ , T, .~ .- „ ~~ ~ o _= ~~ 69 ~- ~ ~ _.. \ , ....ter>, _~ _, ~ _. . ~- ___ ~ . o' \7~ ,°' _-- n D Z -1 O O ~c ~m y-; ~69L Sfl _ Y x o ~ ~ $ N ~ I H C r= o ~ ~ ~ LAND USE APPLICATION FOR CITY OF ELK RIVER EREBY ERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT ~• 0 ]~ ~ M AN ~ Eq~„ EI~ ~ N ~ AND THATI AMADULY 1 BE D L C AP UNDER THELAVJSOFTHESTATEOF MINNESOT p = ~ ELK RIVER LANDFILL A PRIM NPME: JEFFERY MCDOWEIL ^ W ~ ~ SHERBURNE COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 5 5 n° SCREENING PLAN -PHASE 3 sI~NATURE: ~ DATE: 326/09 LIC. NO. 42540 - __ _ ~, __-~ _. __.___ 4 ~~ --r-~ - ., -~f- _ .J ._ - J_ r . ~ I } _.. ._ .. _.. ._ _. _. _ ~_.__ ~.. 1 $ x _. u .r Pte` !.'~'^(..w.'r'F~~. %~..~..,.,~,~.ly -~,~``_. ~. a ~pz'X \~ me ° . .' H~ :: ~ 28 09 03:23p ~~ ~® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Deb 7637533366 May 28, 2009 Ms. Rebecca Haug City of EIk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Extension of 60-Day Review Period for Elk River Landfill Expansion Dear Ms. Haug: Elk River Landfill, Inc. has submitted applications for a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, conditional use permit and solid waste facilities license to expand the Elk River Landfill. The undersigned, on behalf of Elk River Landfill, Inc., hereby consents to the following extensions of the 60-day period for city review and action on those applications: o A 60-day extension of the 60-day period to review and act on the applications for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning, the extended period to expire on July 28, 2009. o A 120-day extension of the 60-day period to review and act on the applications for a conditional use permit and solid waste facilities license, the extended period to expire on September 26, 2009. Sincerely, p.l Debra Walters District Manager Elk River Landfill, Inc. ~. WASTE MANAGEMENT May 15, 2009 Ms. Rebecca Haug City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 ELK RIVER LANDFILL Elk River Landfill, Inc. 22460 Hwy. 169 NW Elk River, MN 55330 (763)441.2464 {763)441-2025 Fax RE: Consent to process Elk River Landfill Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning separately from our Conditional Use Permit Application Dear Ms. Haug, 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 This letter is intended to formally consent to the sequencing of processing of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment rezoning and Conditional Use Permit Application which we discussed during our meeting May 12, 2009. We appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the City staff and your consultant throughout this process. Originally you advised us to process all of the application at the same time. We understand the rationale behind separating the review and consideration of the land use and zoning application from the more technical Conditional Use Permit Application and License. You have notified us that you intend to exercise your authority to extend the time period for the city review of the application from 60 days to 120 days. We understand that the timing for the review approval of the Conditional Use Permit and License will start with the submission date for the applications for the first planning commission meeting following the commissions action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning. Sincerely, ~~k ~~ Debra Walters District Manager Elk River Landfill, Inc. From everyday collection to environmental protection, Think Green° Think Waste Management. ® Printed on 1G0% post-consumes ~erycled paper. WASTE MANAGEMENT TO: City of Elk River MEMORANDUM FROM: Stephanie Stolz - WM Elk River Landfill DATE: May 26, 2009 RE: Soil Balance for SDA Based on the City's request for a soil balance for the Elk River Landfill's Southern Development Area (SDA), the Landfill had their engineering consultant, Wenck Associates, Inc. (Wenck), run a series of computations to determine an approximate soil balance for the SDA. The computations were developed for-the following scenarios: development of the MSW Area of the Landfill through Cell 25 of the SDA. The following approximately conditions were used for the computations of the soil balance for the SDA: Mining limits to 50 feet of the property line on the east and south and 200 feet on the west. A mining excavation slope of 2:1 based on the information presented on the cross-sections of the Permit Modification document, cross-sections shown on Sheets 11, 12, and 13. Mining to an elevation of 960.5. The soil balance for the above scenarios is as follows: 70,000 cubic yards Excavation to reach base grades at east end of Cells 18-25 3.28 million cubic yards Fill required to construct side slopes and perimeter berms as shown on the Permit Amendment dated April 2009, Wenck Associates. The above volumes are based on in-place volumes, no expansion or compaction factors have been applied to the calculations. The above soil quantities are for the SDA only, and do not include soils used in construction of the landfill liner or cover, nor do they include soils used for daily cover. The Landfill currently has an agreement with Tiller to purchase a minimum of 250,000 tons of soil material per year. Over the life of the SDA (2010-2033) this equates to approximately 4.6 million cubic yards of soil. Additional soils will also be available on- site for use in on-site construction projects (including overburden soils, along with additional sand). As discussed at the meeting and shown with the above calculations, there will not be a large import of soil materials necessary for the construction of the SDA. ~~ WASTE MANAGEMENT ~~x~k ~,s i'B$7Lltw May 26, 2009 Rebecca Haug City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Follow-up Letter to May 12, 2009 Meeting Dear Ms. Haug Elk River Landfill, Inc. 22460 HWY 169 N1A~ Elk River, MN j5330 Phone: 763-441-2464 ~zix: 763-44 ] -2025 Thank you for meeting with Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL) representatives on May 12, 2009 to discuss items related to our Land Use and License Applications. The following provides a response to the items discussed at the meeting. TH 169/221st Avenue Interchange Staff requested that the Site Development Plans be revised as follows to address the new preferred alignment of this interchange and a related frontage road to and through the SDA: • The layout of new preferred alignment of the TH 169/221St Avenue NW interchange was obtained from James Hallgren with MnDOT and the Site Development Plans have been revised (see attached). The preferred alignment of the interchange has been moved to the south from the previous version, which avoids the Landfill's South Development Area (SDA). Please note that the following revisions are predicated on the current (see attached) MnDOT plans which are subject to change by MnDOT. • As stated in the Land Use Application, the ERL does not plan to use the existing access point to the SDA from 221St Avenue NW for landfill operations. After mining operations are complete, the access to the SDA from 221St Avenue NW will close and access for landfill operations will continue to be provided at the two existing access points along TH 169. The Site Development Plan was revised to reflect the reconfigured access and frontage road that would be needed if MnDOT implements its plans for the construction of the TH 169/221 St Avenue NW interchange, which includes closing all existing access points to the landfill along TH 169 (attached). MnDOT has designed their frontage road on the eastside of TH 169. Even though MnDOT's plans do not include a frontage road on the west side, as shown on the revised drawing, our design will accommodate a continuous 50-foot right-of--way through the SDA. Upon construction of the TH 169/221St Avenue Page 2 May 26, 2009 NW interchange, this frontage road would be utilized for landfill operations. Upon closure of the facility and establishment of the facility's end use, the roadway and ROW would be transferred to the local road authority, which presumable would be the City. This was confirmed in our conversations with James Hallgren of MnDOT. Screening Plans Staff requested that the screening plan rendering (Exhibit 3 of the original submittal) be revised as follows: • Staff indicated the screening plan should be revised to show the sedimentation ponds and the potential access to 221st Avenue NW and frontage road. The screening plan rendering has been revised to reflect this information and is attached. Staff also noted inconsistencies between the screening berm on the Landscape Plan (Sheet L2.02) and the Site Development Plans. Thank you for pointing out this apparent discrepancy, as it notes the need to further describe which drawings represent the interim site screening, and which represents the final/mature site screening. Hopefully the discussion below will clarify this issue. The landscaped site screening berm constructed along 221st Avenue NW as shown on drawing L2.02 will provide interim screening of the mining and landfill development activities until the last phase of mining done in conjunction with construction of the last cell. If any portion of the interim screening berm will be removed by either mining or landfilling activities, it will be replaced with site screening along the perimeter berm. A drawing showing the final screening plan will be submitted to the City by May 29tH Leachate Recirculation The ERL is waiting for additional comments from city staff regarding this item, as the landfill has responded to all comments regarding leachate recirculation that have been received to date by the City, County and State. Forest Management Plan There is approximately 12 acres of woodland that separates the landfill from the City Hiking Trail and nearby neighborhoods. This woodland provides screening of the landfill from these adjacent and nearby land uses. The City of Elk River Natural Resource Inventory (2004) indicates this site contains red, pin and bur oak that have 70% canopy closure and limited sub canopy and understory layers. Red and Pin oak are highly susceptible to infection by the oak wilt fungus and Bur oak is moderately susceptible. As a result there is concern about the long term viability of maintaining this natural screening if the site is impacted by the oak wilt fungus. We understand that the goal is to develop management objectives and replacement requirements to address tree mortality in order to preserve the natural screening. The ERL will prepare a Forest Management Plan to address this potential issue, which will include the landfill's current oak wilt management plan. We will complete an assessment of the woodland to determine the overall health of the oak trees and to determine if there is a threat to the natural screening that exists. Tree mortality and stressed conditions will be documented so Page 3 May 26, 2009 base-line conditions are established. A report summarizing the approach to the assessment, findings and recommendations will be provided. Easement for Storm Sewer under City Trail The proposed easement agreement will be submit on May 29, 2009. Contingency for Severe Storm Event The contingency action costs have been updated to include additional costs related to severe storm events. The updated costs are attached. End Date As discussed at the meeting, the portion of the Elk River Landfill facility lying within the current limits of the City of Elk River will cease accepting waste for disposal by December 31, 2033. Timing of Gas to Enemy Plant Staff requested that the timing of the construction of the gas to energy plant be outlined. Within 6 months of final State approval of the SDA, the air quality permit will be submitted to the MPCA for review and approval. Within two years of receiving the permit, the gas to energy plant will be constructed. As discussed, the ERL is committed to the construction of another landfill gas to energy facility, to provide additional green energy to the region. At our meeting, City staff requested that the timing of the permitting and construction of the gas to energy plant be outlined for possible inclusion as a condition of the City approval. As stated at the meeting, the ERL agrees to submit the necessary air permit application documents to the State for review and approval within 6 months of final approval of the SDA from the State. The ERL also agrees to construct the gas to energy plant within two years of receipt of the necessary air permit. Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF) Staff requested that the ERL, City, and County meet to discuss the potential HHWF. The representative of three parties met on May 20, 2009 at the ERL and will continue to work together on this item. Soil Balance for Cells 18-25 Soil balance information for Cells 18-25 is attached. Clean Up During our meeting, the ERL and City Staff discussed the city-wide clean-up events and potential modifications that could be made in the future. An example of how the city-wide clean-up may be done in the future was discussed, which involved the ERL offering Elk River residents a coupon useable anytime during the year for free disposal at the Landfill. This would replace a single clean-up day, or clean-up week. This way residents can utilize the coupon when it is convenient for their schedules, and it helps to avoid long lines and staffing issues at the landfill. This item can be further discussed between the ERL and City staff. Page 4 May 26, 2009 Application Review Process Staff requested that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications be separated from the Conditional Use Permit and License applications for the city review/approval process. The City is also requesting a waiver to the 60-day rule. A letter regarding this item is attached. Sincerely, Waste Management ~~a ~~~ Debra Walters District Manager Attachments • Screening Plan Rendering • Site Development Plan -Entire Property • Site Development Plan - SDA • Soil Balance • Letter regarding application review process c: John Shardlow - Bonestroo x-----DRAFT----- DRAINAGE EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made this day of 2009, by and between CITY OF ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA, a municipality, ("Grantor") and ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC., a Minnesota corporation ("Grantee"). Recitals A. Grantor is the owner of certain real property identified in recorded Document No. 236928 (the "Servient Estate") located in Sherburne County, Minnesota and depicted on Exhibit A as City Trail Parcel A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. Grantee is the owner of certain real property identified as APN 75-104-1400 and APN 75-104-1102 (the "Dominant Estate") located in Sherburne County, Minnesota and depicted on Exhibit A as Parcel B and Parcel C attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. Grantee desires to obtain an unobstructed, perpetual, non-exclusive 20 foot wide easement over a portion of the Servient Estate for construction of a culvert and for drainage purposes as legally described on Exhibit B. Agreements NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Recitals set forth above (which are by this reference made a part of this Agreement), the mutual agreements and covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration paid by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee agree as follows: 1. Easement; Permitted Uses. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee a perpetual, non-exclusive easement (the "Easement") for construction of a culvert and drainage purposes on, over, under, along, through and across such portion of the Servient Estate depicted on Exhibit A and legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Easement Area"). If there is any damage to Parcel A adjacent to the Easement Area caused by Grantee's construction of the drainage culvert, Grantee shall be responsible for correcting such damage either by replacement, repair, or cost of replacement or repair. The rights granted in this paragraph are in addition to and shall not detract from other rights granted herein. Grantee's use of the easement shall not unreasonably interfere with Grantor's use and activities upon the Servient Estate. Use of the Easement Area shall be in conformity with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders of all governmental authorities having jurisdiction. 2. Construction of Improvements. Grantee shall be permitted to improve the. Easement Area with a drainage culvert using such construction materials and techniques as Grantee may deem necessary in its sole discretion. All construction and maintenance of improvements in the Easement Area shall be performed in conformity with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders of all governmental authorities having jurisdiction. Grantee shall use no substance in the Easement Area that may contaminate the soils and/or MNElkriverDdrainageEsmtDraft_5262009.DOC soils and/or groundwater during construction or during the continuing maintenance of the Easement Area. 3. Concurrent Use by Grantor. Exclusive use of the Easement Area by Grantee is not hereby granted. Grantor reserves the right to any surface use of the Easement Area that does not interfere with Grantee's use thereof. Grantor shall not build, erect, create, construct, or permit to be built, erected, created or constructed, any structures, including fences, in the Easement Area that interferes with Grantee's use thereof. Use of the Easement Area by Grantor shall be in conformity with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders of all governmental authorities having jurisdiction. 4. Maintenance of Easement Area. Grantee shall maintain all improvements in the Easement Area in good and safe condition and repair, make all repairs and replacements necessary to maintain such condition, and shall pay all costs and expenses incurred in constructing, maintaining and repairing all improvements in the Easement Area, unless any such repairs and replacements are made necessary by Grantor's use of the Easement Area or acts for which Grantor is strictly liable, in which event Grantor shall pay such costs and expenses. 5. Liens. Grantee shall not permit or suffer any lien to be put upon or to arise or to accrue against the Easement Area or the Servient Estate in favor of any person or persons, individual or corporate, furnishing either labor or material in connection with any work undertaken by Grantee pursuant to the rights herein granted. Grantee shall defend Grantor, the Easement Area, and the Servient Estate from and against any liens and encumbrances arising out of any work performed or materials furnished by or at the direction of Grantee. 6. Successors. The term "Grantee's Successors" means and includes each of Grantee's successors and assigns. The term "Grantor's Successors" means and includes each of Grantor's successors in title to the Servient Estate, or any part thereof or interest therein. The easements, rights and privileges herein above granted to Grantee and those reserved to Grantor, and all of the foregoing covenants and agreements of the parties: a. as to the Servient Estate, are hereby declared to be and shall be easements, rights, covenants and agreements running with the land; b. as to Grantee, the Easement herein granted is a property interest running with the land; however, the duties, obligations and indemnities undertaken by the Grantee shall be deemed to be personal to Grantee (subject to Grantee's rights of assignment as provided in Section 7 below); c. shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of and be enforceable in actions in law or in equity by Grantee and each of Grantee's Successors; and d. shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of and be enforceable in actions in law or in equity by Grantor and each of Grantor's Successors, but only during or with respect to such periods of time as Grantor, or each such Grantor's Successor, shall respectively own an interest in the Servient Estate, or any part thereof. 7. Assignment by Grantee. Upon Grantor's written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, Grantee shall be entitled to assign its right, title and interest under this Agreement, in whole or in part, to any person or entity. Upon an assignment of its entire MNEIkRiverDrainageEsmtDraft_5262009.DOC 2 entire right, title and interest hereunder, the assignor shall be released from all liability under this Agreement arising or accruing after such assignment. 8. Exceptions to Title. The Easement is granted subject to all matters of record and matters of survey existing prior to the recording of this Agreement. 9. Grantee. Grantee joins in the execution of this Agreement for purposes of evidencing its agreement to be bound by Grantee's covenants and agreements hereinabove set forth. 10. Attorney's Fees. Either party may enforce this Agreement by appropriate action and should it prevail in such litigation, it shall recover as part of its costs a reasonable attorney's fee. 11. Relocation of Easement. Grantor reserves the right, at Grantor's sole cost and expense, to relocate from time to time the Easement Area to another location on the Servient Estate as follows: a. Grantor shall provide Grantee prior written notice of Grantor's intention to relocate the Easement Area. b. Within a reasonable time after receipt by Grantee of such notice, Grantor and Grantee shall use their best efforts to identify the best possible site for the new Easement Area subject to the approval of any governmental authorities having jurisdiction. In no event shall the relocation result in a reduction in the benefits or an increase in the costs that are enjoyed and incurred by Grantee by virtue of the location of the original Easement Area. c. Within a reasonable time after the new Easement Area has been identified, Grantor shall inform Grantee of the probable commencement and completion dates of the relocation work. d. Grantor shall improve the new Easement Area in the same manner as the original Easement Area, all at Grantor's sole cost and expense. e. Relocation shall not become effective until such time as (i) all relocation work has been completed to the reasonable satisfaction of Grantee; and (ii) Grantor has obtained such agreements as Grantee may reasonably require in order that this Agreement may retain its priority as to the new Easement Area. f. Upon completion of all relocation work, Grantor and Grantee shall execute, acknowledge and record an amendment to this Agreement to reflect the relocation of the Easement Area and the termination of this Agreement as to the original Easement Area. MNEIkRiverDrainageEsm[Draft_6262009.DOC 3 12. Miscellaneous. a. Construction. The rule of strict construction does not apply to this Agreement. This Agreement shall be given a reasonable construction so that the intention of the parties to confer a commercially usable right of enjoyment on Grantee is carried out. b. Notices. All notices and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given if delivered by hand, mailed by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), overnight service with signature upon delivery, or telecopied to the parties at the following addresses (or at such other addresses for a party as shall be specified by like notice) and shall be deemed given on the date on which so hand-delivered, telecopied or on the third business day following the date on which so mailed: To Grantee: ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. C/o Waste Management 720 E. Butterfield Road Lombard, II 60148 Attention: VP -Real Estate Telecopier: 630.268-9521 with a copy to: ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. 22460 Highway 169 NW Elk River, MN 55330 Attention: District Manager Telecopier: 763-441-2025 To Grantor: with a copy to: CITY OF ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Attention: Telecopier: Attention: Telecopier: c. Construing Various Words and Phrases. Wherever it is provided in this Agreement that a party may perform an act or do anything, it shall be construed that that party may, but shall not be obligated to, so perform or so do. The following words and phrases shall be construed as follows: (i) "At any time" shall be construed as "at any time or from time to time;" (ii) "Any" shall be construed as "any and all;" (iii) "including" shall be construed as "including but not limited;" (iv) "may" shall be construed as permissive and not obligatory; (v) "will" and "shall" shall each be construed as mandatory. Except as otherwise specifically indicated, all references to Section, Paragraph and Subparagraph numbers or letters shall refer to Sections, Paragraphs and Subparagraphs of this Agreement and all references to Exhibits refer to the Exhibits attached to the Agreement. The words "herein," "hereof," "hereunder," MNEIkRiverDrainageEsmtDraft_5262009. DOC 4 "hereinafter" and words of similar import shall refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular Paragraph. Forms of words in the singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter shall be construed to include the other forms as context may require. Captions are used in this Agreement for convenience only and shall not be used to construe the meaning of any part of this Agreement. d. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed as of the day and year first written above. GRANTOR: GRANTEE: CITY OF ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. a not for profit municipality a Minnesota corporation By: Name: Title: STATE OF ILLINOIS ) SS. COUNTY OF WILL ) By: JOSEPH J. FISCHER Authorized Representative I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared JOSEPH J. FISCHER, well known to me to be the Authorized Representative of the corporation named as Grantee in the foregoing Easement Agreement and that he acknowledged executing the same on behalf of such corporation freely and voluntarily under authority duly vested in him by said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of , 2009. PEGGY C. WALLACE, Notary Public My commission expires: April 6, 2013 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF SS. I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared well known to me to be the of the CITY OF MNEIkRiverDrainageEsmtDraft_5262009.DOC 5 OF ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA named as Grantor in the foregoing Easement Agreement and that he/she severally acknowledged executing the same on behalf of such municipality freely and voluntarily under authority duly vested in them by said municipality. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of , 2009. Name: Notary Public My commission expires: After recording, mail to: ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. c/o WASTE MANAGEMENT Attn: Real Estate Dept. 720 E. Butterfield Road Lombard, IL 60148 (CRE-3205) MNEIkRiverDrainageEsmtDraft_5262009.DOC 6 i. ;~ r. h w. ~4 ,' ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~, t ~ ~' ~ 9 ~'I j'` .~.._, ~~''~ ,: a ,, 7• , a_ ~` ~x K ~~ ~~ ;..~ $^ ~..`~ ~~ Woodland Assessment & Management Plan Elk River Landfill -Southern Development Area May 29, 2009 Project Number 3230-08001 Bonestroo • • WOODLAND ASSESSMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN -ELK RIVER LANDFILL SDA Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................2 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Site Specific Results ......................................................................................................................... 3 Implementation & Management Plan ................................................................................................. 5 References ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Attachments -Site Location Map ....................................................................................................... 7 ~:-s-. •~ Bur oak White oak • WOODLAND ASSESSEMENT & MANAGEMENT PLAN -ELK RIVER LANDFILL SDA Introduction PROJECT PURPOSE There is approximately 12 - 14 acres of woodland that will separate the future Southern Development Area (SDA) from adjacent city property and private homes. The woodland serves as an important buffer providing a visual screening from trail and properties to the west. The 2004 City of Elk River Natural Resources Inventory identifies this site as good quality oak woodland- brushland containing red, pin and bur oak that have 70% canopy closure. Red oak and Pin oak are highly susceptible to infection by the oak wilt fungus and Bur oak is moderately susceptible. As a result there is concern about the long term viability of maintaining this natural screen if the site is impacted by the oak wilt. A field assessment was completed on May 27, 2009 to determine the overall health of the oak trees and to determine if there is a threat to the natural screening that exists. Tree mortality and stressed conditions were documented to establish abase-line condition. These findings will lead to the development of a management plan for the site. UAK WILT Oak wilt is an aggressive disease that affects many species of oak caused by a fungal pathogen. The fungus can be spread underground through roots or overland by insect vectors. When one • tree becomes infected and dies, the fungus spreads through the connected root system (root grafts) killing more trees and creating an infection center. Root grafting among same species trees can occur up to 100 feet away. Sandy soils are conducive to the formation of widespread root systems, thus increasing the further spread of the fungus. Oaks, such as the pin oak found on site, tend to grow in large groups of similar-aged stands that share a common root system. This situation can lead to rapid expansion of oak wilt centers. s Woodland Assessment & Management P/an Elk River Landfi/l SDA Project No: 3230-08001 Page 2 .'~ Bonestroo Approx. 20 similar-aged oaks die off area within Site 7. Multiple crown die-offs from adjacent trees to an infection center in Site 3. ~ Methods FIELD ASSESSMENT The area surveyed included the woodland starting from 221St Ave NW to a point approximately 2000 feet to the north and east of the trail approximately 300 feet in width. The assessment was started on the north end and the site was divided into 8 sections for ease of site descriptions and to differentiate differences in canopy health and shrub layer (Attachment A). Overall there were 5 areas identified with tree die off. The following is a description of each site and its relative health. • Site 1 There is approximately 6 dead or dying oaks on the east side of the access road. The tree loss in this site may be attributed to root compaction due to the close proximity of the access road. Only the trees on the east side of the road and closest to the road showed signs of stress and/or die off. The area between the road and the trial is a low swale/wetland dominated by 12-inch DBH (diameter at breast height) aspen with smaller elm, white and red oak, ash and basswood. Most of this site would require some form of replanting and restoration following abandonment of the road. Site 2 This is the area south of the access road and the east-west fence. This area is comprised of a mix of 8-12 inch DBH red, bur and white oaks with a few greater than 12 inch DBH. A few of the white oaks show top die off. There is one 20 inch White oak with top die off that appears to be the infection center with at least 10 other red and white oak showing signs of lower branch die off and crown die off. Regeneration of bur oak, white (paper) birch, red maple and big. tooth aspen seedlings was observed. Box elder trees present near the fence line. Site 3 This is generally the area east of the large barn on the adjacent property across the trail. This site is comprised of oaks on a west facing slope with scattered bur oak seedlings in the understory. There is an area of oak die off just northeast of the monitoring well (722063). • Buckthorn and prickly ash are dominant in the shrub layer in the die off area. Although, regeneration of bur oak seedlings was present. Woodland Assessment & Management Plan Project No: 3230-08001 Elk River Landfill SDA Page 3 Bonestroo Trees wilt from top of the crown down. Site 4 This is the area generally southeast of the monitoring well (696663) to the end of the existing property corner (end of fence line). There is an area of oak die off near the west edge of the property. The understory is comprised of pin cherry, box elder, red maple, basswood, elm, hackberry and green ash. Invasive buckthorn and prickly ash is also present. Site 5 This is in the central portion of the investigation area south of end of the western fence line. This area contains good tree health with a mix of red, white and bur oaks with lesser amounts of red maple and pin cherry in the sub-canopy. The shrub layer is sparse and contains raspberry, small scattered buckthorn, prickly ash, green ash saplings and hazel. Few oak seedlings were observed. Site 6 This site is directly east of the survey stake marked "Property line, P.C." (point of curvature). There is an oak die off area with three 12 inch DBH red oaks 20 feet apart. This site does contain many other red oaks within close proximity of the dead trees. Red maple and pin cherry are present in the sub-canopy. There are scattered buckthorns with only a few oak seedlings. Site 7 This site contains the largest and most numerous area of oak die off adjacent to the old field opening to the east. Approximately twenty-five 6-14 inch DBH red oaks are dead-standing. Some still have brown leaves (dead within last year), while other have been dead longer (lack bark and branches). There are scattered healthy 10-14 inch DBH bur oaks with pin cherry and red maple • saplings. Buckthorn is also present. Site 8 This site is east and north of the open water wetland near the intersection of the road and trail. This is a healthy forest dominated by 8-14 inch DBH red and pin oak with scattered bur oak. Red maple saplings are present with a few bur oak seedlings. Hazel and chokecherry dominate the shrub layer. C7 Woodland Assessment & Management Plan Project No: 3230-08001 Elk River Landfill SDA Paqe 4 Bonestroo ~ Implementation and Management Plan Irk • MANAGEMENT PLAN Based on the findings of the field assessment the following plan has been developed to address the current conditions that exist in the woodland. This information can also be utilized to establish a management plan of the site to provide long-term viability of the woodland as a buffer for the future SDA. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/PROPOSED TIMELINE 1. Locate oak wilt infection centers utilizing GPS. This will help determine the extent of spread for each area for use in a management plan. (June) 2. Contact a forest health specialist or plant pathologist to confirm the oak wilt diagnosis. This should occur in late June to early July when leaf discoloration symptoms may be readily visible giving infected trees an autumn-like look. (June/July) 3. Develop an integrated management plan (IMP) for the current infection centers. (July - Oct.) This should include: a. Removing infected trees b. Avoiding injury to healthy trees by limit pruning, cutting or land clearing during April through June. c. Controlling existing infection centers by disrupting the connections between roots by trenching and vibratory plowing. 4. Manage invasive common buckthorn and prickly ash to help release existing tree seedlings and assist in desirable tree species regeneration. (August -March) 5. Remove undesirable competing trees, such as box elder, from the understory to promote seeding and sapling growth. (August -March) 6. On-going annual activities could include: a. Annual woodland health assessment following IMP. b. Annual invasive tree and shrub monitoring and management. Woodland Assessment & Management Plan Elk River Landfill SDA .~ BOI1~S~~`©Q Project No: 3230-08001 Page 5 Invasive common buckthorn is dominant in the shrub layer in some of the die off areas. Bur oak seedling confirms some forest regeneration. References Minnesota DNR, 1997. Trees of Minnesota. DNR Division of Forestry. French, D.W.; Juswick, J. 1999 (revised). Oak wilt in Minnesota. Extension publication MI-3174- G0. Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul: 5 p. O'Brien, J. et. al. 2000. How to Identify, Prevent, and Control Oak Wilt. NA-PR-03-00. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry; St. Paul, MN: 18 p. Prepared by: i BONESTROO Benjamin L. Meyer, MS, WDC Biologist n LJ 5 2/ 912009 Date Woodland Assessment & Management Plan Project No: 3230-08001 Elk River Landfill SDA Page 6 Bonestrao • L ~~ ,, x View from ERL Facing Southwest,2009/03/19 14:04:01 View of Proposed Expansion Area Facing South,2009/03/19 14:12:01 C, View Along Quinn Street Facing North,2009/03/19 14:22:31 ,..: 3 0 3 0 U LLB bA ~. .~ .~ y N .s" +.-~ O 4~ 3 • • • ~ . 4. }. t i. ~~R +^ 8 f. ~' A .. ",~' ~ ,. a„ ~ ~ ' ~ z4 jx ~ ~ ~+e~ ~~ ~ p ~d '^~ %~ ~rY ~~ ~ ~~: 4 ~. e :,f fn ~':_. ~~'ti ~': y ` }"' i ~- yr ~ ~ ' V ~~ .ir"i- i 3. RR. r 1 fy ti Q 3 on U y4~ `~1 i~-~ /~/~ i-W U .~ 4-~ r ~, ~.' • • 7 / r X*~ .t ,'.. -. x r--~ L: ,--+ i~ .~ ~--1 O 5D .~ .~ N N 3 0 a~ ~, c 0 .~ a. x -~ 0 a 0 ~, a 0 3 • Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Lori Johnson, City of Elk River From: Brad Scheib, AICP Subject: Landfill expansion impacts Date: June 2, 2009 1. Purpose of report: This memorandum evaluates the potential fiscal impacts of an expansion of the Elk River Landfill (hereafter referred to as ERL) into the Southern Development Area (hereafter referred to as the SDA) as illustrated in exhibit l . Our analysis is limited to lands located within the City of Elk River. 2. Existing conditions: Land uses within and proximate to the proposed expansion area consist of gravel mining uses to the south and east and cluster rural residential uses to the west. The expansion of the ERL will consist of approximately 68.8 acres. The entire SDA area is approximately 109 acres. 3. Direct and peripheral areas of impact: We have evaluated the impacts of the landfill expansion from two perspectives: 1) Direct impacts are the lands within the boundary of the expansion area, or the entire SDA area. Impacts in the direct area are objective or more easily quantifiable. 2) Peripheral impacts are impacts to lands adjacent to or within a defined distance of the landfill. There is not a common or unique distance whereby peripheral impacts of landfill operations can be measured. Peripheral impacts are driven by site specific characteristics such as climate (prevailing winds), topography, existing land uses and infrastructure and in some cases government policy/regulations. Studies have identified a range of impact from 1,000 feet to upwards of a half a mile or more. For our analysis, we have analyzed a peripheral impact area of 2,000 feet from the base of the fill portion of the existing landfill and from the base of the fill area for the proposed expansion area. Lands within this 2,000 foot buffer generally have a view that is unobstructed by topography. The mass, scale and form of the landfill has its strongest presence on these lands. 4. Land Use Scenarios: The analysis is based on land use scenarios developed during the North Highway 169 Land Use Study. One scenario includes the expansion of the landfill as proposed by Waste Management. A second scenario assumes no expansion of the landfill. Both scenarios assume a mix of business park and highway business with Scenario 1 (expansion of landfill) including a bit of light industry as a result of the expanded landfill. The following table swnmarizes the acreages of the two land use scenarios based on a fiill build out. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-3800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252-7122 Email bscheib@hkgi.com Landfill Expansion Impact Analysis June 2, 2009 Page 2 Table 1 Land Use Summary (full build out / end usel _ ~ _ ..~ . __~ Vacant Open Space (Wetlands, Buffers or Agriculture) - 93.21 45.00 16.40 Landfill (Ca ed) 101.00 - - Light Industry - 8.56 - Business Park 8.00 30.66 48.00 85.97 Highway Business - 25.33 16.00 55.39 Residential Cluster - 24.88 - 24.88 ROW 17.79 - 17.79 Total Area 109.00 200.43 109.00 200.43 General findings from land use analysis include: a. Without expansion of the landfill, there is a stronger potential that the future area around the interchange will include a broader mix of highway business (retail and service) uses in addition to more traditional business park development. b. Having a broader mix of uses is a more sustainable land use pattern that is not as susceptible to specific industry economic downturns, provides a greater number of and diversity of jobs and provides convenient services more proximate to the jobs base-i.e. reduces vehicle miles traveled. c. With expansion of the landfill, 109 acres of land area is lost to the physical expansion (direct impact) and the peripheral area (peripheral impact) extending 2,000 ft from the expansion area, impacts approximately 200 additional acres of future developable lands. d. Resultant land use patterns in the landfill expansion scenario will include more light and medium industry, low intensity uses as opposed to the scenario without the landfill expansion. e. A lower intensity development pattern impacts the ability of the City to fund future interchange improvements and to extend utilities in a cost effective manner. The expansion of the ERL results in a loss of long term development opportunity of 109 acres and an additional 200 acres of land that are impacted by the closer proximity of the landfill. 5. Jobs/Employment Opportunity: An impact resulting from the loss of development opportunity is long term job growth. Following is a summary of job impacts, not including the short term jobs maintained by the landfill expansion: a. Scenario 1 (expansion of the landfill): i. Development of the 109 acre direct area would be limited to roughly 8 acres of business park, or roughly 300 jobs. ii. Development of the 200 acre peripheral area could yield approximately 1,700 jobs. iii. Scenario 1 in total would yield roughly 2,000 new jobs upon full buildout. b. Scenario 2, (no expansion of the landfill): i. Development of the SDA site (the direct area) could yield 2,100 new jobs. Landfill Expansion ImpactAnalysis June 2, 2009 Page 3 ii. Development of the peripheral area could yield 4,200 jobs, due to the more intense highway business and more land area in business park uses than in scenario 1. iii. Scenario 2 in total could yield 6,300 new jobs or nearly 300% more jobs. Urban development on the SDA site instead of landfill expansion could yield approximately 300% more job growth upon full build out. 6. Fiscal Impacts: As noted in the land use scenarios, expansion of the landfill area increases the land area that is directly and peripherally impacted by the landfill. This has a direct correlation on property values and ultimately tax revenues. The following assumptions were used in calculating the fiscal impact resulting from the possible expansion of the ERL: a. A 2.0% annual inflation factor for estimated market valuations b. No annual inflation factor was factored in for host fees c. Assumes $1 per cubic yard of waste for city host fee d. Assumes $2 per cubic yard of waste for county host fee e. Assumes annual host fee rate for city based on approximate cubic yards of storage (13,600,000) divided by number of years of operation (21 for expansion scenario) f. Under No Expansion Scenario -Landfill closure by 2012 g. Under Expansion Scenario -Landfill closure by 2033 h. Assumes 4% annual development absorption rate (20% over 5 years) for development, once development within direct impact area becomes feasible i. Assumes gravel mining area is gradually reclaimed as extraction is completed and reuse occurs. This gradual transition occurs generally between 2012 and 2030. j. Analysis excludes gravel mining operation tax - due to the issue being neutral to the findings k. Peripheral areas are not assumed to develop at the same intensity or value as they would without the landfill expansion, as out lined in 5. above. 1. Estimated market values based on actual comparable development projects within the City of Elk River Based on the assumptions above expansion of the landfill will result in lost opportunities for development. This lost opportunity for development will have a direct impact on lost property tax revenues. This disparity compounds over time at an increasing rate. By 2080, expansion of the landfill will result in lost opportunity for property tax revenues of nearly $400 million (2009 to 2080). When including 24 years of the host fee, this number gets reduced by nearly $47 million, $15 million of which goes directly to the city. 7. Aesthetics and views: The mass, height and scale of the existing landfill footprint will have a lasting affect on the community. Expansion of the landfill extends the impact southward impacting approximately 200 acres that currently sit beyond 2,000 feet from the existing landfill area. Highway 169 is a key gateway into the City of Elk River, and the siting of the ERL has a strong and lasting impact on the image and identity of the community. The height, mass and form of the landfill combined with the close proximity of the landfill to the highway contribute to a perceived negative image/identity for the City of Elk River. Expansion of the landfill south extends the views of the landfill along Highway 169 approximately 2,000 additional linear feet. Landfill Expansion Impact Analysis June 2, 2009 Page 4 Attached exhibit, Community Viewshed Analysis, illustrates potential areas of visual impact. These areas range from existing roadway corridors, such as Highway 169 and 221St Avenue, as well as addressing questions on visual impacts from the Gravel Mining Area to the south, and the Commercial Reserve area to the east. The viewshed analysis also questions what the visual impacts will be from the MNDOT proposed interchange just south of the proposed landfill expansion. 8. Conclusions/Findings: a. Expansion of the ERL has both direct and peripheral land use impacts on the City of Elk River. These impacts translate directly into financial impacts. b. Lost development opportunity on the SDA and peripheral area could have an impact of approximately $400 million in cumulative property tax revenues from 2009 to 2080 and roughly 3,000 new jobs that could be ultimately absorbed upon full build out of the area (assumed to occur between 2050 and 2080). c. The difference in estimated market valuation and properly tax revenues grows at an increasing rate over time between the two scenarios. d. Peripheral impacts as measured by a distance of approximately 2,000 feet from the base of the fill area of the landfill will be felt on an additiona1200 acres of land area. These peripheral impacts will result in potential lower valued development that is more likely to locate adjacent or within view of a closed landfill. mow.. ~ Q ~ _. ~ _ u o; k~ ~ c, ~5j p C C ~ t- ~J ._.; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ '.~ ~. 1 ~ ~ .T y ~ + b .~. ~~~: ~ ;. ~'' ~ - . ~; ~,~ ;~ ~ ` s. ~ i L r~ _ ~ r rr ~~» „~~ .. .. .. ~~ ~.: se ~, , „ ~ ~ C j ~ 3 ~ ¢' ~ ~:, ..~ _. C W ~ G J, J 1 Q y s ~, N ~J .. ~ „ c, ~ '~ ~ ~ m 1 ~ , ` ' ~ ~,:w _ _ '~, ~ ~ w. "' ~ ,, n ~r, , ' _ ~ ~. ~ _ ^ l ~ V/ *~~ ~ •~ ~ J ~, ~ O Landmark Environmental LLC June 2, 2009 Ms. Rebecca Haug Envirorunental Administrator City of Ells River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Ells River Landfill Southern Development Area -Land Use Application Elk River Landfill License and CUP review Dear Ms. Haug: Landmark Environmental has completed a review of the above-referenced document and the current License and CUP for the Elk River Landfill (ERL} project, as requested. Elk River Landfill Southern Development Area -Land Use Application The following comments were generated related to potential environmental concerns associated with the proposed landfill expansion. Landmark personnel have been involved in the evaluation of the hydrogeologic site characterization and facility engineering since the development of tliis .project in 2003. Environmental Impact Statement (EISI Section 1-2 discusses the EIS process and the conclusions of the envirommental effects of the landfill expansion. The application state that "the EIS findings concluded that environmental impacts would likely be minimal, and that the proposed management and mitigation standards would meet or exceed regulatory requirements". A review of the March 28, 2006 "Findings of Fact" for the fmal EIS does not indicate that "environmental impacts would likely be minimal". The Findings of Fact does however; indicate that "the EIS adequately presents methods by which adverse environmental impacts can be mitigated {Section VL, #39., page 7). The City of Elk River provided comments at various points in the EIS process. These are summarized as follows: 1. Offsite surface water impacts 2. Impacts to onsite and offsite wetlands 3. Landfill gas (LFG) management 4. Odor 5. visual impacts 6. MnDOT TH 101/169 Corridor Management Plan Throughout the site investigation, engineering design and EIS processes for the expansion area, these concerns have been primarily addressed by the MPCA and the Ells River Landfill. Remaining environmental concerns will be mitigated through provisions of a License and Conditional Use Permit for the facility. 2042 W. 98`h Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Phone: (952) 887-9601 Fax: (952) 887-9605 www.landmarkenv.com Ms Rebecca Haug June 2, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Gas-To-EnerQV The application discusses the collection of LPG to reduce green house gas emissions, aix pollution and odors in Section 1.2.2. It is important to note that the landfill is compelled by EPA regulations to collect LFG based on the large size of the waste deposit. The landfill has the option of combusting the LFG in a flare or utilizing an engine for energy recovery. Household Hazardous Waste Facilit~(HHWF) Section 1.2.3 of the application indicates a desire to create a HIiWF at the landfill site,. The applicant makes no commitment to construct and operate the HHWF. Site Screenuls Section 1.2.4 discusses the screening plan for the SDA for the various boundaries of the SDA. The vegetation Plan for the South boundary does not ..appear to be feasible .considering the engineering development plans (see Wenck Associates, Sheet 2, plan station N24440, E581400). Particular concerns relate to the area near the outlet to Sedimentation Pond, P2 and westward. along-221x` Street. Waste fill limit setbacks should be increased in this area to accommodate the needed sedimentation ponds, :access road and proposed screening. The west boundary of the site is not planned for screening enhancement due to-the existing vegetation. It should be noted that.the majority of vegetation-is deciduous. and will not provide opaque screening .from November to May: It is recommended that the applicant. develop a :buffer and/or screening maintenance plan to assure-that dead/diseased vegetation is removed and replaced as needed to maintain the effectiveness of screening. It is important to note that the setback distances of up to 450 feet that are stated, represent the distance to waste fill limit and not the distance to site improvements such as aceess.roads, leachate holding tanks, facility° structures and sedimentation ponds. Proposed Landfill Design , . Section 1.2.5 discusses the detail of the landfill design. The applicant is proposing the construction, operation and closure of the SDA utilizing state-of--the-Art technologies and procedures. An important aspect of the proposal is landfill leachate recirculation which enables the: liquids collected .at the base of the landfill to be reintroduced near the upper levels of.the waste mass: The advantages_Qf tl~.is technique .are =ta : (l) reduce the time to waste stabilization, Q2} enable higher. waste: density at closure, (3) decrease the cost of offsite leachate treatment, and (4} reduce the demand on public -infrastructure. Leachate recirculation will greatly increase the amount of andfill gas. that will be.generated -from the Landfill. The primary concerns relate to landfill gas collection and the prevention of fugitive gas emissions and odors. Temporary final cover is proposed as an element ofthe-September 2008. "Leachate Recirculation Permit Application" proposal. The criteria for when an azea would receive temporary Final cover indicating the maximum length of time of inactive fill operations needs to be ident~ed. Similarly, the maximum area allowed for inactive fill areas prior to placing temporary final cover need to be ident%fied by the applicant. ERL has. proposed that the leachate cleanout risers will be perforated along a portion of the. sideslope. The April 16 2009 engineering plans do not.show this detail. ERL must. commit to conducting active extraction from cleanout risers if positive LFG pressure is observed. Ms Rebecca Haug June 2, 2009 Page 3 of 6 To provide additional LFG extraction capacity, the design must be modified to place horizontal LFG collection. piping within the sand drainage layer at the east west ridge (high point) of the liner system. The supplemental LFG collection piping must extend up the sideslopes to enable connection to the LFG extraction system and to enable cleanout maintenance. Another strong concern of the current design relates to LFG control at the south, liner transition bens (temporary) for the neat .cell. Operational experience has shown LFG (and odor) releases through the drainage layer. One option to reduce this effect would be to extend a FML flap back over the sand drainage layer for a distance of 10 feet. The flap would be removed at the time of the subsequent cell construction. Plan Sheet 5 of Leachate Recirculation Plan presents the details related to the drainfield design.. It is recommended that the main east-west, 4-inch pipe for the drainfield be solid pipe. The current design will result in a higher localized Leachate dosing in the vicinity of 50 foot lateral pipe tees. A solid walled pipe would also help ensure even dosing along the entire length of the drainfield. Plan Sheet 6 of the Leachate Recirculation Plan presents the details related to the piping systems. The location of detail 3/6 is not referenced to a plan drawing. A detail which shows the transition from the buried pipe to the ground surface at the edge of the liner system must be provided. What techniques will be used for frost protection in areas where the depth of burial for Leachate forcemain piping is less than standard? ERL must prepare detailed record drawings/documents of recirculation drainfield construction, which are certified by an engineer. The drawings will include survey measurements of the drainfield areas to document position within the cell, suitable base contours and piping elevations. All construction must be fully documented. This information is critical in potential problem resolution during later stages of landfill operation. The City understands that technology concerning landfill design and operations is constantly evolving and encourages ERL to implement new approaches where appropriate. The City's support of ERL's Leachate recirculation proposal is an example. ERL has full opportunity to utilize new technologies and best practices as they are developed by identifying the relevant changes with corresponding justification demonstrating operational compliance with the CUP and License. Grading and Drainage Mining activities for the SDA are described in the September 30, 2002 "Application for Amendments to Conditional Use Permits for Mineral Extraction and Landfill Operation". Mining will be conducted to within 50 feet of the east and south property boundaries and within five feet of groundwater table. This activity essentially mules the available soils from the site. It appears that a very significant volume of general fill soils will be necessary to construct the liner basegrades for the final construction phases as provided by the engineering plans. ERL has not provided an earthwork balance analysis for the construction and operation of the site. A concern exists that sufficient native soils will be available for operation and general construction such that import of general fill materials is not needed to complete landfill operations. ERL has stated that the volume of reject sand from minuig operations will be sufficient to provide operational cover and general fill for all liner and final cover construction sequences. Prior to construction approval of the final development of the site (cells 25A and 25B), ERL shall provide an appropriate earthwork balance .for construction and operation such that the amount of fill imported into the site is minimized. Ms Rebecca Haug June 2, 2009 Page Q of 6 During site development, the applicant has indicated that .all stonnwater for active areas will °be routed to temporary sedimentation basins which will infiltrate and evaporate collected surface water drainage. No surface water discharge will- be allowed from developed areas of the site until the necessary permanent stone water collection, treatment acid discharge system is constructed. The surface water management plan for the SDA has improved significantly since the initial proposal. The- first statement made iri Section 1.2.6: which reads:,::"The ERL has made it their priority to handle and `control all stonnwater generated on the SDA site", is somewhat `misleading however. This statement is true within .the engineering design for the facility, accommodating a nominal 25-year, 24- hour sfonn event. ``Calculations provided by` the 'applicant indicate the hydraulic capacity of sedimentation pond P-1 to accommodate roughly a 50-year, 24-hour stone event. For storm events which exceed the retention capacity, surface water will be routed to the onsite wetland located in the southwest corner of the development and' potentially to offsite receptors. The applicant has established a contingency action fund to provide'for corrective actions for unexpected occurrences such as severe rainfall events.. The contingency action cost estimates for "severe erosion repair" must to be increased to account for corrective actions for potential wetland damage resulting from a severe rainfall went, The current storm water plans need to be amended to include provisions for erosion control in perimeter surface water channels. Rip`rap and/or erosion control matting must to be added based anpotential flow velocities for design storm events. The surface water' management system involves the construction of a storm 'sewer from the outlet of sedimentationpond, P-1 northerly to th~'Rice Lake wetland complex. A significant section`of the storm will be constructed under the City-owned trail property. The applicant will need to obtain°an easement from the City for this construction. Landfill End Use Section 1.2.8 of the application discusses the alternative end uses for the site. The City.has previously commented (3une 17, 2004} on the need to enhance`surface water~control on the tapslopes of the"waste deposit. For typical final contour design, the~lengtli of uncontrolled surface water drainage°is'excessive. Additional surface water control berms which may be heeded will break up the area into smaller areas for active end uses. The current final contour design -does'not address these concerns. The barrier layer of the fuial cover system increases the tune for cover soils to .fully drain. This condition may significantly reduce the practicality of turf surfaces for active uses. From a landfill post- closure operations and maintenance perspective, passive end uses for the site are preferred. Elk River Landfill License and CUP Review . The current ERL .license and CUP have been reviewed in light .of the operations -that are' being conducted at the site. The following comments and suggested additions to these documents are based on site visits and review of recent annual reports for ERL. Recommended conditions could be inserted in Section 4.} "Specific Additional Operational Requirements" starting. on page 7 0£ the- current license agreement. Leachate Seeps There have been a number of leachate seeps which have occurred in recent years. Documentation on the precise location of seeps has not been developed. This information is critical in potential~problem resolution during later stages of landfill operation. The documentation of the seeps should include a Ms Rebecca Haug June 2, 2009 Page 5 of 6 survey position with azi elevation. This would also enable a more useful evaluation of the, potential relationship with the leachate recirculation system. Gas Probe Monitoring and Analysis Significant positive pressure readings for gas probes have been indicated over the past several years. This condition may indicate landfill gas migration beyond the waste boundaries. In order to fully evaluate this situation, the landfill must collect and report gas concentration and pressure for each probe for each monitoring event. The landfill must also collect temperature and barometric pressure for the site at the time of the monitoring event and the preceduig three days before the monitoring event. All gas probe monitoring data must be fully evaluated in the annual operating report. Groundwater Impacts With the submittal of investigative reports, ERL has concluded that P304C area impacts are the result of landfill gas effects. This situation is similar to P-320 area where contaminants are observed in deeper horizons of the outwash deposit. As previously noted the P304C well is screened 40-50 below the groundwater surface and located more than 500 feet from an unlined area of the landfill. Landfill gas effects are more common for water table wells in proximity to unlined landfill areas. The results for gas probe, GP-17 which is located directly adjacent to P304C, show no detectable levels of methane for monitoring conducted in recent years. Tetrahydrofuran and ethyl ether, which are signature parameters for leachate impacts for PC17C, show increasing trends. The evidence for P304C indicates that leachate impacts are also occurring. P3I4C is located in a sidegradient orientation to P304C and the source area for groundwater at F314C may involve snore extensive contamination. The screen position for nearby well P303C is roughly 20 feet in elevation above the screen elevation for P314C and may be missing potential contamination in the deeper portion of the outwash at this location. ERL must conduct additional contaminant investigation and monitoring in the vicinity of P304C, P320 and an area southeast of P314C. This approach is supported with emphasis on evaluating the deeper outwash. Annual Existing Conditions Plan The Annual Operating Report must include afull-sized engiieering plan to fully illustrate all facility features reviewed in the annual report (landfill gas probes, monitoring wells,. gas collection infrastructure, leachate recirculation infrastructure, etc). The Plan must identify permitted "and remaining volumes. Leachate Collection System Maintenance The Annual Operating Report includes information concerniig the pressure jetting of the leachate collection system. ERL must provide a full analysis of the mailtenance activities including discussions of the need for corrective actions when abnormal conditions are reported by the maintenance crew. Full-Scale Recirculation ERL has proposed the discontinuation of the Pilot Program and the implementation of full-scale leachate recirculation at the Site. ERL has identified a program for design, operation and ongoing monitoring. The City supports this proposal with the following additional conditions: • Complete engineering plans with a supporting design report must be provided for all proposed leachate recirculation drainfield areas and associated equipment. The engineering report will provide design basis and operational parameters to ensure even dosing of dramfield areas Ms Rebecca Haug June 2, 2009 Page 6 of 6 • Complete as-built documentation, including surveys, for all drainfield areas and associated equipment. • All areas where leachate circulation occurs must expand the landfill gas collection system to include horizontal collection lines at the base liner and within the waste matrix. • The. City encourages the implementation of an onsite leachate treatment 'system to reduce the indirect infrastructure and environmental costs of off-site leachate management. • The proposal. to delay final cover construction may be acceptable if the use `of temporary cover systems can mitigate fugitive andfill gas emissions and inf ltration of precipitation. The City encourages the application of leachate at the working face to provide initial and uniform wetting of the waste mass. This technique may help to ultimately stabilize the waste more quickly. Equipment and procedures which are used must address environmental and work safety concerns for ambient conditions at the working .face. • Annualreporting. must include a map indicating the surveyed-location of seepsand evaluation of their source in light of recirculation operations,... - Ambient Air IVIonitorne ,' The current air monitoring for landfill gas emissions field survey is only conducted for-the topslope area accounts forxoughly 2d percent of the fill area, There is a,higher likelihood tllat.emissions will occur on :the sideslope based on the horizontal stratification of the v/aste and px-eferred movement of landfill gas. ERL must modify the area of traverse to uiclude all sideslope and topslope areas for ambient air monitoring events. The safety concern for vehicles on landfill sideslopes can be mitigated by traverse on foot with the survey instrument. If concentrations exceed 500 ppm -explosive gas (calibrated to methane), corrective.. actions are required to amend the landfill cover to mitigate fugitive emissions: This requirement. is iinportarlt in identifying fugitive gas emissions/odors and ensuring that site condifions are corrected to mitigate their effects. Reiected Waste Loads and Random Load Inspections ERL must provide a list of rejected waste loads and summary with the Annual Operating. Report. A summary and analysis of random load inspections (as provided in section 4.2.1. of the'"April 2008 Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan) must be provided with the Annual. Operating Report. Please contact me if you. have any questions or comments regarding my review of the application .and current License/CUP. Sincerely, Landmar En 'ro ental, LLC atthew edvina, P.E. Project Engineer F:IPROJECTS\CER-City ofEik River12009-07.01\Corr\Letters 2009\1t090502Haug:doc ~ ~~, gr ~"~ . ;v, s ~~ y ~~° ~i ;~ L !_ ~~ .: 'r~ 3 s k ~, ~. e i ~~ ~ ~ ~~ .6~J .~ 7F &.• m ~ .. 3 "&~ ~. ~ ~ ~ . ~' . ~~ ~~ r,,+ .e ~ ~Me ~~ gyp; #3t ~ k "'35 ,. '~ $ _ ~~ ~~~ b r..s:. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7 ~ , \~- ~. '~: lg ,~ `' ~, ~k ' ~ m~; .t . ~` '' ~- History of the Elk River Landfill The Sherburne County Board of Commissioners first regulated landfills in 1971 under a Solid Waste Disposal Plan. There were two public hearings at Planning Commission meetings for a CUP to operate a Sanitary Landfill on June 8 and August 10, 1971. Then on December 8, 1971 the Planning Commission provided a favorable report for granting a CUP to Ernest Toth for the operation of a SanitaryLandfill. Part of the favorable report included the site offering natural wooded screening, easy access to Highway 169, and no need for new road construction. The County Board approved the permit on December 8, 1971 with the following conditions: Permit issuance by the MPCA, restrictions in the Solid Waste Disposal Plan approved by the County Board on July 28, 1971 and Review of procedures by the Sherburne County Attorney. In 1972, the Elk River Sanitary Landfill Site was on forty acres and operated under MPCA Solid Waste Permit SW-74. The original cell was unlined. The origina11972 permit was issued to the site operators, Lawrence and Chris Kreger, and the owner, Ernie Toth, bythe MPCA based on review and approval of a completed landfill site permit application and acceptable engineering plans and reports for the site. In 1979, due to insistence from the MPCA, two ground water monitoring wells were installed. In 1974, Sherburne County required the Elk River Landfill to be licensed. On October 15, 1984, the City Council made a motion to adopt Ordinance 84-10 to impose a $0.15 per cubic yard fee on landfills within the City of Elk River pursuant to State Statute. In 1986, the City hired Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc., to review the Hydrogeologic Investigation Report for the Elk River Landfill. At the City Council's April 28, 1986 meeting, the Council approved Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc. to prepare recommendations based on the Studyto be submitted to the MPCA and the County. On Monday, May 12, 1986, Chris Kreger made a request to the City and County to waive 45% of the landfill tax for approximately eight months as Mr. Kreger wished to use the funds to construct a new dumping site with a synthetic liner and leachate collection system, The County asked the City if it would be willing to reduce the landfill tax from $0.15 to $0.10 per cubic yard for a period of four months, to finance the purchase and installation of a synthetic liner and leachate collection system, subject to the terms and conditions outlined in a letter between the County and the landfill owners and operators. The County reduced the landfill tax from $0.85 to $0.45 per cubic yard for the same period of time. The City Council approved the reduction in landfill tax. On December 1, 1986, Peter Beck, City Attorney presented a draft solid waste ordinance to the City Council to better regulate solid waste facilities in the City. This ordinance was proposed to regulate and identify four types of waste facilities that would be allowed in the City (1) sanitary landfills, (2) solid waste processing facilities, (3) transfer stations, (4) waste burning facilities. All of these facilities would be allowed under the new ordinance providing they had the proper land use designation and zoning, a conditional use permit and a license. The City Council passed ordinance 86-18 with some revisions. 2 On February 2, 1987, the City Council received an update from Peter Beck, City Attorney regarding a meeting between the County and City. The topics discussed during the meeting were: Installation of liner, resolution of taxes, and depositing leachate from the liner in the city sewer system. The Elk River Landfill did not install a liner in 1986 for which the County and City had reduced the landfill taxes to facilitate this being completed. The County and City considered requesting a payback for past due taxes and the installation of the liner. It was also discussed that a study and tests would be conducted on the leachate to determine if the sewer plant could accept it. The County did grant the Elk River Landfill $60,000 to install the very first portion of the landfill liner in 1987. The City Council reviewed a request from the Elk River Landfill on July 20,1987 to install a new manufactured building to be used as an office building. Staff recommended denial of this request since the landfill was anon-conforming use. The permittee needed to applyfor and be issued a Solid Waste Facilities License and rezone the property to Solid Waste Facility Overlay District before the building permit could be issued. The Landfill Tipping Fee Surcharge was approved bythe adoption of Ordinance 87-26 to be increased from $0.15 to $0.25 per cubic yard on July 27, 1987. This Ordinance became effective on October 1, 1987. In 1987, the facility amended its permit with the MPCA to upgrade the original plans and operations because of changing site conditions and because the existing engineering plans and reports were inadequate for controlling operations at the facility. In addition, a hydro geologic evaluation and an assessment of the existing and possible future impacts on ground and surface water resources in the area were required. At a Planning Commission informational meeting on July 19, 1988, Mr. Kreger informed the public that 95% of the garbage disposed of at the Elk River Landfill comes from outside Sherburne County. On September 12, 1988, the City adopted Ordinance 88-26 to rezone the north 525 feet of the southern parcel which included the landfill office, from A 1 to Solid Waste Facility OverlayDistrict. The Conditional Use Permit and License were also approved at this time and recorded on October 7, 1988. On December 19, 1988, Ordinance 88-33 was passed to amend Section 900.12, 900.14, and 900.16 which created a Solid Waste Overlay District to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing a specific zoning district for the use of the land for the establishment and operation of Solid Waste Facilities. Mr. Kreger presented to the Planning Commission on February 28, 1989 a request to amend the Elk River Landfill's CUP to allow the temporary storage of ash within the northern forty acres which was part of the existing mixed municipal waste disposal site. The ash would be limited to refuse derived fuel or mass burn only. Chris Kreger, operator of the Elk River Landfill notified the City Council on December 19,1988 of his intent to dispose of ash from the Hennepin County Mass Burn Plant. The City Council authorized staff to send a letter to Hennepin County stating the Council and Elk River citizen's opposition to having this type of storage in the city limits. The Elk River Landfill requested an amendment to their CUP on June 23, 1989 to construct a new demolition debris cell at their facility. The cell would be approximately 24 acres in size with approximately 18 acres of the new cell located on top of the solid waste in the original cell of the landfill in city limits. Approximately six acres would be in Livonia Township. This request was approved. The City Council was informed about legislation allowing the Cityto increase the Landfill tax from $0.35 to $1.00 per cubic yard on July 10, 1989. Also, on October 16, 1989 the City Council was made aware of a request by Elk River Landfill to dispose of contaminated soil which would be treated as an industrial waste. Mr. Kreger requested a 50% reduction in City and Countytaxes for a period of two months due to losing Hennepin County's processed residue. Because of this, Elk River Landfill was losing 160 tons of waste per day. The reduction was to allow for him to investigate the situation and add business. The City Council approved this request on July 23, 1990. A similar action was taken by the County. On October 15,1990, the City Council made the motion to reinstate the landfill tipping fee to $1.00 per cubic yard. Also on July 23,1990 the City Council approved the CUP and license to allow ConTeck Environmental Services to contract with Elk River Landfill to thermallytreat petroleum contaminated soil. On May 20, 1991, the Elk River Landfill CUP and License were discussed with timeframes being set to complete remedial investigations relaxed to contaminate leaving the site and for finishing the final cover of the north slope of the original landfill cell along with language requiring litter to be picked up along Highway 169 as needed but at a minimum of twice a month and trucks be cleaned up prior to leaving the site. This request was passed at the October 21, 1991 City Council meeting for a two year period through 1993. At the August 19, 1991 City Council meeting, Staff indicated that the State of Minnesota had recently passed a law which allowed cities to collect a fee of $0.50 per cubic yard of waste on operators of construction debris facilities. The Council agreed to collect $0.25 per cubic yard, bypassing Resolution 91-49. At the June 29, 1992 City Council meeting, City Attorney, Peter Beck, distributed a memo indicating that the Elk River Landfill had never signed the CUP renewal and the required bond had not been posted. An escrow of $2,453.14 was deposited in late 1991. The City Council moved to start legal action against the Elk River Landfill to recover delinquent fees. Peter Beck indicated to the City Council on August 17, 1992 that the Elk River Landfill had not complied with the conditions of the CUP so the City Council was in consensus to proceed with the lawsuit to bring the Landfill into compliance with the CLIP. A CUP and license for the Elk River Landfill were renewed on February 1, 1993 with several changes related to the fees and expiration date. The fee for municipal solid waste paid into the City contingency fund was changed from $0.15 to per yard to $0.10 per yard and that a maximum amount in this fund be raised to $300,000 to $400,000. The Landfill would be charged to $0.10 per yard until the escrow amount reached $250,000, at that point the Landfill would no longer continue to paythe fee. Interest would continue to increase the 4 fund amount until $400,000 had been reached and at that point the City would place the interest accrued in a fund chosen by the City Council. With the $400,000, the City could pay 30% of the costs incurred by the consultants during the CUP and license renewal process and allow the Landfill to pay $1,000 per month toward City fees. The expiration date was changed in the ordinance from even-numbered years to a two year time period from the date of issuance. In February 1993, a draft Scoping Decision Document for the Elk River Gravel Mining District was completed. The EIS was done to provide long range planning for the City's mining district and represents a component of the City's comprehensive plan. The Landfill property was part of the mining district and voluntarily participated in the EIS. ConTeck Environmental Services, Inc. requested a renewal of the CUP and license for the Elk River Landfill to allow a facilityto thermallytreat petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil on May 13, 1993. This request was approved at the May 17, 1993 City Council meeting. The need for a Household Hazardous Waste Facility in the Elk River area was discussed in August 1993 from the City Council after hearing that the Elk River Landfill had expressed interest in being adrop-off site. In late 1993, the City, Sherburne County, the MPCA and the Elk River Landfill met to gain consistency in regulatory efforts regarding the Landfill. The discussion revolved around the Corrective Action Investigation Report (CAIR) that Elk River Landfill had submitted to the MPCA, the County and the City. The CAIR detailed information relating to investigation of environmental contamination attributable to the Landfill. Both the City and County hired environmental consultants to review the CAIR and provide technical recommendations and formulate comments to the MPCA. The Elk River Landfill requested aid from the County and City on May 31, 1994 to build an active gas venting system at the Landfill. Besides removing an unsafe build-up of methane gas, the gas extraction system pulls volatile organic compounds from the groundwater and generates electricity. The Landfill requested $70,000 from the City and $170,000 from the County. The City Council moved to hire Abdo, Abdo, & Eick, to perform a financial review of the Elk River Landfill to assist the City Council in deternuning the level of aid the City should grant for the gas venting system. There was consensus to include the County in the audit and to share the cost. After review of the audit, both the City and County staff determined that the Landfill's cash flow proved that it would be unlikely for them to construct the system with their funds. On July 18,1994, staff recommended the City Council grant the funds to the Landfill to complete the gas venting system with certain conditions attached to the grant. A requirement of the grant was that the system had to be built in 1994. These conditions were approved at the July 25, 1994 City Council meeting. A letter and a resolution were sent to the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA) on October 27, 1994 in regards to a draft Solid Waste Fee Study. The Study recommended that all landfill surcharge monies collected by cities be used for solid waste activities. The City had obligated these monies for payments on the City Hall and the Library expansion and other things. In the letter written by staff, it was stated that Elk River hosts a regional landfill, a RDF facility and a power plant that burns the RDF. The letter also 5 stated the Landfill provides very little property tax benefit to the City due to the limit number of structures on-site and the RDF plant and power plant are classified as recycling and pollution control related and are non-taxable. These facilities have a negative connotation on the community and the surcharge monies help to offset the negative effects such as littered roadside ditches, extra truck traffic, above normal wear on the roads and an overall negative image to the City. In 1995, Elk River Landfill, Inc. consolidated with SaniFill. On December 19, 1995 Straightline Excavation, Inc., requested a CUP for Mineral Excavation to facilitate future expansion of the landfill. They had been mining the Elk River Landfill since 1986. A six foot high chain link fence was completed around the perimeter of the landfill property and a 200 foot setback was imposed in order to leave the wooded area for screening, monitoring groundwater and landfill gas, remedial action and protection of adjacent propertyvalues. Where woods did not exist, Straightline Excavating was required to construct a 6 foot high berm with evergreens on top for screening. This request was passed at the January 16, 1996 City Council meeting. The Elk River Landfill applied for a renewal of their CUP and license in December 1995. Some of the changes included getting the active gas venting system operational; comprehensive monitoring plan that ties groundwater monitoring and gas monitoring together; a deadline to complete a VOC Remedial Feasibility Study; a deadline to get additional VOC Remedial Action constructed and operational if necessaryto improve groundwater quality; deadline to assess and propose corrective actions for heavy metal contamination since the active gas venting system would not remove heavy metals from groundwater. The Landfill also agreed to pave their access roads to the scale and office, have a 200 foot setback from all property lines for the disposal of anywaste, including demolition debris. A screening plan was also required to be submitted by the end of February 1996 and the new permit required the landfill to pay 100% versus the 70% of the costs incurred by the City for renewing the CUP and license along with the day-to-day costs to the City for administering these permits. During this time, the renewal period was changed to four years rather than two years. This request was passed at the January 16, 1996 City Council meeting. On February 5, 1997, City and County staff provided comments to the MPCA after review of the draft solid waste permit for the Elk River Landfill. The comments ranged from the proposed final elevation to corrective action for VOC ground water quality along with many other technical items. Some of the new items proposed for the permit included language for yard waste composting, litter control, dust, noise and odor and heavy metal contaminant monitoring and assessment. On May 19, 1997, staff provided a report to the City Council based on the application submitted byERL for an expansion which was anticipated bythe Citywhen the property owned bythe landfill was zoned SWFOD. It was fora 52 acre expansion to the south of the original 40 permitted acres. During this expansion, the crucial land use issue was the final elevation of the facilitywhich was approved at the 1,120 feet which still stands. The concerns were related to the negative impacts on neighboring property values and land use; negative aesthetic impacts since the landfill is the fast thing one sees when entering the city from Hwy 169. Having the landfill any higher would exacerbate existing dust and litter 6 problems and it would make screening impossible. The 1,120 feet was approved based upon staffls research indicating that this elevation would reduce negative impacts and accommodate the Landfill's economic concerns. At the Planning Commission meeting on April 22, 1997, some of the comments raised included how many unlined cells exist and the applicant replied that there are nine unlined cells and there were three lined cells. The life expectancy of the landfill was also asked and the response was 30-50 years with the total amount of capacity being 13.1 million yards of refuse. The Council did consider other land use impacts such as preservation of adjacent property values, orderly development of surrounding properties, impacts on essential services, aesthetics, screening, dust, litter and other land use impacts. This request was approved by the City Council on May 19, 1997. The City participated with the County and the Elk River Municipal Utilities on December 1, 1997 bypaying a portion, $71,700, for the installation of the gas extraction system at the Elk River Landfill. The City's portion was approximately one-third of the cost. The project would use the gas to produce electricity. Staff provided an update to the City Council on March 30, 1998 informing them that the Elk River Landfill was considering an expansion of their facilitytoward the north into Livonia Township. The expansion would be demolition debris. This expansion would not increase the footprint of the landfill within in the Citylimits but would place the waste over existing cells. The new area would be lined. This request would require a modification to the City license and CUP as well as the County's license and the MPCA permit. Staff also updated the Council that USA Waste and Waste Management were proposing a merger. Another update by staff was given to the City Council on April 20,1998. Staff informed the Council that the City licenses the Landfill to ensure clean-up of contamination on the landfill propertyprior to it migrating off-site. 1998 was the second year of a five year plan to see if final cover and active gas venting would work as a remedial action for VOCs. 'T'his was a cooperative plan between Elk River Landfill, the MPCA, Sherburne County and the City of Elk River. The Landfill gas to electric project was proceeding but issues with the MPCA air emissions permit needed to be resolved. Staff provided a report to the City Council on July 20, 1998 indicating the Elk River Landfill's request to construct a new demolition debris cell. The new demolition debris cell was proposed to be 24 acres in size. Approximately 18 acres of this new cell were proposed to be located on top of the original solid waste cell which is located within the Elk River city limits. Approximately six acres would extend into Livonia Township. C-nce again, the City, County and MPCA worked together on the review of the Landfill's request. Some of the issues with this request were related to the demolition debris being placed on top of unlined solid waste cells but the applicant had adequately addressed the concerns. The City Council approved this request on July 20, 1998. C-n September 10, 1998 a groundbreaking took place at the EIk River Landfill to promote the public-private partnership regarding the installation of the equipment to convert landfill gas to electricity at the Elk River Landfill. The event was hosted by Energy City and the project became one of the demonstrations for Energy City. This project was awarded the 7 1998 Project of the Year, Power Strategies for the Elk River Landfill Gas-to-Electricity Project by the US Environmental Protection Agency Landfill Methane Outreach Program. On February 29, 2000 the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report pertaining to a request bythe Elk River Landfill for the renewal of their CUP and license. Staff informed the Planning Commission of the landfill's proposal to recirculate the leachate, rather than pumping it out and hauling it to be treated. The advantage is that the waste will be more compressed, leaving the landfill with more capacity and avoid some of the costs associated with treating the leachate. The environment benefits by quicker decomposition and stability of the waste. The landfill also requested 3:1 slopes to help gain approximately 1,500,000 cubic yards of disposal area on their approved footprint. This request also needed approval by the County and MPCA. Sherburne County's Forester, Tim Edgeton developed a screening plan for the Landfill and expressed concerns with Oak Wilt. A resident asked about the possibility of the landfill expanding in the future. Staff informed the resident that a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning would be required and it would take a 4/5 vote of the City Council. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The City Council also approved the request at their March 20, 2000 meeting allowing for leachate recirculation, approval of cells 14-17 being reviewed byCitystaff, 3 tot slopes contingent upon County and MPCA approval, and anend-use plan developed as part of the next renewal period. At the November 14, 2000 Elk River Municipal Utilities meeting, the commission moved to execute the Letter of Intent with Waste Management which would oblige the Utility to proceed with developing a gas purchase, land engineering, an operating and a maintenance agreement with Waste Management, and develop a loan agreement with Sherburne County. The Elk River City Council adopted Resolution 01-31 on June 4, 2001 which approved the exercise of powers under MN Statutes, Chapter 453, respecting a certain electric power generation project. At a joint City/County meeting on February 12, 2001, a staff report was handed out indicating that the Elk River Landfill was potentially going to expand to south of their current operation with municipal solid waste. Staffls report indicated that the area was still being mined by Tiller Corporation and an Environmental Impact Statement would be needed. The Elk River Landfill requested to amend their CUP and staff prepared a report for the Planning Commission on October 23, 2001. The request was to allow disposal of demolition debris over the top of an existing mixed municipal solid waste cell. The screening provisions were changed to require three rows of evergreens be planted to fill in the gaps along the west property line as well as adding trees and bushes on the west side of the berm. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request and the City Council approved the request on November 19, 2001. On February 19, 2002, the City Council approved the construction of the Landfill gas to. electric facility at the Elk River Landfill. The building will contain up to four new generators capable of producing an ultimate electrical capacity of 3200 kW which is enough to serve more than 2,000 homes. The building will also contain an office and a meeting room. The meeting room is to be used for educational purposes for energy and waste issues. This project did require an Air Emission Permit from the MPCA. On July 8, 2002 staff presented a report to the City Council indicating a request from the ERMU for financial assistance for the Landfill Gas Generation Project. The request was for $50,000 to replace the existing condensate extraction system with a more efficient one. The City Council authorized the use of landfill abatement funds for this project. On September 9, 2002, staff presented a report to the City Council regarding groundwater remediation. The ERL requested cost sharing for the remediation project in the P17C area of the landfill. A plume had been detected in this area which is on the west side of the landfill near Rice Lake. The City Council authorized the reimbursement of $35,000 to the Elk River Landfill from the landfill abatement funds for the groundwater remediation work. They also approved spending up to $20,000 on recycled products such as furniture, carpet, and equipment items made from recycled materials for the Environmental Learning Center. On October 9, 2002, the Park & Recreation Commission listened to a presentation by the Elk River Landfill regarding the proposed Landfill End Use. In July 2003, the City Council approved entering into a Host Community Agreement with the Elk River Landfill. The Agreement allowed the Cityto replace the existing $1.00 per cubic yard surcharge with a host fee at the same rate. This allowed the City to use the money at its own discretion. On March 15, 2004 the City Council approved the renewal of a CUP and License for the Elk River Landfill. The changes were for the most part housekeeping relaxed; however, there was discussion at both the Council and Planning Commission meetings about odor, litter and contamination. Staff indicated that the language in the CUP and License adequately dealt with the issues. It was also indicated at this meeting the Landfill's intent to expand to the south. Also in the fall of 2004, the Citybegan working with the Elk River Landfill to offer the residents the opportunity to bring items such as appliances, furniture, tires, electronics, etc. to the Elk River Landfill at a reduced price. The cost of the program was offset using landfill abatement funds. This program has continued everyyearsince 2004 and happens every Spring and Fall. Staff provided a report to the City Council on December 13, 2004 indicating the desire of the Elk River Landfill to expand to the south of their current location. In the report it stated that the Landfill would be required to get approvals from the MPCA, Sherburne County and City. The first approval would be a Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAR which the MPCA would be the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGL~. Once the EAW was approved, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) needed to be prepared.. It was estimated that the EIS would be complete by January 2006. Once the decision on the EIS was given, the Landfill would make application to the City for a Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, CUP and License. 9 The Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission adopted resolution 453 at their March 8, 2005 meeting which allowed for the addition of a fourth engine at the Elk River Landfill to Energy f acility. At the October 17 and November 14, 2005 City Council meetings, staff provided updates to the City Council on the potential to work with Sherburne County and the Elk River Landfill on the construction of a HHWF at the Landfill. Recent History 2006-present The Elk River Landfill gave a presentation to the City Council on March 13, 2006 regarding the timing of the Landfill expansion. During the presentation it was indicated that the MPCA would make a decision on the EIS on March 28 and if approved, the landfill will apply for a Land Use Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and license to be reviewed by the Council in July or August 2006. Because of the type of project, expansion of a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility is required to go through an Environmental Review as granted in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116D, as established bythe Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. This project required a mandatoryEIS which requires the MPCA to be the RGU. The City was allowed to comment on the document. The EIS is attached. On Apri13, 2006 the City Council approved reimbursing the Elk River Landfill for overpayment of demolition debris surcharge. The MPCA Board voted to approve the adequacy decision on the EIS for the Elk River Landfill on March 28, 2006. The one item that involved further work was the groundwater monitoring. The MPCA Board instructed their staff to work with the residents of Ridges of Rice Lake to allow them to review and comment on the proposed ground water monitoring system for the SDA. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a one-year extension of the Landfill's CUP and License at their April 8, 2008 meeting. The City Council approved the request at their April 21, 2008 meeting. There were no modifications to the CUP or License. The Park and Recreation Commission listened to a presentation by the Elk River Landfill at their August 13, 2008 meeting regarding three different end-use plans. The Park and Recreation Commission discussed the end-use at their September and October meetings. At the November 12, 2008 meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission made a recommendation to have the end use remain consistent with the theme of passive recreation and native habitat as approved in September 2002. They also recommended that funding be incorporated if the landfill is expanded for development of active recreation facilities to offset the negative impacts of hosting a landfill in the City. The recommendation also stated that the Commission is not endorsing or opposing the Elk River Landfill Expansion. The City Council received a proposal by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGi), on August 11, 2008 to develop a studyto determine the impact a possible landfill expansion would have on surrounding land uses. On November 10, 2008, HKGi gave a presentation 10 to the City Council. The presentation revolved around how a landfill expansion could create opportunities and constraints for future land uses in the gravel mining area, what strategies could be implemented to buffer the landfill and how the proposed expansion could address existing land use issues related to the landfill. The powerpoint presentation is attached. The Elk River Landfill prepared a rebuttal to the HKGi report and presented their information at the January 12, 2009 City Council meeting. The powerpoint presentation is attached. • • • e • • • • CJ r~ u Si,WU~°° __l Taxes/Fees or~„~t~IF«, s-z,ooo,u°o • S242,04U Propertt~ J oG.~~.l ~t-G~~rc - ^ G.acel - GR Fm Tales ore, ,RT~ $14.9 Million 55.SW °°° 2010-2030: • S14.0 Million 43,WO OW Landfill Fees ~,,oo°W $663,000 Gia~~el $I,SOO,OW 41 000 0°° $iUO IrUU 2UID-'015 2015-2U_0 ?020-_'025 2025-2030 ^_Oi0-?035 ?Oli-2040 2010-2041 ?04>-2050 • • C] • ~~o,~~ - - _-._ _ __.. ------ _ __ esseo.eau $14.9 Million 2010-2030 se.ooouo~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $3.2 Million Property Taxes 2030-2050 3z.inopao ^I.a~dE~¢F.vx __ St ~oo,nr~n ~.,nna Eo ~-~ ~ ~ Y"~1 ~J~JJ~1_ oiu-.... _. .. _ • • • ~J • :7 Szo,ocm;999 548,900,000 616,9o9:o9n 519,000,000 Sit 000,000 510,000,000 58,fl00,000 $6,000,009 ;4,009,000 $L,OOO;D00 D Scenv<io t ^ Scenv~io 2 ^ S<rux~io 3 • C7 2010-?Oli 2015-2910 20'_0-2015 20^_5-2030 L030-2035 2031-2040 1040-10{~ 2095-2010 90-Yex. To~vl h ""~"~~ .. ~ .. y:-~.. ,4 ~~ a ' c•s,. { C ti I ti Y ~ P ~ a. i d k ~ Ss e ~. ..., C ,..~.... ~, ~~MF~.~.~_. 0. -'. .. 1 I` ~_ J ~ll9 ~ rxulli~si~ -estimated market ~ ~1bS 6 ~xulhou -est imated market a.IUe Ut e%1S tF11~ de~ei0 ~mellt ~cithm' X00 feet of die~iiLe Beud ~`aiUP Uf Pti1tiTll1~ deg elU~~R1ellT ~Clttllli ~ ~~~(~ t~ ~~ ~ Y the Buiu~~ill~~ I~,idfill Laiidtdl 1 ~~ ~._ ~~ * 4 ~_ _. l 4 ~ G.' ~ . „w ," ; ~ ~ ~ ~ , . :.. .~ ~ ~ Y ~• ~ ~ :,. y~r ; ~ ~b `~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ r=1,r ~ N s L.ii ~ ~ ~ ~ _v_c ..~. _. .. _ ~...~. ts~ .~_ _ _ '~ i ks"_~~t .. µ _ 10Cf E.~.~..y'•~^~!:~~ 4 .... , lORS.f.~u.q ~~nu UV /~rr,r ,.....w. fli r~-r ~..~.-.. ..e ...~~ ~.. ~~ w«r~..-.~ _ • ion c..nw ~•~ u.. a,~.m......,,....,m O: r._,... Y.. ,.. e~.+~.~ .. ~ ... Mw~... r1 C7 • 4eu.My Yew OW1IMCaM wv eem ~xwui ~v iM .. ~~. C~~wry rir M Mara Mw+r Swrr ir~ow ~_.. • C7 • ~~~~ ~~~ o ' ~ . .,, „m,..,,,...,~ _._.r., ..~. --. .r e._ ~.,. 1 ~~..~.+ • • Brookfield Landf LpenO o,.. ~,.. „~ .,. ~~ .~ • • C] • • • • • • • • • • r.,~ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v~ March 17, 2006 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES RE: Elk River Landfill Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Citizens' Board (Board) Item for the proposed Elk River Landfill Expansion, city of Elk River, Sherburne County, and a copy of the Board Agenda. The Board Item includes: • Proposed Approval of the Findings of Fact and Adequacy Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet; • Responses to written comments received for the Draft EIS submitted during the comment period that ended on December 1, 2005, and an Errata sheet; • Responses to written comments received for the Final EIS submitted during the comment period that ended on January 30, 2006; and • The Final EIS .Scoping Decision Document that the MPCA Board approved in January 2005. There were a total of nine comment letters received regarding the project. In an effort to save postage and resources, these comment letters, the Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS and the Errata sheet, and the Final EIS Scoping Document, which were previously mailed out to interested parties, can be reviewed at the following locations: the MPCA offices in St. Paul and Brainerd, the Elk River Public Library at 413 Proctor Avenue, the Elk River City Hall at 13065 Orono Parkway, and the Sherburne County Government Center at 13880 Highway 10, Elk River, Minnesota. Requests for copies of these documents may be made by contacting the St. Paul office at (651) 297-8510. The EIS and Board Item can be viewed on our MPCA Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html. The Board Item will be presented at the MPCA Committee and Board Meetings. Please refer to the enclosed Board Agenda for specific location, dates, and times. We encourage your attendance at the Committee and Board Meetings. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed Board Item or the specifics of the meeting, feel free to contact Debra Moynihan of my staff at (651) 296-8420. Sincerely, ~~ Richard Newquist Supervisor, Environmental Review Unit Environmental Review and Operations Section Regional Division RN:mbo Enclosures 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY); www.pca.state.mn.us St. Paul • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Duluth • Mankato • Marshall • Rochester • Willmar Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20 percent fibers from paper recycled by consumers. r' MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Regional Division Environmental Review and Operations Section ,, Board Item Cover Sheet MEETING DATE: March 28, 2006 DATE MAILED: March 17, 2006 (~.,, \ Presenter(s): Debra Mo ihan p Phone Number: (651) 296-8420 Supervisor: Richard Newqui i ~ Phone Number: (651) 296-7780 Manager: John Holck Phone Number: (651) 297-7568 Attorney: Ann Cohen Phone Number: (651) 296-7346 Title of Board Item: Elk River Landfill Expansion Project -Request for Approval of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order and Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement LOCATION: City TYPE OF ACTION: Elk River Environmental Review Sherburne County RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of Findings of Fact and Adequacy of the Final Environment Impact Statement ISSUE STATEMENT: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Environmental Review Unit has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fof the proposed Elk River Landfill Expansion Project (Project). The Final EIS consists of: the responses to timely and substantive comments; the Draft EIS; and the errata sheet providing revisions to the Draft EIS. As the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the environmental review of this project, the MPCA must now determine if the Final EIS is adequate based on the criteria contained in Minn. R. 4410.2800. These criteria are that the EIS: 1) addresses the issues raised in scoping so that all issues for which information can be reasonably obtained have been analyzed; 2) provides responses to substantive comments received on the Draft EIS concerning issues raised during scoping; and 3) is prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Rules. The MPCA staff believes that these criteria have been met and recommends the MPCA Citizens' Board (Board) approve the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order and determine that the EIS is adequate. ATTACIIMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Attachment 1 • Final Scoping Decision Document (Exhibit A to Attachment 1) 2. List of Comment Letters Received on Draft EIS (Attachment 2a) 3. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS (Attachment 2b) 4. Errata to Draft EIS (Attachment 2c) 5. List of Comment Letters Received on Final EIS (Attachment 3a) 6. Responses to Comments on Final EIS (Attachment 3bl Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. Telephone Device for Deaf (TDD): 1-800-657-3864; Local (651) 282-5332 This material can be made available in other formats, including Braille, large type or audio tape, upon request. 1 J MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Regional Division Environmental Review and Operations Section Elk River Landfill Expansion Project -Request for Approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, and Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement March 28, 2006 ISSUE STATEMENT The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Environmental Review Unit has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Elk River Landfill Expansion Project (Project). The Final EIS consists o£ the responses to timely and substantive comments; the Draft EIS; and the errata sheet providing revisions to the Draft EIS. As the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the environmental review of this Project, the MPCA must now determine if the Final EIS is adequate based on the criteria contained in Minn. R. 4410.2800. These criteria are that the EIS: 1) addresses the issues raised in scoping so that all issues for which information can be reasonably obtained have been analyzed; 2) provides responses to substantive comments received on the Draft EIS concerning issues raised during scoping; and 3) is prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Rules. The MPCA staff believes that these criteria have been met and recommends the MPCA Citizens' Board (Board) approve the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order and determine that the EIS is adequate. I. BACKGROUND: The EIS process is intended by law to provide an analysis, with extensive public involvement, of a proposed project, so that decision makers have readily available information about the potential environmental impacts of a project, and how those impacts maybe avoided or minimized. The EIS does not approve or deny a project in itself, and it is not a generic permit application, but rather provides pertinent information to decision makers who have regulatory responsibilities over the project, such as permits or zoning approvals, and ongoing oversight if the project is ultimately built. Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., proposes to expand its existing landfill located in the city of Elk River, Sherburne County. The proposed expansion would be used for the disposal of mixed municipal solid waste. The expansion would include 8.6 acres on the southern-most portion of the existing. landfill property and 65.1 acres extending onto the I09-acre parcel of property located immediately south of the existing landfill. This property is currently used by a gravel mining operation. The expansion would extend the operational life of the landfill approximately 16 to 20 years, depending on incoming waste flow quantities. The proposed Project did exceed the threshold for the preparation of an EIS pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. E. The EIS was prepared in accordance with Minn. R. 4410.2000 to 4410.2800. The proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Attachment 1) itemizes how the MPCA has fulfilled all the requirements of the rules. A summary of the procedural history of the EIS process followed for this Project is presented below. A scoping decision document was prepared and noticed in the EQB Monitor on November 22, 2004. The scoping public comment period began November 22, 2004, and ended December 22, 2004. A public meeting was held in Elk River, Minnesota, on December 9, 2004. The written comments regarding the scoping document were incorporated into the Final Scoping Decision Document. The Final Scoping Decision was adopted by the Board on January 25, 2005. A copy of the Final Scoping Decision Document is attached as Exhibit A of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Attachment 1). A notice of availability of the Draft EIS was published in the EQB Monitor on October 24, 2005. A public meeting to receive comments on the Draft EIS was held November 15, 2005, and the public comment period ended on December 1, 2005. A total of eight written comment letters were received on the Draft EIS. A notice of availability of the Final EIS was published in the EQB Monitor on January 16, 2006. The Final EIS contained a section describing new and revised information (errata sheet) and a response to all substantive comments received on the Draft EIS (Attachment 2b). The comment period ended January 30, 2006, and one comment letter was received. The MPCA staff has prepared a Response to Comments document (Attachment 3b) in response to the comment letter on the Final EIS. 2 Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.2800, the MPCA, as the RGU, must now determine the adequacy of the Final EIS. II. DISCUSSION: The criteria for the determination of adequacy of the EIS are presented in Minn. R. 4410.2800, subp. 4, state that the EIS is adequate if it: A. Addresses the issues raised in scoping so that all issues for which information can be reasonably obtained have been analyzed. B. Provides responses to the substantive comments received during the Draft EIS review concerning issues raised in scoping. C. Was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minn. R. 4410.0200 to 4410.6500. In reviewing the above criteria for adequacy of the EIS, it is useful to note the purpose of the environmental review process in Minn. R. 4410.0300, subp. 3, which states, in part: Environmental documents shall contain information that addresses the significant environmental issues of a proposed action. This information shall be available to governmental units and citizens early in the decision making process. Environmental documents shall not be used to justify a decision, nor shall indications of adverse environmental effects necessarily require that a project be disapproved. Environmental documents shall be used as guides in issuing, amending, denying permits, and carrying out other responsibilities of governmental units to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects and to restore and enhance environmental quality. It is also appropriate to review Minn. R. 4410.2000 subp. 1, which states: Subp. 1. Purpose of EIS. The purpose of an EIS is to provide information for governmental units, the proposer of the project, and other persons to evaluate proposed projects which have the potential for significant environmental effects, to consider alternatives to the proposed protects, and to explore methods for reducing adverse environmental effects. As can be seen, an EIS must include information on the proposed Project, a consideration of alternatives, and an identification of mitigative measures.. It is not intended to be all-inclusive, nor is it intended to develop definitive answers to legal or technical questions. Rather, the EIS must use 3 information that is reasonably available to provide an accurate analysis of the environmental impacts as they relate to the issues and alternatives identified in the scoping decision. The EIS contains, as specified in the scoping decision: 1. A description of the existing facility as well as its size, scope, environmental setting, location, and anticipated phases of development. 2. A discussion of environmental impacts and mitigation for issues such as ground water and stormwater impacts, landfill gas emissions and odors, and visibility impacts. 3. A discussion of the Project's compatibility with land use and socioeconomic impacts. 4. A discussion of alternatives including disposal alternatives, and the no-build alternative. 5. A list of government permits and approvals required for the Project. The Final EIS incorporates an evaluation of all issues identified in the scoping decision and contains responses to comments made on the Draft EIS. All issues raised in the. scoping process for which information could be reasonably obtained have been analyzed. As required by Minn. R. 4410.2500, when data needed for an evaluation of an environmental impact or alternative were incomplete or unavailable, it was indicated in the EIS that the information was lacking and that further study is needed. In written comments received on the Draft and Final EIS, the following issues were raised in relationship to the EIS: questions regarding the adequacy of the ground-water information and the interpretation of the hydrogeological reports used for the EIS analysis; adequacy of the odor impact discussion; adequacy of the stormwater impact analysis to the wetland located in the southwest corner of the Project site and associated waters downstream; concerns about the Project's. impact on proposed improvements to the Trunk Highway 169/2215 Street intersection; concerns about decreasing residential property values due to potential ground-water impacts, visual impacts, and odors; and concerns that the alternatives portion of the EIS analysis presented a biased point of view in favor of the expansion. The MPCA staff examined each issue raised by the commenters. In some cases, staff concluded that the issue of concern went beyond the approved scope, or was more appropriate to the permitting phase of the proposed Project. In other cases, the MPCA staff concluded that the treatment of the issue in the EIS was adequate. In a limited number of cases, the MPCA staff followed up on the issue and 4 supplemented or corrected the EIS with additional available information. For example, with regard to comments about odor impacts, the MPCA's responses to comments included supplemental available information (errata sheet) that addressed this issue. For a detailed discussion of the MPCA's conclusions regarding the comments, see the Responses to Comments Documents (Attachments 2b and 3b). The MPCA staff believes that it addressed all substantive comments. The MPCA followed all required procedural steps in preparing the EIS. Public comment was accepted on the EIS Scope, the Draft EIS, and the Final EIS. Public meetings were held on the EIS Scope and the Draft EIS, at which information about the Project was provided to interested persons. Notice of the Board action was provided in accordance with MPCA rules. III. CONCLUSIONS: As set forth in the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order; the MPCA staff met all the requirements of the EQB rules for EIS preparation. The Final EIS was prepared in compliance with the procedures in Minn. R. 4410.3000 and meets all the adequacy requirements of those rules. All issues identified in the scoping decision for which information could be reasonably obtained have. been analyzed and evaluated. All significant environmental impacts have been identified. IV. RECOMMENDATION: The MPCA staff recommends that the MPCA Citizens' Board determine that the Final EIS for the Elk River Landfill Expansion Project is adequate. SUGGESTED STAFF RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Elk River Landfill Expansion Project is adequate and adopts the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Attachment l). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency authorizes the Commissioner to publish a notice of this determination on this Project. ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ELK RIVER LANDFILL FINDINGS OF FACT EXPANSION PROJECT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT The matter captioned above came before the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (1VIPCA) for decision on March 28, 2006. After affording all interested persons the opportunity to present written and oral data, statements to the MPCA, after reviewing the Draft and-Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and considering all of the evidence in the records, files, and proceedings herein, the MPCA, being fully advised, hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. L Project Description 1. Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL), a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., owns and operates a mixed municipal solid waste. (MSW) disposal facility under MPCA Solid Waste Permit No. SW-74. ERL is also licensed and permitted by Sherburne County and the city of Elk River. ERY/ is located five miles north of the city of Elk River, along U.S. Highway 169. ERL proposes to expand operations at its existing MSW disposal facility by developing 73.7 acres of a 109-acre parcel located immediately south of the existing landfill property (Project). The proposed Project would provide approximately 17.5 million cubic yards of additional airspace capacity (waste and cover) and extend operations for approximately 16-20 years. 2. The proposed Project, also known as the Southern Development Area (SDA), will consist of approximately 73.7-acres of additional lined MSW landfill area adjacent to, and integrated with, the currently permitted liner system at the ERL. The proposed SDA would include approximately 8.6 acres on the southern-most portion of the existing landfill property and 65.1 acres extending onto property located immediately south of the existing landfill. This property is currently being used by a gravel mining operation and development of the landfill expansion would follow mining activities. Mining activities will take place approximately the distance of two landfill cells ahead of the landfill development, which is generally three to four years before the capacity of the particular area is needed. Development of the SDA would be integrated into the contours, general design and operation of the existing ERL. 3. The existing landfill property covers approximately 270 acres. ERL is permitted to accept MSW, demolition and construction debris, yard waste for composting, industrial waste in accordance with an MPCA-approved Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan, and processing facility rejects from the Elk River Refuse Derived Fuel facility. The original Solid Waste Permit was issued in 1972 for Elk River Landfill Expansion Elk River, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 18 million cubic yards of airspace capacity. Although the facility has undergone several design modifications over the years, the ultimate permitted capacity has remained the same at 18 million cubic yards. 4. The existing landfill area is equipped with a liner, a leachate collection system, a leachate leak detection system, aground-water monitoring system, a stormwater management system, a landfill gas management system, and an on-site landfill gas-to-energy facility. An enclosed flare is located next to the gas-to-energy facility to flare off excess landfill gas not utilized by the facility. In September 2003, the Solid Waste Permit was modified to authorize ERL to conduct a Leachate Recirculation Pilot, Study in two landfill cells. 5. The ERL has taken corrective actions for ground water contamination associated with the old, unlined portion of the landfill. These corrective actions are proactive measures taken by ERL to insure that no ground water contamination leaves the property boundaries. 6. A clay/geomembrane liner will be constructed under the SDA to provide an impermeable barrier that collects liquids from within the waste and prevent a release of potential contaminants to the environment. The new liner will be connected to the existing composite liner along the south side of the existing landfill to produce continuous liner system for the proposed expansion. 7. Anew leachate collection system and leak detection system will. be constructed for=the SDA. The proposed project includes plans for one additional 150,000-gallon leachate above ground storage tank to be constructed on the east side of the SDA site. Leachate is pumped into vehicles for transport to the point of treatment, which is currently the Metropolitan Disposal System located in St. Paul, Minnesota. 8. The proposed SDA will be equipped with. an Environmental Monitoring System designed to allow for the earliest possible detection of a release from the facility to the ground water. A hydrogeologic study-for the SDA has been conducted and reviewed by MPCA staff. 9. The proposed SDA will involve the installation of additional landfill gas wells that will be integrated into the existing landfill-gas-to-energy recovery system. Landfill gas is collected and used to fuel internal combustion engine generator sets for generation of electricity that is distributed by the local electric provider, Elk River Municipal Utilities. 10. Final cover for the SDA will consist of an impermeable cap with vegetated soil layer to control runoff and erosion. The final cover design includes design features for stormwater control and management. 11. The following approvals and permits would be required for the proposed Project. a. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste Disposal Facility Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Industrial Activity Title V Air Permit 2 Elk River Landfill Expansion Findings of Fact Elk River, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order b. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Formally Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance) Certificate of Need c. Sherburne County Solid Waste License d. City of Elk River Solid Waste License Conditional Use Permit Rezoning from Agricultural to Solid Waste Overlay District Wetland Conservation Act Application e. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Industrial Discharge Permit. for leachate disposal II. Need for an EIS 12. The Project involves the expansion of 25 percent or more of previous capacity of a mixed MSW disposal facility for 100,000 cubic yards or more of waste fill per year: Therefore, the Project exceeds the threshold for the preparation of a mandatory EIS under Minn. R. 4410.400, subpart 13, item E. 13. In compliance with Minn. R. 4410.0500, subp. 1, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the EIS is the MPCA. III. Environmental Impact Scoping Process 14. A Draft Scoping Decision Document was prepared on the Project and distributed to the Environmental Quality-Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on November 22, 2004. A press release containing notice of the Scoping meeting was provided to newspapers serving the Project area on November 29, 2004. 15. A notice of the availability of the Scoping document was published in the EQB Monitor on November 22, 2004. The Scoping period began November 22, 2004, and ran for 30 days, to December 22, 2004. The MPCA also held a public meeting in Elk River; Minnesota, on December 9, 2004. 16. Written comments regarding the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) were received from the three .local units of government =Sherburne County, the city of Elk River, and Livonia Township; and one government agency -the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Those comments were incorporated into the Final Scoping Decision Document. 17. A Scoping decision was adopted by the MPCA Citizens' Board on January 25, 2005. The Final Scoping Decision Document contained an anticipated EIS schedule, a listing of issues to be addressed in the EIS, and a description of alternatives to be addressed in the EIS. 18. The Final Scoping Decision Document identified a number of issues that the MPCA organized into the- following general impact areas: 3 Elk River Landfill Expansion Elk River, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order a. Ground-water analysis -Using existing hydrogeologic studies conducted by ERL, describe soils, geologic conditions, and hydrogeologic conditions; describe the ground-water monitoring system; and discuss the potential for the Project to impact ground-water quality of the Rice Lake/I'ibbits Brook wetland complex. b. Stormwater runoff -Using existing calculations and modeling conducted by ERL, compare quantity, quality, and velocity of runoff during 25-year and 100-year storm events for pre- development, initial construction, ongoing development, and after closure of the SDA; identify routes of stormwater discharge; discuss potential impacts to the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex and the wetland in the southwest corner of the SDA site during initial construction and ongoing operation and development of the Project. c. .Landfill gas emissions -Identify sources of landfill gas emissions and describe existing control practices and monitoring plans used by ERL to detect landfill gas emissions, and current and proposed plans used to mitigate and respond to landfill emissions; identify additional appropriate and reasonable best management practices to mitigate landfill gas emissions. d. Visual impacts -Illustrate potential impacts of the Project using photographs from eight specific key locations,. including the "no-build" alternative and two phases of landfill development: 75 percent final height and post closure. e. Compatibility of land use -Compatibility with current and proposed, known long-term surrounding land uses, including potential conflicts with surrounding recreational, commercial, and residential uses located within one-quarter of a mile from the Project boundaries; confirm current or updated plans for Trunk Highway 169/2215` Street interchange improvements proposed by Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). f. Economic and Social Impacts -Assess the potential for the Project and the "no-build" alternative to directly and indirectly affect the local economic and.sociological impacts; the Project's impact on costs to users of the facility and general public; effects from early closure of the facility; and potential impacts to planned recreational resources resulting from the expansion. 19. The EQB rules require -that an EIS evaluation address the "no build" alternative and at least one alternative from each of several alternative types, or provide a concise explanation of why an alternative from. a particular alternative type is not evaluated. The following alternatives were eliminated from the EIS through the scoping process: alternative sites; modified designs or layouts, alternative technologies, and modified size or scale of the proposal. The reasons for eliminating these alternatives were discussed in the Scoping EAW and the Scoping Decision Document. The "no-build" alternative was included in the EIS analysis. IV. Draft EIS 20. The Draft EIS was prepared in a manner consistent with EQB rules (Minn. R. 4410.2300) and in accord with the scoping decision. The Draft EIS contained: a. A cover sheet identifying the RGU, the Project title, the Project location, the date of the public meeting on the Draft EIS, and the date for the end of the comment period. 4 Elk River Landfill Expansion Elk River, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order b. A summary which stressed the major findings, areas of controversy, and issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives. c. A table of contents. d. A list of preparers. e. A project description identifying the purpose of the Project, its size, scope, environmental setting, geographic location, and the anticipated phases of development. f. A list of all known governmental permits and approvals required by the Project. g. A discussion of the alternatives which were considered. h. A discussion of the environmental, economic, employment, and sociological impacts generated by the Project. i. An identification of reasonable mitigation measures proposed to eliminate or minimize any adverse effects of the Project. 21. The Draft EIS was distributed to the mailing list contained in EQB Rules, to the Project proposer, the governmental units known to have permitting or approval authority over the Project, and to persons requesting the EIS. A notice of availability of the Draft EIS was published in the EQB Monitor on October 24, 2005, and a press release was issued to newspapers in the Sherburne .County area on October 24, 2005. 22. The public notice and press release provided a brief description of the Project, information on the date, time, and location of the public meeting, the date on which the public comment period would end, and the location at which copies of the Draft EIS were available for review. 23. A public meeting to receive comments on the. Draft EIS was held on November 15, 2005, from -6:30 to 8:30 p.m., at the Uppertown Conference Room, City Hall, in Elk River, Minnesota. The meeting was attended by the Project proposer, interested citizens residing in the area of the Project, other interested parties, Sherburne County staff and the city of Elk River staff. The meeting was recorded via court reporter and a transcript is available. 24. During the comment period for the Draft EIS that ended on December 1, 2005, the MPCA received eight comment letters (Attachment 2a). 25. The comments received during the public comment period that ended on December 1, 2005, raised a number of different issues. Some comments questioned the adequacy of the EIS's evaluation of current and potential odor impacts. from the Project. There were many questions regarding the adequacy of the ground water information and the interpretation of the hydrogeological reports used for the EIS analysis. Commenters also questioned the adequacy of the EIS regarding stormwater impacts to the wetland located in the southwest corner of the Project site. Residents near the area of the proposed Project expressed concerns about decreasing residentiaLproperty values due to potential impacts to drinking water wells, visual impacts, odors, and impacts on MNDOT's proposed Elk River Landfill Expansion Ells River, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order improvements to the Trunk Highway 1 69/22 1 51 Street intersection. The residents also expressed concerns that the alternatives portion of the EIS analysis presented a biased point of view in favor of the expansion. 26. The MPCA prepared a Response to Comments (RTC) document responding to these comments. Attachment 2b is the RTC document on the Draft EIS. The RTC document (Attachment 2b) includes the MPCA staff s responses to the alleged EIS inadequacies. In some cases, the RTC document provided supplemental information and corrections to address the inadequacies identified by the commenters. In other cases, the RTC document indicated the MPCA staff's opinion that the EIS, as drafted, was adequate and satisfied the EQB rules and met the approved Draft Scoping Decision Document. V.- Final EIS 27. The MPCA staff prepared a Final EIS pursuant to the requirements in Minn. R. 4410.2700. .Following review of the comments received on the Draft EIS, the MPCA staff determined that the bulk of the information in the Draft EIS had not changed. Therefore, a Final EIS including supplemental information, revisions, and responses to substantive comments was prepared as required by Minn. R. 4410.2700, subp. 2. 28. The Final EIS was a packet that contained: a. A cover sheet identifying the document as the Final EIS. b. An errata sheet providing supplemental and revised information as of December 1, 2005. c. A section presenting comment letters and responses to comments. 29. The MPCA distributed copies of the Final EIS on January 16, 2006, in a manner consistent with Minn. R. 4410.2300, subp 3. Copies were provided to all persons receiving copies of the Draft EIS, all parties who submitted comments on the Draft EIS, and all persons requesting copies of the Final EIS. 30. A notice of availability of the Final EIS was published in the EQB Monitor on January 16, 2006, and a press release was issued to newspapers in the Sherburne County area on January 17, 2006. These notices indicated the locations at which copies of the Final EIS were available for review and the date on which the comment period on the Final EIS was to expire (January 30, 2006). 31. The MPCA received one letter (Attachment 3a), submitted by the city of Elk River, during the comment period that ended on January 30, 2006. The comment letter asserted that the EIS was inadequate for failure to fully investigate odors associated with landfill operations and for failure to conduct a quantitative assessment of the control equipment proposed by ERL as a mitigation measure for what had been determined as the major cause of odors at the existing landfill. The city of Elk River's comment letter also asserted~that the EIS failed to adequately assess the stormwater impacts to the wetland located in the southwest corner of the proposed SDA site, and impacts to County Ditch 31 located downstream of the wetland. The city of Elk River's comment letter states that the visual impacts analysis falls short of the EIS Scoping Decision Document because it does not reference a coordinating plan document for screening and fails to develop a screening plan. Other comments from the city of Elk River allege that certain conclusions in the EIS regarding sources of odors, the 6 Elk River Landfill Expansion Elk River, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order ground-water analysis, the need for an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, and hydraulic loading to the southwest wetland, are not supported by existing information and are, therefore, incorrect. The MPCA has prepared responses to these comments in Attachment 3b. 32. The MPCA finds that the EIS was adequate for the reasons set forth in the RTC documents (Attachments 2b and 3b). VI. Determination of Adequacy and Conclusions of Law 33. The MPCA, as RGU for the Elk River Landfill Expansion Project, is the appropriate governmental unit for making a determination of adequacy pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.2800. 34. The Final EIS RTC document responds to the substantive comments received during the Draft EIS comment period that was held from October 24, 2005, to December 1, 2005. The Final EIS provided adequate responses to the substantive comments received during the Draft EIS review concerning issues raised in Scoping (Final Scoping Decision Document - Exhibit A to Attachment 1). 35. The information presented in the Final EIS adequately addresses the issues identified in the Final Scoping Decision Document adopted January 25, 2005. 36. The proposed action is described in sufficient detail. 37. The EIS adequately analyzes significant environmental impacts. 38. The EIS adequately presents alternatives to the proposed action and their impacts. 39. The EIS adequately presents methods by which adverse environmental impacts can be mitigated. 40. The EIS adequately presents the economic, employment, and sociological effects that cannot be avoided should the proposed action be implemented. 41. The public has had an adequate opportunity to participate in the environmental review process and to provide comments. 42. Thy EIS has been developed in accordance with the procedures specified in Minn. Stat. ch. 116D and Minn. R. 4410.0200 to Minn. R. 4410.6500. 7 Elk River Landfill Expansion Elk River, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order ORDER 43. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.2800 and the requirements of Minn: Stat. ch. 116D, the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Elk River Landfill Expansion Project is adequate. 44. Any Findings of Fact that are more properly deemed Conclusions and any Conclusions that are more properly deemed Findings of Fact are hereby adopted as such. IT IS SO ORDERED Commissioner Sheryl A. Corrigan Chair, Citizens' Board Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Date EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINAL SLOPING DECISION DOCUMENT ELK RIVER LANDFILL SOUTH MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT INTRODUCTION An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on a proposal by Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL) to expand operations of the existing Elk River Landfill (Landfill) in the city of Elk River (City), Sherburne County: This EIS is being prepared as a mandatory EIS under the requirements of Minn. R. 4410.4400, subp.l3 (E) for expansion by 25 percent or more of a previous capacity of a mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal facility for 100,000 cubic yards or more of waste fill per year. The MPCA is the. responsible governmental unit (RGU) for this EIS. The expansion project will consist of developing 73.7 acres currently used by an active gravel mining operation located immediately south of the existing Elk River Landfill facility. The expansion will provide approximately 15,000,000 cubic yards of MSW disposal capacity in addition to the current permitted MSW disposal capacity and provide continued Landfill operations for 16 to 20 years, depending upon incoming waste volumes. The proposed Landfill expansion project will follow mining by the current property owner, the Tiller Corporation. The expansion area is referred to as the Southern Development Area (SDA). The SDA is bounded on the north by the existing. Landfill, on the east by U.S. Trunk Highway 169, on the west by a former railroad grade and a designated trail, and on the south by gravel mining and an asphalt plant. Beyond Trunk Highway 169 to the east are scattered farmsteads, residential dwellings, and businesses with predominant land use consisting of agricultural land. Beyond the western side of the railroad grade are scattered residences and the southern portion of the Rice Lake wetland complex. PREVIOUS ENVIROMNMENTAL REVIEW An EAW was prepar'by Sherburne County in March 2003, to address the development of additional lined demolition debris landfill cells north of the existing MSW disposal area. The County issued a decision for a negative declaration on the need for an EIS on May 6, 2003. The property identified for the expansion of the Landfill is within the northern portion of the Elk River Gravel Mining District for which an EIS was prepared by the City, the RGU. The City prepared the EIS on the Elk River Gravel Mining District in 1993. The final EIS was published in May 1994, and a final determination of adequacy was made in June 1994. Elk River Landfill South MSW Development Elk River, Minnesota SLOPING PROCESS AND PURPOSE Final scoping Decision Document Environmental Impact Statement Minn. R. 4410.2100 provides that an EIS scoping process be implemented for any EIS. The purpose of the scoping process is to: reduce the scope and bulk of the EIS; identify only those potentially significant issues relevant to the proposed project; define the form to be used; determine the level of detail needed; define the content of the document; examine reasonable alternatives to the proposed project; establish the timetable for preparation and the preparers of the EIS; and determine the permits for which information would be developed concurrently with the EIS. The purpose of the EIS is to evaluate and disclose information about the significant environmental effects of a proposed action. The EIS is not intended to justify either a positive or negative decision on a project, but may be utilized by governmental units as a guide in issuing or denying permits or approvals for the project and in identifying measures necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental effects. SCFIEDUI:E An EIS Preparation Notice for the project is expected to be published in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor in May 2005. Within 280 days after the publication of the notice, the final EIS is expected to be prepared and distributed for public review. The MPCA must make a determination of the adequacy of the final EIS. A tentative schedule for development and review of a draft and final EIS for the Elk River Landfill South MSW Development is provided below. The schedule is contingent upon the anticipated dates for the scoping Decision and Preparation Notice Publication. Tentative EIS Schedule Elk River Landfill South MSW Development January 25, 2005 May_ 2005 September 2005 January 2006 MPCA Citizens' Board Approval of EIS Scope Publish Notice of EIS Preparation Distribution of Draft EIS Determination of Adequacy RECORD OF DECISION Among the objectives for Minnesota's environmental review process are the provision of useable information about the primary environmental effects of a proposed project and the encouragement of accountability in public and private decision making. A "Record of Decision" documents how EIS information was considered in making the decision. For the proposed Elk River Landfill South MSW Development EIS, a Record of Decision shall be prepared for the modified Solid Waste Facility permit issued by the MPCA. 2 Elk River Landfill South MSW Development Elk River, Minnesota PROPOSED CONTENT OF THE EIS Final Scoping Decision Document Environmental Impact Statement This section of the scoping document outlines the items to be contained in the Elk River Landfill South MSW Development EIS. In accordance with Minn. R. 4410.2300, the EIS will include: Cover Sheet The cover sheet will include: the name of RGU; the title of the proposed project and project location; name, address, and telephone number of the contact person at the RGU and of the proposer's representative; a designation of the statement as a draft, final, or supplement; a one paragraph abstract of the EIS; the date of the public meeting on the draft EIS and the date following the meeting by which comments on the draft EIS must be received by the RGU. Summary The summary shall stress the major findings, areas of controversy, and the issues to be resolved, including the project as proposed. The summary will include a project description, mitigation measures, alternatives, a list of governmental approvals, and economic impacts. Direct, indirect, and adverse or beneficial impacts will be identified. Preparers The EIS will be prepared by the staff of the MPCA with the assistance of one or more hired consultants. The consultant will be responsible for reviewing the adequacy of available data and reports, including those received from the proposer; preparing technical information on expected impacts of the project; participating in the public meeting for the draft and final EIS; assisting the MPCA in responding to public comments on the draft EIS; and preparing the draft and final EIS. Proiect Description EQB rules explicitly direct that a proposed project be described only in sufficient detail to identify its purpose, size, scope, environmental setting, location, and anticipated phases of development. Permits and Approvals The EIS will identify the known governmental permits and/or approvals required for the expansion along with the unit of government responsible for each decision. While the EIS will provide a variety of information useful for permitting and approval decisions, it is not intended to provide all data and information required for these actions. All required permit applications and information for the project will be developed and submitted independent of the EIS. Elk River Landfill South MSW Development Elk River, Minnesota Environmental. Impacts and MitiEation Ground Water Final Scoping Decision Document Environmental Impact Statement The EIS will identify and briefly describe the ground-water regulations applicable to the project. The EIS will identify and briefly describe the ground-water quality standards applicable to the project. The analysis of the potential for ground-water impacts will be based on existing geotechnical, hydrogeologic, and chemical data collected from all hydrogeologic investigations of the proposed SDA and the engineered environmental control- systems inherent in the design, as well as, the associated environmental performance monitoring programs. -The list of ground-water references to be used in the EIS is found in Attachment 2A. No additional test data or ground-water modeling is .anticipated. This information will be used to address the following issues. 1. The EIS will provide a description of the soils and geologic conditions at the proposed SDA site. 2. The EIS will contain a description of the hydrogeologic conditions, in the vicinity of the proposed SDA site. 3. The EIS will describe the proposed ground-water monitoring program for the SDA site. 4. The EIS will include a discussion of the potential for the expansion to impact ground- water quality to the Rice Lake wetland complex and Tibbits Brook. Surface Runoff Waters The EIS will identify and briefly describe the stormwater regulations applicable to the project. The EIS will describe the stormwater management practices to be employed at the proposed SDA site and compare the quantity, quality,-and velocity of surface runoff waters from the site before development of the SDA, during initial construction of the SDA, during ongoing operation and development of the SDA, and after final closure of the SDA. This comparison will use a 25-year, 24-hour storm event as well as a 100-year storm scenario, and will include a comparison of the potential changes in quantity of sediment loading from surface runoff waters routed to different watersheds as a result of the project. The EIS will identify the routes of stormwater runoff to the Rice Lake wetland complex and Tibbits Brook, and the ability of these waters to handle the potential change in hydraulic and sediment loading during a 25-year and 100-year storm event. The EIS will discuss any potential physical impacts from hydraulic loading and any potential changes in sediment loading to the small wetland located in the southwest corner of the SDA site due to stormwater discharge. This discussion will include consideration of both a 25-year and 100-year storm event during initial construction of the SDA and upon ongoing operation and development of the SDA. Elk River Landfill South MSW Development Elk River, Minnesota Final Scoping Decision Document Environmental Impact Statement This section of the EIS will identify and briefly describe the water quality standards and regulations that apply to the Rice Lake wetland complex, Tibbits Brook, and the small wetland located in the southwest corner of the .SDA, with respect to stormwater discharges from the project site. The EIS consultant will use the stormwater management calculations and modeling assumptions developed by ERL and approved by MPCA, and the stormwater references listed in Attachment 2A for the comparison analyses identified above. Landfill Gas Emissions The EIS will identify sources of landfill gas emissions and describe the existing control practices and monitoring plans used by ERL to detect landfill gases generated by the facility and current and proposed plans used to mitigate and respond to landfill emissions: In addition, the EIS will identify additional appropriate and reasonable alternative best management practices that might be used to mitigate landfill gas emissions. The sources of information to be used for this portion of the EIS are listed in Attachment 2A. Visual Impacts. The EIS will illustrate potential visual impacts of the proposed SDA using photographs from eight specific key locations with images of the landfill superimposed onto them. The study will illustrate two phases of development: 75 percent final height and post closure. Sites with the greatest sensitivity to visual impacts were selected as part of the study, as identified in Attachment 2A. In addition to the two phases of development selected, the illustrations will include the "no build" alternative. Potential mitigation opportunities shall be provided through computerized renderings and shall include screening of receptors with the use of berms, fences, vegetation, and mitigation landscaping and screening of the proposed SDA: Potential costs of these options will also be presented. Compatibility with Land Use The EIS will identify and briefly summarize the local, regional, state, and federal land use plans and regulations that affect the project. The compatibility of the project with current and proposed, known long-term surrounding land uses will be identified, including potential conflicts with surrounding recreational, commercial, and residential uses located within one-quarter of a mile from the boundaries of the SDA. The EIS will confirm current or updated plans for the Trunk Highway 169 (TH 169) corridor and evaluate the potential for the landfill expansion to impact the proposed Minnesota Department of Transportation interchange and overpass improvements to be constructed at the intersection of TH 169 and 221 S` Avenue. Alternatives The EQB rules require that an EIS include at least one alternative of each of the following types, or provide an explanation of why no alternative is included in the EIS: alternative sites, no action/no build, alternative technologies, modified designs or layouts, modified scale or magnitude, and alternatives incorporating reasonable mitigation measures identified through comments received during the EIS scoping and draft EIS comment periods. Elk River Landfill South MSW Development Elk River, Minnesota Final Scoping Decision Document Environmental Impact Statement For any alternative analyzed in the EIS, the analysis will include a succinct discussion of potentially significant direct or indirect, adverse, or beneficial effects associated with that major alternative. No Build The EIS will assess the consequences of a "no build" decision for the proposed project using information compiled by the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA). MOEA staff conducted an inventory of "available" solid waste management facilities that take MSW, MSW ash, and Refuse Derived Fuel ash in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Iowa. The inventory of available facilities, as provided by MOEA, is found in Attachment 2A. The list of available facilities is limited to those facilities that are most likely to accept solid waste diverted from the ERL, if that landfill were not available. The following types of facilities were inventoried: • solid waste composting; • refuse-derived fuel; • mass burn facilities; • private MSW landfills; and • private industrial waste landfills. The following information will be provided for each identified facility: • distance to/from the proposed project site; • current available MSW processing and/or disposal capacity; • expansion plans for each facility within the next ten years (if available); • current fill rates; • name of current owner; and • current tipping fees. The "no build" analysis for the Elk River South MSW Development EIS will utilize any relevant information that was developed for the "no build" alternative analysis during the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill Expansion EIS Project. Modified Designs or Lam The alternatives considered during the design phase of the proposed project are summarized in Item 31, Summary of Issues, on page 39 of the Scoping EAW. The issue of facility design alternatives will not be further discussed in the EIS because the proposed expansion. must meet specific design specifications that are required by federal, state, and local regulations. The permits that will ensure that all required design and operations specifications will be met by the proposed project are listed in the Scoping EAW in Item 8, Permits and approvals required, on page 10. Location Alternatives The issue of alternative locations or sites is discussed in Item 31, Summary oflssues, on page 37 of the Scoping EAW. The proposed site of the expansion, located immediately south of the existing Landfill, appears to be the most cost-effective, environmentally and socially acceptable alternative. Therefore, this alternative discussion will not be carried forward to the EIS. Elk River Landfill South MSW Development Elk River, Minnesota Final Scoping Decision Document Environmental Impact Statement Alternative Technologies The issue of alternative technologies is discussed in detail in Item 31, Summary oflssues, on page 38 of the Scoping EAW. Therefore, this alternative discussion will not be carried forward to the EIS. Modified Size or Scale The issue of modified size or scale for the proposed project is discussed in Item 31, Summary of Issues, on page 40 of the Scoping EAW. Landfill facilities are sized to reach optimal capacity in order to maximize the life of the facility and reduce the need to build additional landfills in the service area. Since the proposed design has been evaluated to meet optimal design capacity and efficiency, the discussion of alternative size will not be carried forward to the EIS. _ Alternatives Incorporating Reasonable Mitigation Measures The EQB rules require consideration of alternatives incorporating reasonable mitigation measures identified through comments on the draft EIS. Economic and Social Impacts The EIS will discuss the potential for the project and major alternatives to directly and indirectly affect the local economic and sociological impacts. The facility's impact on the cost to the user of the facility and general public will be identified. The effect of the proposed facility on regional and county solid waste system costs and public economic risks will be evaluated. This assessment will include a discussion of the effects resulting from early closure of the facility and will compare predicted costs with ,present disposal costs and cost for the "no build" alternative. Inventories will be completed of any nearby existing and planned recreational resources. Potential impacts to these resources resulting from the expansion will be described. Historical and archeological resources do not appear to exist at or near.the site, therefore; there will be no analyses of these issues in the EIS. Mitigation Measures For those instances where .the impact analyses have identified- the potential for adverse effects, the EIS will identify reasonably available measures that could lessen or eliminate the adverse effect. The types of measures that may result insignificant mitigation of impacts range from facility- specific modifications in design and/or operation or broader policy-based action at all governmental levels. Mitigation measures that could reasonably be applied to eliminate or minimize adverse environmental effects will be identified in the EIS in both the section describing environmental effects, and in a separate section far permitting reference. 7 Elk River Landfill South MSW Development Elk River, Minnesota Final Scoping Decision Document. Environmental Impact Statement APPENDICES Appendices may be included in the EIS, when applicable: a) material prepared in connection with the EIS, as distinct from material which. is so prepared and which is incorporated by reference; b) material that substantiates any analysis fundamental to the EIS; and c) permit information that was developed and gathered concurrently with the- preparation of the EIS. MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Materials-may be incorporated by reference to reduce the bulk of the EIS. Such materials will be cited in the EIS, and its content will be briefly described. Generally, these materials will not be distributed for public review, but will be available for. inspection at the MPCA office in St. Paul C mmissi er Sheryl A. Corrigan Chair, Citizen's Board Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ~~ ~~ Date 7 7 1 8 ATTACHMENT 2a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Elk River Landfill Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Janet Dalgleish, Steve Klein, Charles Gantzer, and Jeff Ubl, Barr Engineering Company, on the behalf of David Lucas, County Solid Waste Officer; Sherburne County. Letter received by e-mail, December 1, 2005. 2. Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator, city of Elk River. Letter received December 5, 2005. 3. Matt Langan, Environmental Planner, Environmental Review Unit, Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter dated November 30, 2005. 4. Don Sherper. Letter received November 30, 2005. 5. Heidi Tomich, Certified Professional Geologist, on the behalf of Candace King, resident of Ridges of Rice Lake. Letter received by e-mail on December 1, 2005. 6. Dave Steiner, President of Ridges of Rice Lake Homeowners Association, on the behalf of the Ridges of Rice Lake Homeowners. Letter received December 1, 2005. 7. Neil Gabnon, resident of Ridges of Rice Lake. Letter received November 30, 2005. 8. Wendy Butlett, resident of Ridges of Rice Lake. Letter received December 1, 2005. ^ t Moynihan, Debra ~ From:. Dave Lucas [Dave.Lucas@co.sherburne.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 1:07 PM To: Moynihan, Debra Subject: Fwd: Elk River LF Draft EIS -Barr Review Comments Elk River LF Draft EIS -Barr ... Deb: Please consider the attachment as Sherburne County's review comments on the draft EIS for Elk River Landfill's proposed expansipn. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thanks Deb, Dave Lucas, Solid Waste Officer County Government Center 13880 Hwy 10 Elk River, NRd 55330 dave.lucasQco.sherburne.mn.us 1 Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 R Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 • www.barr.com An EEO Employer B~" i~ Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO ~! Memorandum To: Dave Lucas From: Janet, Dalgleish, Steve Klein, Charles Gantzer, and Jeff Ubl Subject: Elk River Landfill -Review Comments on Draft EIS Date: December 1, 2005 Project: 23/71-069-ELKR c: Barr File The purpose of this memorandum is to convey Barr's review continents on the October2005 Elk River Landfill Expansion, Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the MPCA. Ban's review focused on the areas of groundwater, surface water, and odor. Ban's comments are provided below. Section 6.1: Groundwater Resources • 6.1.1- 6.12. The overview of groundwater regulations governing municipal solid waste landfills .appears to be complete and accurate. . • 6.1.3: Description and Evaluation of Soils and Geologic Conditions - The soil, outwash and bedrock descriptions are accurate and consistent with the report prepared by Geomatrix (2004). However, the description of the till and lacustrine deposits underlying the upper outwash in the Draft EIS generalizes the characteristics of the lower permeability samples, giving the impression that these sediments are fairly homogeneous: Barr believes that the sediments are heterogeneous for. the following reasons. Based on the results from soil testing provided by Soil Engineering Testing, the percent fines ranged from 23 to 99 percent and the porosity ranged from 0.19 to 0.44. Geomatrix divided the till and lacustrine deposits into two subgroups: clay-matrix till and sandy-silt matrix till. The clay matrix till is described as having 70 to 99 percent fines and the sandy-silt matrix till has 30 to_50 percent fines. The sandy-silt matrix till is the most laterally continuous of the fine-grained deposits. The thickness of the sandy-silt matrix till ranges from 5 feet to greater than 50 feet. Near the center of the landfill two areas comprising approximately 7 acres are underlain by less than 10 feet of fine- grained materials (Geomatrix, 2004). ::ODMA~PCDOCSIDOCS124646'7~I a To: Dave Lucas < From: Janet Dalgleish, Steve Klein, Charles Gantzer, and Jeff Ubl - SubJeca: Elk-River Landfill -Review Comments on Draft EIS Date: December 1, 2005 Project: 23171-069-ELKR c: Barr File Page 2 of 5 - In general, the hydrogeological conditions are accurately described and the numeric calculations .are correct. However, the application of Darcy's Law to estimate the rate of travel through glacial till does not consider the variability of the till sediments and potential clay till fractures that may increase the till's permeability in localized areas. Although the fine-grained sediments will decrease the travel time from the upper outwash sand to the lower outwash sand, it is not unusual for contaminants to be transported through sandy sibs and sandy clays. The numeric calculation of 2,750 years for contaminants to be transported 5 feet is unrealistic and sandy silts and clays rarely form a complete confining unit. • 6.1.4: Principal Monitoring Zone and Monitoring Well Network - .The unconfined aquifer in the upper.outwash unit will be the primary monitoring zone, but no monitoring is planned for the lower outwash unit due to the previous conclusion that the lower till complex is a coning unit and is expected to be relativelyimpervious. -The. plan is to monitor the lower outwash for water levels only. Barr believes that since the confining unit ranges from - sandy-silt to clay sediments of variable thickness, the lower outwash aquifer should be monitored annually at a minimum. • 6.1.5: Analysis of Potential Groundwater Impact - This section describes an idealized interpretation ofcontaminant-transport at landfills. Modern landfills are designed to,prevent leachate from being released to the groundwater, but leachate does leak from some lined landfills. VOCs are partially adsorbed to organic molecules but not completely. This section should be revised accordingly. • 6.1.6: Potential Impact to Rice LakelTibbits Brook Wetland Complex - Barr concurs that the risk to Rice Lake/Ttbbits Brook Wetland Complex is minimal as groundwater predominantly flows to the southwest. • 6.1.7 Other Potential Receptors - .Five domestic wells aze located within 1,000 feet west of the SDA. The wells are 100 feet to about 140 feet deep and are probably screened in the lower outwash sand. Although the landfill monitors several of the private wells, Barr believes that these wells would be. better protected if at least two monitoring wells were added to the compliance monitoring network along the west side of the SDA. ::ODMA~PCDOCSIDOCS~246467\ 1 t To: Dave Lucas From: Janet Dalgleish, Steve Klein, Charles Gantrer, and Jeff Ubl Subject: Elk River t.andfill -Review Comments on Draft EIS Date: December 1, 2005 Project: 23/71-069-ELKR c: -Barr Flle Page 3 of 5 Section 6.2: Stormwater Management- • In several locations in Section 6.2, the Draft EIS presents concentrated flow velocities on turfed swale areas (such as in perimeter ditches and drainage terraces} where velocities for the 25-year and 100-year events will be less than 5 feet per second (fps). The Draft EIS references the MPCA's requirement for velocities to be less than 5 fps in those areas. Based on our experience, velocities greater than 4 fps on most turfed areas will cause excessive if not extensive erosion. Therefore we recommend installing permanent turf-reinforcing material in any concentrated flow area where turf is to be established and maintained: Such materials might include Landlock TRM 435, Landlock TRM4S0 or Pyramat all manufactured by SL Geosolutions or an equivalent product by some other company. _ • The Draft EIS discusses riprap to be placed at the outlets of various pipes. Barr believes the riprap should: - Be placed in the downstream channel to a point where flow velocities are 4 fps or less. - Be placed from the end of the pipe to the bottom of the sedimentation basin where pipes discharge into. sedimentation basins. It is not cleaz from the Permit Drawings, referenced in the Draft EIS, whether these issues are addressed in the design. • In areas where concrete pipe is to be placed in steep slope areas, the joints should be tied and the designer may wish to consider anti-seepage collars to prevent scouring along a pipe. It is not clear from the Permit Drawings, referenced in the Draft EIS, whether these features are included in-the design. • Figure 15 does not appeaz to show Permanent Sedimentation Basin P-2. • Section 6.2.4.4 describes a sediment volume for sediment deposits, but it doesn't appeaz to mention the design water quality treatment zone volume of the basins. • Section 6.2.6. references computed soil loss which appears to be sufficient for most turfed areas. However, this would not apply to swages and ditches that aren't protected by turf reinforcing material where the flow velocities will exceed 4 fps. Section 6.4: Odor • The Draft EIS should have addressed two fundamental questions with regard to odorous emissions and odor complaints: - ::ODMAIPCDOCSIDOCS~24646'1~l To: Dave Lugs From: Janet Dalgleish, Steve Klein, Charles Gantzsr, and Jeff Ubl Subject: Elk River Land811-Review Comments on Draft EIS .Date: December 1, 2005 Project:.. 23/71-069-E LKR c: Barr Fife Page 4 of 5 - Does the Elk River Landfill currently generate verifiable odor complaints from its neighbors? - With the proposed expansion of the landfill and the corresponding expansion of the gas capture/treatment equipment to handle the increased production of landfill gas, will the frequency of verifiable odor complaints increase or decrease? It appears that no attempt was made to interpret the available: data such that the above two questions could be answered. With esserttially no evaluation of odor impacts, Barr recommends that this section of the Draft EIS be rewritten. • Odor Tracking - The Draft EIS describes the existence of an odor complaint line for neighbors to log complaints. The Draft EIS also describes the existence of an on-site weather station. It appears that no information was presented to correlate the two data sets (complaint-log and weather information)- into aset of verifiable odor complaints, i.e., was the wind blowing toward the complaining neighbor during the time period that the neighbor claimed to be impacted by landfill odor. - Despite the presence of a complaint log and weather data, the Draft EIS appears to make no - mention ifany complaints are even registered with Elk River Landfill or the County. Are there odor complaints or not? • Odor Testing - Odor evaluations of the gas exhausted from a leachate storage tank, an .engine combusting the landfill gas, a breather vent for the engine, and a flare were performed on two dates. (October 2004 and March 2005). Other than comparing the detection-threshold odor numbers for the four sampled sources, no interpretive information was provided in the Draft EIS. For example, were the detection-threshold odor numbers in the 100s (not a concern), in the 1000s (potential concern), ` or in the 10,000s (definite concern)? - Irr addition to the detection-threshold odor numbers, the Draft EIS suggests that airflow rate information is available for at least three of the four sampled sources. Why was not odor emission rate data generated from the measured.detection-threshold odor numbers and airflow rate values? With odor emission rate data and the stack.parameters for the sampled sources, air quality modeling could have been performed to estimate potential odor. impacts. The current odor impacts and the anticipated odor impacts for the landfill. expansion (at least in terms of the sampled sources) could have been quantified: Air quality modeling has been used in Environmental Impact Statements to assess potential odor impacts, e.g., the Hancock Pro Pork EIS. ::ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCS\246467\ 1 To: Dave Lucas From: JanetDalgleish, Steve Klein, Charles Gantzer, and Jeff Ubl Subject: Elk River Landfill -Review Comments on Draft EIS Date: .December 1, 2005 Project: 23/71-069-ELKR ~ c: Barr Fiie Parse 5 of 5 - Despite the presence of odor strength data for four sources, the Draft EIS does not use the data to provide a quantifiable evaluation of current and potential odor impacts. Does the intensity of the odors generated by the sample sources suggest the potential for odor complaints or not? • Chemical Composition of Exhausted Gases - The Draft EIS indicates that some of the sampled odor sources contained compounds such as hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and n-butyl mercaptan. The reported odor threshold concentrations for these compounds vary from about 55 ppbv for carbonyl.sulfide, about 3 ppbv for hydrogen sulfide, and about 0.05 ppbv for n-butyl mercaptan. The key point is that small downwind concentrations of the odorous compounds found in uncombusted and combusted landfill gas can contribute to odor complaints. - It appears that no listing of the measured gas concentrations is provided in the Draft EIS. The reader is left to speculate if the emitted gas concentrations are significant in terms of odor impacts. • Sulrmiary - The Draft EIS provides no evaluation of current odor impacts and no evaluation of potential odor impacts associated with the expanded Elk River Landfill. The Draft EIS does indicate that the data required for performing an odor impact evaluation exists, but it does not perform the evaluation. Also, the data, which could be used by the readers to develop their own conch>sions, does not appear to be provided. - Because the Draft EIS appears to provide no evaluation of odor impacts, the odor section of the Draft EIS needs to be extensively rewritten. ::ODMA~PCDOCS~DOCS~24646711 2 Elk ~ River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MIS 55330 December 1, 2005 Ms. Debra Moynihan Project Manager Environmental Review and Operations Section Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 RE: Elk River Landfill Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement, October 2005 Dear Ms. Moynihan: The City of Elk River has completed a review of the above-referenced document for the Waste Management, tnc. (1NM1), Elk River Landfill. The following comments were generated based on the conditions outlined in the City site-specific, Conditional Use Permit (CUP),and License Agreement as well as ordinances and general local concerns regarding the Elk River Landfill expansion. No Build Alternative Table 5-11, Summary of No Build Effects. (page 22) The EIS list of "indirect, adverse" effects should include: added air quality .impacts -from haul vehicles, added cost of infrastructure maintenance resulting from haul vehicles, reduction in waste- to-energy benefits based on lack of equipment at Designated Alternative Landfill- Facilities (DALFs) and lost economy of scale in disposal operations when compared to most other DALFs. Groundwater Resources 6.1.4.4, Groundwater Divides at the SDA (page 30-31) The EIS states that a groundwater divide exists at the northern edge, of the SDA. The interpretation of a groundwater flow divide has not been made in investigation reports for the SDA. The groundwater contours in this portion of the site may more accurately be.described as divergent near the northwest corner of the SDA due to the till flow boundary. Significant conclusions are made from groundwater data. for March 4, 2004. Water level data presented in Figure 16 of the June 2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Evaluation for the. SDA indicates that -the March 4, 2004 data varies by less than 0.5 feet from the average water level collected over an approximate two year period. A figure which shows the groundwater flow interpretation for March 4, 2004 should be presented. Phone: 763.635.1000 Fax: 763.635.1090 www ci.elk-rivermn.us Page 2 December 1, -2005 Figures 5 and 8 presented in the EIS show a significant thickness of saturated upper outwash and do not explicitly demonstrate that a groundwater divide exists. 6.1.5.1 Principal Monitoring Zone .and Monitoring Well Network (page 31) The discussion should include analysis of the vertical gradients through the till confining layer which were presented in the June 2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Evaluation for the SDA. The magnitude and consistency of vertical gradients supported the conclusion that the upper and lower outwash units were not in hydraulic connection. 6..1.6.1 Hypothetical Release Scenario (page 32) The discussion should identify that the highest potential for release of leachate for the liner system is located at the leachate collection sumps. These areas-will have the highest hydraulic head on the liner system. Leak detection lysimeters are placed in these locations for this reason. 6.1.6.2 Contaminant- Fate and Transport (page 32) It should be noted that for the SDA, very little contaminant attenuation via chemical and/or biochemical processes will occur based on the aquifer and geologic conditions. 6.1.6.3 Potential Impact.to Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook Wetland Complex (page 33) The EIS suggests that the location of the leachate sump -areas should be modified to a position which- is south of the "no-flow" boundary. This is presumed to add an additional safety factor to prevent impacts to the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. There .are numerous benefits for the current placement of leachate sumps in terms of design and operation of the facility. The added wetland complex safety factor associated with relocating leachate sumps is considered too small to warrant implementingthis recommendation. 6.1.6.4 Other Potential Receptors (page 33) A discussion of the well driller logs for three offsite water wells located- in close proximity to the SDA is presented. The EIS concludes that because the wells are screened in the lower outwash unit and separated from the lower outwash unit by.the clay confining unit, they are unlikely to be affected by a hypothetical release at the SpA. It is important to note that the continuity of the clay confining layer beyond the SDA boundaries has not been demonstrated. There,is a significant possibility that the lower and upper outwash units are in hydraulic connection beyond the SDA, thereby providing a hypothetical contaminant flow pathway to the screened intervals for residential wells. Is it likely....no? 6.1.7 Conclusions of Groundwater Impact Analvsis (page 34) The conclusions should state that the construction of a base composite liner and leak detection lysimeters greatly reduce the potential for groundwater impacts for the SDA. Stormwater Management 6,2:2.5 US Army Corps of Engineers .Section 4fl4 permit (page 37) - - The applicant has concluded that a 404 permit is not necessary for the project and the MPCA staff has not challenged this conclusion. The EIS states that "A section 404 .permit should not be required and will be verified during the permitting process." It appears that there is a potential that the Site development could adversely impact the wetland by increasing the sediment loading and Page 3 December 1, 2005 changing the hydrology of the wetland. The need fora 404 permit should be determined with the EIS evaluation. 6.2.2.6 Wetland Conservation Act (p qe 37) What is the interpreted applicability of the Minnesota WCA for the wetland located at the Site? Are there plans to drain, fill or excavate any wetlands? The City. of Elk River is the Local. Government Unit for WCA and does require an application to be submitted regardless of whether the project meets the de minimis requirements. Table 6-7 Southwest Wetland Storage Analvsis (page 48) What volume (acre-feet) of stormwater will flow into the wetland for the post-closure condition? How does this volume compare with the existing condition volume for 25 and 100 year design storm. events? The water level in the wetland will increase by approximately 2 feet for the post-closure condition in response to design storm- events. The EIS scoping document (page 4) indicated that the EIS would address the potential physical impacts to the wetland that will occur from the. post-closure hydraulic loading. 6.2.5.5 Sediment Loading Analvsis (page 48) What mass of sediments associated with stormwater will flow into the wetland for the post-closure condition? How does this mass of sediments compare with the existing condition for 25 and 100 year design storm events? The EIS scoping document (page 4) indicated that the EIS would address any potential changes in sediment loading to the wetland. 6.2..6 Impacts to Different Watersheds (page 50) What are the relevant standards related to modifying acreage and associated runoff volumes for watersheds? Are there any culverts which convey surface water beneath the former rail bed from the SDA to the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex? What is .the potential for hydraulic and sediment impact to the County Ditch 31 wetland complex located south of the SDA? 6.2.7 Impacts to Rice Lake/Tibbits .Brook Wetland Complex (paae 51) The .EIS states that "any water directed to the north .during ongoing operation and development and closure condition will be managed by existing facilities". What volume. of water is anticipated to flow to the north .during development? What is the capacity of existing runoff and sediment control structures to handle hydraulic and sediment loading at various stages of development prior to closure? Air Quality 6.3.1.2 Characteristics and Generation of Landfill Gas (page 53) - Information presented in the EIS should be supplemented with ERL site-specific information where possible. ERL conducts routine analysis of landfill gas for compliance with the MPCA solid waste facility permit and also for operation of the Waste-to-Energy facility at the site.. 6.3.2 Applicable Regulations (page 55 -Page 4 December 1, 2005 The EIS should reference April and July 2005 applications for major modifications for the Landfill and the Waste-to-Energy facility. 6.3.2.2 Minnesota Solid Waste Permit (page 56) The discussion in the EIS should reference the leachate recirculation pilot study and the specific provisions of the MPCA permit that relate to landfill gas. 6.3.5.2 Expansion of the Gas Management. System (page 63) The flow rate of LFG collected from the entire site will increase significantly. It is apparent that ERL has. not indicated a corresponding. expansion of the Waste-to-Energy facility. A commitment should be made by ERL to expand. the Waste-to-Energy facility to maximize practical energy recovery form the site. Odor 6.4.3 Odor Testing at ERL- (page 69) It is not clear what the overall intent of the studies conducted were and what the specific conclusions are. Do these results identify the source of odors experienced by offsite receptors? Is there a way to quantify the generation of odors from the potential sources as a flow rate? 6.4.5 Odor Tracking (page 70) The EIS should note that the odor tracking hotline has .been discontinued -(with MPCA approval) due to lack of use. Odor complaints were typically received by the City, County and MPCA. 6.4:6 Odor Mitigation (page 71) What odor mitigation techniques will be implemented for the four potential odor sources (leachate storage tank vent, LFG engine exhaust stacks, flare exhaust and LFG engine breather vent) identified in section 6.4.3? Visual Impacts 6.5.2 Methodology ( gap a 72) ERL is required to develop a detailed Screening Plan for the SDA to minimize visual impacts. This Plan should be developed in draft format with specific graphics to reflect the -plan view of the screening renderings (Figures 24, 26, 35, 37, 40 and 42). The Plan seeds to show the development of screening at various phases of waste deposit development. The Screening. Plan needs to be consistent with the End Use Plan for the site. 6.5.3 Mitigation Alternatives (page 73) The EIS indicates that the 1500 feet of screening berm will cost $700,000.. A typographical error appears to have been made and based on the analysis provided; the cost of the -berm should be $70;000. What is the purpose of including a cost analysis for-this aspect of landfill development? Compatibility with Land Use _ _ 6.6.3.1 Existing .Land Use (page 80) The City of Elk River updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2004 and the EIS should reflect that information. Page 5 December 1, 2005 1 - __ Sherburne County has the 2004 aerial photography and should be used rather than the 2003 aerial photos. There has been significant development in the vicinity of the site in the last several years. The current number of residences (2005) should be ground-truthed. 6.6.4 Trunk Highway (TH) 101/169 Corridor Management Plan (pane 81) The current grading plan within the anticipated ROW for the interchange does not appear to be consistent with future roadway construction.. The plan shows a 45 foot depression with 2:1 sideslopes on the roadway side of the depression. The EIS preparers should solicit specific comment by MnDOT project officials on the feasibility of the proposed development plan for the SDA in relation to the planned interchange. There were no reference documents contained in the bibliography of the EIS regarding MnDOT plans or consultations with MnDOT personnel. The difference between the 6 acre and 16 acre interchange design scenario should be resolved with the finalization of the EtS. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding the City's review. and comment of the EIS document. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca Haug Environmental Administrator cc: Lori Johnson, City of Elk River Dave Lucas, Sherburne County Debra Walters, EIk River Landfill, WMI Q:W-C\CER12000-020\Corr\Letters 2005\It051108EIS Comments.doc Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 3 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40 25 November 30, 2005 Debra Moynihan Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: Elk River Landfill Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Moynihan: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Draft. Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Elk River Landfill Expansion in the City of Elk River, Sherburne County, MN. We offer the following comments for your consideration. r 1.1.2 Groundwater (page 3) The Final EIS should clarify what mitigation measures. will be used to prevent pollution ofthe Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex if the monitoring wells detect pollution. 6.2.5.4 Closure Conditions (p 4~ This section should describe the existing wetland size, type, or vegetation composition. Table 6-7 provides data on wetland bounce from different storm events. The Final EIS should discuss vegetation changes and wetland type and size changes that may occur due to the altered hydrologic regime, including predicted bounces. 6.2.8 Additional Mitigation Measures (~ 511 The Final EIS should clarify whether the outlet pipe discussed in the second paragraph is an existing outlet pipe or a proposed outlet pipe. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. We look forward to receiving your Final EIS. Please contact me with any questions regarding this letter. _ _ Sincerely, Matt Langan,. Elrrvironmental Planner Environmental Review Unit Division of Ecological Services (651) 259-5115 c: Tom Balcom, Joe Kurcinka, Mike North, Wayne Barstad, Rebecca Wooden, Dan Stinnett-USFWS, Jon Larsen- EQB ERDB#20010880-0005 D:\AA_OMBS\comment letters\113005 DraftEIS_ElkRiverLandfillExpansion.doc DNR Information: 65.1-296-6157 ~ 1-888-646-6367 TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer ~~ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste 4 November 28, 2005 12275 239' Ave. NW y n Elk River, MN 55330 NOV 3 p ?005 Ms. Debra Moynihan, Project Manager MPCA Environmental Review and Operations Section Regional Division ' " - 520 LaFayette Road North St. Paul, MN SS 155 Re: Elk River Landfill Expansion -- Draft E.I.S. I wish to submit the following comment and concerns regarding the MSW expansion of the Elk. River Landfill. The site management historically has been courteous and. responsive to questions raised and open to suggested changes, .and I believe it makes an honest effort to control debris. They also have accepted roadside litter collected by the township in which they are located, thereby helping to maintain a cleaner community. Currently, I have two concerns. The first relates to periodic odors from the methane operation. This is noticeable when driving by the landfill on highway # 169. In addition some homeowners near the landfill have complained about odors at their nearby residences. On a few occasions I can even detect the odor at our home, which is across Rice Lake and its wetland, over a mile away. What steps will be initiated to contain these odors? s My second concern is that the shoreland area from the ordinary high water level of Rice Lake not be infringed upon in any future changes or expansion of the north constructionldemolition debris site. Although I recognize and appreciate thepresent management's assurances, I would not want to see any MSW deposited on the north side in the township nbr infringement on any shoreland /wetland. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, 5 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Comments Made By: Heidi Tomich CPG 8686, RG 301 htolnich(a~yahoo.com Comments on the Draft Enviromnental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page 1 of 15 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com Organization of Comments The comments on the `Draft Environmental Impact Statement- for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005' are organized by reference to the Draft document's Sections, P~.ragraphs and/or Bullet Numbers (as appropriate) and Sentences within a Paragraph (if necessary for clarity). Please note that in many cases there are essentially redundant comments provided to address repeating concerns throughout the document. Overall Conclusions, Comments, and Notice Sections `other than those cited in these comments have not been reviewed by this reviewer due to time constraints. No expansion for this Landfill should be granted until the existing Landfill has been adequately investigated to confirm that there Have been no impacts to the Lower Wash Unit for all likely contaminants that may or have migrate/d from the existing gravel pit Landfill into the Lower Wash drinking groundwater zone. Likewise, confirmation sampling at appropriate locations should also be obtained at a minimum to .show that there has been no migration of contamination via groundwater discharge into the adjoining-Wetlands Complex. I have provided these comments and opinion (above) based on a request to review the document by Candace King. I have made this review pro Bono, with no preconceptions about the site, and no bias towards or for any parties involved with this site: I have relied only onthe information presented in the document as well as my own professional experience as a hydrogeologist. My name is Heidi Tomich and I am Certified Professional Geologist (CPG 8686) as well as a State Registered Geologist (RG) with over 15 years of experience in the field as to assessment, investigation, groundwater modeling, evaluation, and remediation of groundwater and soil contamination at landfills and other waste facilities throughout the United. States. If you wish to contact me I may be reached directly"at htomich(a~yahoo.com or indirectly by contacting Candace King. Section 1.1.2, Bullet # 1 & 2. I do not see how the SDA has been adequately characterized to make such statements.. Figure 8 has only `conceptual cross-sections' and states as fact that the glacial Till forms a boundary between the upper outwash and the lower outwash. Has there been sufficient borehole sampling to confirm a continuous essentially impervious confining layer of till exists across the landfill? Contrary to the claim, it appears that groundwater flows at.least in all directions except perhaps east and possibly north, from the landfill.- In fact, west of the landfill, it appears there is groundwater discharge directly into wetlands based on hydrologic groundwater levels presented in Figures 6, 8 ,and 9 as well as the fact that surface water in the Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page 2 of 15 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo:com wetlands occurs at or near 925 feet above sea level. The statements presented a Bullets 1 and 2 do not appear to be factual based on the data presented in the document. Is there not sufficient geological sampling that has been conducted to provide amore than one to-scale cross-section to make proper assessment as to whether or not there is in fact a continuous confining layer between the drinking water groundwater unit (Lower Outwash) and the Upper Outwash? Section 1.1.2, B>zllet # 3. Where are all of the existing groundwater monitoring (for contaminants and water levels) wells located? There should be a figure that depicts the monitoring wells that are being tested for contamination for each water bearing unit (especially the drinking water unit known as the Lower Wash Unit) and other figures which depict only the wells used for monitoring groundwater levels for each of the hydrostatically distinct zones, if in fact they are distinct hydrogeologically. At what depths are monitoring wells screening the subsurface hydrogeologic units? Where are the hydrogeological logs relating to the monitoring wells used for contamination monitoring and for groundwater level.: monitoring? These logs should also be included in this report so the reviewer may provide informed comments. Have any pump tests been conducted to confirm no interconnection between different hydrogeologic units? Section 1..1.2, Bullet # 4. How can the statement be made that the potential impact to downgradient receptors is ._ low? Please revise accordingly the knowledge of potential impacts based on the data available. There does not appear to be data in this report that can be used adequately and safely to make this statement. Human Receptor Concerns - At a minimum, regular and ongoing sampling and analysis of groundwater should be conducted. on groundwater immediately adjacent and downgradient of the Landfill in the Lower Wash Unit (drinking water supply unit for nearby drinking water supply wells) should be conducted to provide an early warning of contamination for the human receptors: Has where been any sampling to date of any downgradient wells that do not supply the community that are located between the community supply wells and the landfill, screening the water supply groundwater zone? Do any such wells exist? Such sampling should be conducted so that it may provide an adequate warning of impending groundwater contamination to water supply wells and to an ability to.address such contamination before it contaminates currently active drinking water supply wells. Other receptors -Has there been any other studies to assess potential impact to flora and/or fauna receptors that may live in and around the wetlands? If not, why not since there is at a minimum a reasonable assumption that groundwater discharge is occurring to into the adjoining Wetlands Complex? Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page 3 of 15 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com Section 1.1.2, Bullet # 5 How can this statement be made? Based on what facts? It appears based on the data provided in this document (particularly groundwater elevation data presented on Figures, 6, 8, and 9) that discharge into the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetlands comes from the landfill. Figures depicting groundwater flow should be revised to include the groundwater elevation present (generally 925 feet above sea level) in the wetlands Complex to more realistically depict groundwater flow direction and discharge areas. Section 1.1.3, General Comment. Why is it not noted that there is likely hydraulic communication that exists between the Upper Wash and possibly the Lower Wash Units with the Wetlands Complex located immediately-West of the Landfill? How are the wetlands being supplied with water besides rainfall, if it is not groundwater discharge from the East, at least in a likely significant part? Please also refer to comments made pertaining to-,the Section commented on immediately above these comments as well as in comments made for: Section 6.1.4.1 and other Sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the . _ Elk River report. Section 1.1.7, General Comment. There should be a bullet addressing the potential aesthetic issues that may decrease homeowner's property (house) value outright. There should also be a discussion as to the economic impact to homeowners in the area if the drinking groundwater unit (apparently the Lower >~ash Unit) is not adequately sampled and monitored to discover. groundwater contamination migrating from the Landfill and properly remediate the groundwater before it can migrate and contaminate any and all nearby (less than a mile) currently active groundwater supply wells used by the adjacentl nearby landowners. It appears. that there is no plan in place- to address remediation (as necessary) of the groundwater to prevent impact to homeowners drinking- water- supply if an adequate monitoring system was installed and contamination is discovered. Such a plan should be established after adequate groundwater sampling has been conducted to assess the current state of contamination, or lack thereof, of the groundwater contained in the Lower Wash . Unit. No permitting should be approved for any expansion until an adequate groundwater monitoring system is in place that will be able to detect contamination (to include industrial waste contaminants such as heavy metals and chlorinated solvents) of the groundwater supply zone before it could contaminate the drinking.groundwater supply wells for the community located within a mile of this landfill. Also a plan should be in place to remediate as necessary the groundwater to prevent any contamination of drinking groundwater supply wells. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page 4 of 15 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com Section 5.4.1, General Comment. Although there is an economic impact if the, landfill was not allowed to be expanded, there is also likely a substantial impact to homeowners if their groundwater supply has been impacted. This impact should also be quantified/estimated and provided in this section. It appears that a potential economic impact to all potentially affected parties -has not been addressed in this section. For example, what would the devaluation of the nearby landowner's property be if their sole drinking water supply source becomes contaminated and unfit to drink due to contamination that has migrated from the Landfill? What would be the cost to.replace their drinking water supply system? Section 6.1,2, Paragraph 1. This paragraph states that there does not appear to be any groundwater discharging to surface water bodies. Clearly there is no evidence to indicate that there is not groundwater;discharge into the wetlands and nearby surface water.. In fact, there is evidence; based on groundwater elevations presented in multiple Figures located within the Impact Statement that indicate groundwater does discharge into the adjoining Wetlands Complex, including surface water bodies west of the site. Please see refer to comments below presented for Section 6.1.4:1, Paragraph 3. Section 6.1.2, Paragraph 4. Are there no chlorinated solvents present at the site? On what data basis has the determination been made that there is no need to.monitor for chlorinated organics in the groundwater beneath the site? Are monitoring wells being sampled set in proper locations and zoned properly to detect metals and chlorinated organics (i.e., at the base of a water bearing unit, above the confining layer that exists)? Again, log information for he monitoring wells should be included so this determination can be made and conclusions made by the author(s) can be supported. Section 6.1.3.1, General Comment. As stated in this section, the surgical geology of the area consists of a 100 -.200 foot thick sequence of unconsolidated glacial and glacial fluvial deposits consisting of sand and gravel that also contain some silt and till. There is nothing to indicate that this area has a continuous confining layer to prevent migration of waste contaminants at depth. Section 6.1.3.3, Geologic Setting -Quaternary Deposits. This paragraph essentially re-iterates that there is up to more than 200 feet of quaternary deposits that are glacial and glacial fluvial deposits as described in Section 6.1.3.1. Comments 'on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfiil Expansion, October 2005 Page 5 of 15 12/21/2005 Author:. Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com Section 6.1.3.3, Upper Glacial Till Complex, Paragraph 2. What is stated in this paragraph essentially confirms that there may not be a continuous confining layer that prevents contamination from migrating downward in the Upper Glacial Till Complex. Section 6.1.3.3, Upper Glacial Till Complex, Paragraph 3. This section indicates that the lower subunit of the Upper Glacial Till Complex is silty- sand. This unit does not appear to be an effective confining unit based on data (or lack thereof] presented in this document so no assertion should be made to claim that the Upper Glacial Till Complex is an effective barrier to downward groundwater flow. migration. Section 6.1.3.3, Upper Glacial Till Complex, Paragraph 4. This section states that the, subunits form a single..: unit that acts as a barrier to infiltration (where present) under the proposed facility. ~If this unit is not continuous under the existing facility and/or under the proposed facility it is misleading, at a minimum, to say that this unit provides a barrier to infiltration. Also if there even is a confinng layer to vertical groundwater flow; is it confining to prevent any chlorinated organic migration? Most silts and clays can allow many feet of migration fairly rapidly in the presence of chlorinated organic compounds, in part due to osmosis and .chemical alteration of the silts and/or clays by the contaminants. This paragraph can mislead the reader to think that perhaps there is an effective confining layer to prevent groundwater contamination from, the.. landfill from migrating- into the lower Cambrian sandstone, when in fact, there is no data to effectively evidence that groundwater contamination is not migrating downward (that is, for example, properly screened monitoring wells that are sampled for likely contaminants from the Landfill in the Lower Wash Unit). Section .6.1.3.3, Upper Outwash Unit, Paragraph 2. This paragraph should be re-phased to indicate it is the first monitoring zone because it is the first zone where contamination could be detected, assuming monitor wells have been located and screened adequately, based on the geology, to be able to observe contamination impact iri this zone. Section 6.1.3.3, Lower Till (Superior Lobe) Complez, Paragraphs 2 and. 3. Has the hydraulic conductivity of this potential confining zone been determined based oxI real world pump tests been conducted to determine the connectivity of this Unit? If so, what is the hydraulic connectivity for this unit based on-the pump tests? How thick is this Unit at the landfill, assuming it exists at the landfill and has been characterized sufficiently to know it exists continuously across the site and adjoining lands? Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page 6 of 15 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com Section 6.1.3.3, Lower Outwash Unit, Paragraph 1. Have any monitor wells been placed in this zone at or near the landfill? -If not, why not (because there definitely should be monitor wells used to monitor both groundwater contamination and groundwater levels for this Unit)? Monitoring wells should be placed and screened properly between the drinking water private supply wells located downgradient of the Landfill and the Landfill itself.. . Immediately adjacent to the Landfill would be best as a first shot for such monitoring - wells. These monitoring wells are necessary to detect and to determine what is necessary to do to be able to manage (contain, remediate, evaluate, etc.) any groundwater ..contamination discovered before any of the Landfill-contaminants would ever be able to adversely affect any of the currently used existing private drinking water supply wells. _ Have any pumping tests been conducted to establish that the lower till acts as an effective confining layer and that there is no effective is no hydraulic communication between-the Upper Outwash Unit and the Lower Outwash Unit? )f not, why not (because assertions in this document thaf there is a confining layer should be based on facts,. not assumptions or limited lab permeability tests that may have. been conducted)? Section 6.1.3.4 Geologic Setting -Cambrian. Bedrock, Paragraph 1. Has this Eau Claire Formation been detected at or immediately adjacent to the site? Has the Galesville Sandstone been encountered at or immediately adjacent to the site? Section 6.1.3.4 Geologic .Setting =Cambrian Bedrock, Paragraph 2. Are there any wells set into the Mount Simon/Hinckley Formation? Is-this formation used at all for drinking water or other supply in the nearby area (less than one mile form the landfill)? If so, there should be a minimum of one monitor well installed and sampled and monitored to effectively detect if contamination from the landfill has or will breach this zone. This well (or wells) should be placed between the drinking water private supply wells located downgradient of the facility and the facility to be able to detect contamination and be able to remediate the contamination, as necessary, before it could ever contaminate any of the private drinking water supply wells; thus affecting the drinking water supply of homeowners in the area. Section 6.1.4.1, General hydrogeologic Setting, Paragraph 1. What is the groundwater localized flow at the site for the unconsolidated and consolidated units? It appears based on Figure 8 to flow in all directions (except perhaps East and due North). Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 1?lk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page 7 of IS 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com Section 6.1.4.1, General hydrogeologic Setting, Paragraph 2. Please provide any and all evidence that indicates that the Mount Simon/Hinckley Unit is not hydraulically connected to the upper unconsolidated waterbearing unit(s). Presumably this evidence includes actual field data pump tests. to establish this purported fact. Doesn't this paragraph indicate that there is likely groundwater discharge to the wetlands located immediately west of the landfill? That is, `..regional groundwater flow is limited to outwash deposits'....-This paragraph should be revised to reflect the likelihood that discharge is occurring into the wetlands west of the facility. Section 6.1.4.1, General hydrogeologic Setting, Paragraph 3. It is stated that recharge to the groundwater is by infiltration due to rainfall and infiltration from surface water. Thereis no evidence that surface water is recharging the glacialgroundwater zone, although it may occur temporarily during rainfall events as an anomaly. In contrast, based on Figure 6, 8, and 9 in this report there is data to indicate there is groundwater flow west, southwest, south, and potentially northwest of the existing landfill and proposed extension area. Most likely, it appears that the predominate. flow of the groundwater is to the west and southwest, directly towards the wetlands and surface water bodies located as well as towards the community drinking water supply wells. Also, there is the possibility that there maybe localized groundwater flow to the east, as the proposed expansion is located directly on an intersection of 3 watershed boundaries (please refer to Figurel6). There may perhaps even be flow to the north,: but the. data presented do not currently support flow to north or east. Figure 9 should be revised and expanded to reflect actual groundwater flow, to include the wetlands and the elevation of the surface water present there (which is around 925 feet). The dashed lines in Figure 9 do not make any sense and should be revised to more accurately reflect groundwater flow and.discharge into the adjoining wetlands based on the known elevation of the surface water in the Wetlands Complex. Considering the elevation of the wetlands and surface water in the area is relatively constant at around 92S feet, and that the ground water elevation on March 31, 2005 was at approximately 951 feet as it leaves the landfill, it is unlikely that there is anything but migration from the landfill groundwater into the adjoining wetlands and discharge into the surface water of the wetlands. Also. couldn't the mined gravel areas provided enhanced (increased) infiltration of water (precipitation) into lower geological units as well at the Landfill? Is there adequate.cover Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion,. October 2005 Page 8 of 15 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com for the existing Landfill and potential expansion to prevent this infiltration from directly above the Landfill? Please revise and include this information in this section. Section 6.1.4.3 Analysis of Groundwater Occurrence and Flow, First Paragraph, Last Sentence. The cross section C-C' is not presented on Figure 6. Please revise figure accordingly and reflect the presence of the cross-section C-C' on the figure. Also soil boring locations SB-47 and SB-48 for this cross-section should be reflected on Figure 6, as well. It appears that this cross section was taken on the west side where a known outcrop of Glacial Till is located on the western border of the facility (SB-1, Figure 6). Is the depictin of the Glacial Till geologically representative. at the SB-1 location of the cross- section of geology that would be likely found near P315L, SB-23, or SB-15? If it is not representative it should be stated that it is not representative. It misleads the untrained reader into thinking that there is a potential confining wall-like zone of `Till' to prevent groundwater and/or contamination migration west of the facility when in fact, this is most likely not the case.. Please include additional cross-sections and associated boring log hydrogeology that are representative of the western side of the landfill so informed conclusions may be made. Section 6.1.4.3, Upper Outwash, Paragraph 1. The evidence presented indicates there is ground water flow in all directions form the landfill, except perhaps east and north. This paragraph should be revised to reflect this fact. Section 6.1.4.3, Upper Outwash, Paragraph 2. Although the test samples were taken to determine vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Lower. (Superior Lobe) Till Complex indicate low vertical permeability, contaminants that are likely present (chlorinated solvents) at the facility may increase the hydraulic conductivity in the Till. Additionally has it been established that the Till is continuous across the facility and adjoining areas to prevent downward migration of groundwater and impede contaminant transport to lower geological units? Section 6.1.4.3, Lower (Superior Lobe) Till Complez, Paragraphs 1 & 2, General.. Without presenting the soil boring logs made at the facility in this document there is no way to assess whether or not the subsurface has been adequately sampled and logged to 'determine whether or not there is a continuous, even 5 foot thick, confiming layer. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page 9 of 15 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com Also without presenting the details of the logs and screened intervals between 317-OWA and P-317L and where they are located, -there is no way to effectively evaluate whether the vertical gradient claims are in fact representative or realistic for the site. It is of note, that the vertical gradient is substantially higher (very steep) as compared to the lateral gradient of the Upper Outwash presented in the preceding paragraph. Please present the logs,. locations and screened intervals for these wells so this assertion and resultant calculations may be properly reviewed in context. Have any pump tests been conducted to realistically determine the volumetric flow flux between the Upper Outwash and the Lower Outwash? If not, why not? An apparent minimum of S feet of thickness of a confining layer would seem to warrant that such testing is necessary to have any confidence in the Lower Till Complex acting as a confining layer to verticaZgroundwaterf1ow and contaminant migration. Section 6.1.5.1, Principal Monitoring Zone and Monitoring Well Network, Paragraph L This paragraph should be revised to reflect the facts. There are no facts to support that a release from the facility would travel mainly in this unit based on the evidence presented in this document. Certainly this unit is the first hydraulic unit encountered but this is all that can be stated based on the data/evidence provided. Clearly, without a groundwater contaminant monitoring system in the Lower Outlvash Unit (the known drinking water supply zone for nearby residents) and without any pumping. test data to establish groundwater communication or lack thereof between the Upper Outwash and Lower Outwash, these conclusions cannot and should not be made in this document. Section 6.1.5.2 Other Monitoring Zones. The lower outwash unit should be investigated and monitored for contamination to determine whether or not contamination is present from the landfill. Monitoring of constituents should include, in addition to metals, chlorinated organics (which-have a density greater than water and would likely migrate downwards even if groundwater flow is predominately laterally to the west, southwest, and south. Groundwater sampling for contamination of the Lower Outwash is both necessary and justified as it appears to not have been done preYiously, based an the information presented in the report This is the primary drinking water supply for surrounding residents located nearby and downgradient of the Landfill Also pump testing should be conducted to effectively evaluate the hydraulic, connectivity between the Upper and Lower Outwash Units. `Section 6.1.6 Analysis of Potential groundwater Impact, Paragraph 1 and 2. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page 10 of 15 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com These 2 paragraphs are misleading and should be revised to reflect the fact there is no synthetic liner in place for this facility and that the Landfill was built in 1973 into existing gravel quarries, if this is the case. This landfill in no way should be presented as if it is a `modern' landfill as it is not engineered to prevent contamination migration from the site which has likely occurred but has not been adequately monitored to make this determination... The second paragraph is inaccurate, at best; to assert that the analysis of a potential release should be described as `hypothetical' as there is not sufficient evidence to present that there has not been a release from this existing landfill facility. The monitoring of the Upper Outwash groundwater only, is not adequate to make such a determination. Also without being provided information to assess. where the Upper Outwash monitoring wells are. screened iri comparison to the monitoring well's specific geology it cannot be evaluated as to whether or not the Upper Wash monitoring wells adequately monitors-the Upper Wash groundwater for contamination. Section 6.1.6.1 Hypothetical Release Scenario, Paragraph 1. There is no evidence presented in this document to indicate that any release of contamination wouldn't move downward, as well as to the North, West, and South. Please. revise accordingly. Section 6.1.6.1 Hypothetical Release Scenario, Paragraph 2. The statement made here is only true if there is no downward migration. Also, without information as to the screened intervals of downgradient wells as compared to the geology at and near the wells,. there is no way to determine whether or not the current wells would be able to detect contamination migrating from the landfill. At a minimum the document should include this well and geological information to determine whether- contaminants such as heavy metals and chlorinated solvents are likely to be detectable from existing or proposed landfill wells. Section 6.1.6.2, Contaminant Fate and Transport, Paragraph 2. According to Paragraph 2 there is nothing in place to remediate any contamination that has been found (if it has been due to properly placed wells that are screened to adequately., detect any contaminants released from the site) or will migrate from the landfill. To clarify, what is being stated here is essentially saying that dilution is the only solution proposed for this site if and-.when contamination is discovered? Is this correct? If so, this should be re-worded so the layman public reviewer can understand this is the only solution proposed. Section 6.1.6.2, Contaminant Fate and Transport, Paragraph 3. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page 11 of 15 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com What about a discussion of chlorinated solvents which will likely migrate fairly easily through a 1-foot confining clayey or silty layer that is noted. in Section 6.1.4.3 in the section that discusses the Lower (Superior Lobe) Till Complex. Clearly this section. is premature to present in this. document until sufficient effort has been made to adequately characterize the hydrogeological characteristics (including pump tests and adequate sampling of groundwater contaminants) of the site adequately. This is imperative since, drinking water wells are present downgradient from. this site. Section 6.1.6, Potential Impact to Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook Wetlands Complex, Paragraph L Please revise all conclusions made accordingly based on the fact that groundwater migrates North, West, and South, at a minimum from this site. It is incorrect to state that groundwater only migrates to the southwest. In fact, if groundwater level contours are drawn accurately on Figure 6 and groundwater flowlines are drawn accurately on Figure 9, it these figures will indicate that the bulk of the groundwater flow is to the West, directly into the. Wetland Complex. Granted groundwater is not likely to be discharging into Rice Lake as it has already discharged into the wetlands between Rice Lake -and the Landfill Section 6.1.6.3, Potential-Impact to Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook Wetlands Complex, Paragraph 2. There is no evidence presented to indicate that there is a groundwater divide. on the northern edge of the SDA. Please strike this unless there is factual evidence to support the conclusions stated in this paragraph. Section 6.1.6.3, Potential Impact to Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook Wetlands Complez, Paragraph 3. Please revise this paragraph in accordance with the facts and do not assert that a `small portion of flow from under the SDA may move toward the Rice lake/Tibbits,Brook wetland complex on a seasonal basis'. All evidence presented in this document indicates there is substantial groundwater flow to the West towards the Rice Lake/Tibbits-Brook Wetlands Complex. On what facts do you have to make such statements as presented in this paragraph? Please present the evidence to make such conclusions or strike them -from the text as it is in the best case misleading to the reader. Section 6.1.6.4, Other Potential Receptors, General. This receptors section should include flora and fauna' located in the T><bbits Brook wetlands Complex, as well as homeowners located within a mile radius of the landfill to the North,- West, and South (this includes by default Southwest and Northwest). If the majority of the wells are screened in the Outwash aquifer that is not being monitored for Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page I2 of t5 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com contamination, then this is all the more reason to include a monitoring of the groundwater in the Lower Outwash that is not currently being monitored at all beneath or immediately. adjacent to the Landfill.. It is imperative that groundwater contamination from the landfill be discovered and managed well before any contamination has impacted any drinking water supply wells. It is irresponsible to do otherwise. This kind of monitoring does not appear to be being conducted today at the existing Landfill or immediately at its boundaries. This groundwater monitoring should be conducted for the current existing landfill, let alone for any future expansions to the landfill as proposed in this document. Section 6.1.6.4, Other Potential Receptors, Paragraphs 3 & 4. Are there significant hydrostatic level differences between the Upper Wash and the Lower Outwash to support that there is no hydrogeologic connection (and therefore an effective confining unit) between the two saturated zones.. If so, present the facts to support these conclusions. Also, again, in the case of any potential chlorinated organic, constituents, even if there is an adequate confming unit between the Upper and Lower Wash Units, this does not mean that chlorinated organic contamination cannot and has not occurred. into the Lower Wash unit. Is there adequate groundwater sampling of the ' base of the Lower Wash unit to substantiate that no contamination of this Lower Wash . .unit has occurred? If so, present. it (including wells, screened intervals, and geologic logs. of the wells).. If not, revise these conclusions to indicate that this is unknown. Section 6.1.6.4, Other Potential Receptors, Paragraph 5. This.paragraph conclusions should be revised based on the facts after the groundwater flow directions (West and South from this Figure) is presented realistically on Figure 6, and flowlines are re-drawn on Figure 9 to indicate primary groundwater flow occurs to the West, in addition to the South and Southwest. It is also possible that there is at least localized groundwater flow to the North form the existing Landfill, although the Figures presented cannot be used to make this determination. Section 6.1.7 Conclusions of Groundwater Impact Analysis, Bullet 1. This existing site and proposed expansion area does not appear to be adequately investigated for potential of groundwater contamination (in particular the Lower Wash Unit) to be able to conclude that the SDA meets the requirements of applicable groundwater regulations (which hopefully includes drinking water standards such as federal Maximum Constituents Levels (MCLs) for Class 1 waters, since surrounding landowners do drink water from supply wells within this zone. and less than 1 mile from the facility):. Section 6.1..7, Conclusions of Groundwater Impact Analysis, Bullet 2. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landf 11 Expansion, October 2005 Page 13 of 15 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com This conclusion highlights that the zone of concern (the Lower Wash Unit) is not, in fact, effectively monitored to determine whether a release has occurred to this zone or to detect if a release does occur to this zone in the future. In no uncertain terms, has the SDA been adequately characterized and/or monitored to determine whether or not the site is suitable for expansion the facility, let alone adequately characterized or monitored for the existing Landfill based on the information presented in this document. Section 6.1.7, Conclusions of Groundwater Impact Analysis, Bullet 3. Although the lysimeters may provide an early warning of lateral unsaturated contamination migration and of downward migration immediately from above the end of the lysimeter, the lysimeters in no way provide adequate determination of vertical migration of waste for the existing Landfill or for the proposed expansion of the Landfill. Section 6.1.7, Conclusions of Groundwater Impact Analysis, Bullet 4. This statement that potential for impact to downgradient receptors is low cannot be made based on the evidence provided and faulty conclusions made in this document. Realistic receptors haven't even been necessarily investigated and evaluated (like flora and fauna in the adjoining Wetlands Complex). Downgradient appears to be West, Southwest, South, and May also be North, based on the evidence provided in this document. Sampling of the Lower Wash should occur from monitor wells situated between any drinking water supply wells and the Landfill and should include monitoring for metals, .chlorinated organics, etc., before any conclusions such as those presented in Bullet 4 can be safely made, based on actual evidence. Section 6.1.7, Conclusions of Groundwater Impact Analysis, Bullet 5. This bullet is also without merit based on the facts presented in this document and should be revised/stricken accordingly. The. potential for impact not determinable based on the evidence provided as sufficient and adequate monitoring does not appear to have taken place, based on the data provided in this document. Also, stating that `a small portion of the groundwater form the SDA can move to discharge at the wetland complex .... is without and is not based on any facts presented. Conclusions such as this should be stricken or include adequate evidence to support them. There is no way, based on the evidence provided, that it can be determined whether or not monitoring wells in place or proposed would be useful in determining whether or not groundwater contamination could be discovered (intercepted) before it reaches the Wetlands Complex. Section 6.2.2.7 Water Quality Standards for Potential Receiving Waters, General. This section should be revised to include the drinking water of the Lower Wash Unit that may be potential or actual receiving water. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page 14 of 15 12/21/2005 Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elk River Landfill Expansion, October 2005 Page 15 of 15 12/21/200$ Author: Heidi Tomich, htomich@yahoo.com Ridges of Rice -Lake Homeowners Association P.O. Box 91 Elk River, MN 55330 6 November 29, 2005 .Debra Moynihan EIS Project Manager Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Dear Debra: DEr 1 2Q05 ~' H+rre are our homeowners association's written comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Elk River Landfill Expansion. The comments will refer to the Draft EIS in section reference order. Section 1 Summary In the third paragraph there is a sentence: "The draft EIS is not intended to justify either a positive or negative decision on the project....". This suggests that the draft EIS should be impartial in nature. This does not appear to be the case. When it comes to adverse impacts the proposed project would create, these adverse impacts are- understated or limited in description. When it comes to describing impacts. related to choosing the "no build"option however, these impacts are described in detail and in some instances (see comments related to section 5.4.1 below) the potential upside benefits are ignored or unexplored. From the beginning of this document; negative impacts are discussed as they relate to choosing a "no build" option. This in itself appears to be a biased point of view.. As this is a proposal for an expansion , that does not currently have approval, many of the negative aspects of choosing a "no build" option are not negatives. One specific example follows here under section 1.1.1: Section 1.1.1 Alternatives Analysis Bullet point 3 sub bullet point i • lost employment at ERL This is a given fact. There may be an employment benefit to expanding the landfill, but since the landfill expansion is not yet approved, there is certainly not an adverse impact. Section 1.1.4 Air Quality Bullet point 2: The proposed SDA has the potential to generate odors This has huge residential impact and this negative impact must be clearly and completely stafed. It is reasonable to assume that over. 80 households with over 250 residents would have their quality of living negatively impacted by having to smell odors that would be generated by the proposed expansion of • Page 2 November 29, 2005 this landfill; new odors that would not exist if the expansion is not approved. Any decision-maker in this process should be exposed to the potential odors in order to make an informed decision. Section 1.1.5 Visual Impacts Bullet point 3: There are limited opportunities to effectively screen the SDA from 221 ~` Avenue vantage- oints. More clearly and completely stated, the homeowners in the. Ridges of Rice Lake Development and anyone they invite into the neighborhood, would see the proposed expanded landfill from 221 ~ avenue (the only access to the neighborhood). This view would negatively impact the homeowners' home value. Section 1.1.7 Compatibility with Land Use Bullet 3 The proposed proiecf is compatible with existing and future land uses in the proiect area This statement needs more clarification and backing. It appears a though the Land Use Plan provides a separate category for "Landfill" and this was not part of the Comprehensive Plan Task Forces Proposal. In fact, given it's proximity to residential homes .and park areas, this proposed landfill expansion is NOT compatible. Bullet 4 A planned interchange so impacts cannot be quantified This is already an extremely dangerous (actually fatal. for a neighbor) intersection. !t would be irresponsible for this draft EIS to be considered complete until a design of the interchange has been _ completed. Once the design of the interchange is complete, the impact of this proposal could be studied. It is recommended that the timeline for the completion of this EIS be extended so that the true impact can be determined. Section 1.1.7 Economic and Social Impacts Second bullet point: Significant revenues.... will be cost It seems that ari assumption is made that the only revenue that could be generated from the proposed expansion site would come from the proposed expansion. It has. been suggested that multiple, if not infinite options exist for future uses of the site discussed for landfill expansion. Other communities have found ways to attract businesses (like Cabellas) that could generate huge revenues, new jobs, and civic pride that would surpass the.benefits that the proposed landfill presents. Analysis and comments related to the negative economic impact the proposed expansion would have to neighboring residential property appears to be missing. For example, the MPCA could hire an impartial market research company to survey 100 random people. Questions might include, if you were looking at two identical homes and one was near a landfill and the other was not, which would you be most likely to purchase? A follow-up question might be, how much less would you expect to pay for the home near the landfill? Answers ~ to these and other questions would be important in order to quantify the negative impact. Also; should the proposal for expansion be approved, this data should be used to compensate the adversely impacted residents. ~ Page 3 November 29, 2005 Section 5.4.1 Employment and Economic Impact at ERL Analysis and comments .related to the positive economic benefits that alternative commercial/industrial businesses could bring to this-109 acre site appear to be missing. While it is fair to describe the jobs that are planned to be lost under the current plan, it is unfair to assume no other job opportunities could be created along the high-traffic/high visibility commercially/industrially-zoned property. It has been suggested that city planners could apply "typical" employment density for this type of property and determine that perhaps hundreds of newjobs could be created. Section 6.1.6.3 Potential Impact to Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook Wetland Complex There is much neighborhood concern over the lack of guarantee that the drinking water will not be contaminated. The wording in these paragraphs does not state clearly that there would be no negative impact. in fact, wording in the third paragraph in this section states that "a release from the northern portion of the SDA would likely be detected...... ". Likely detected? Residents are very uncomfortable with this. What if it is not detected? What exactly is the worst "likely° outcome? Section 6.4 Odor Residents should not be asked to experience any odors from any new proposal. Section 6.6.1.1 City of Elk River Solid Waste Management Plan If the city-reads the comments presented. in this. document, it must realize -that significant, adverse impacts would be created by the proposed expansion: There are significant, adverse impacts on persons residing in the area (odor, visual). There significant adverse .impacts on the value of neighboring property (due to the proximity of the proposed expanded landfill). .There are poorly defined, potentially adverse impacts on the environment including groundwater quality.. According to Chapter 58, it appears as thought a solid waste facility license should not be granted. According to Chapter 30 of the city code, the city can only issue a conditional use permit if certain conditions apply. Clearly, this permit can not be issued, according to point 1), since property in the immediate- vicinity would be detrimentally affected. There are concerns over public health and safety (ill-defined traffic impact and questionable groundwater purity). This permit cannot be issued according to point 5) since it would be detrimental to persons' quality of living because of odors generated. Section 7.3.1 Existing Recreational Resources The last statement in this section of the draft states that the SDA would not impact plans for the existing recreational resource (Rice Lake Park). Actually, the odors and limited visual screening of the proposed project would adversely impact the level of enjoyment of this resource. • Page 4 Section 8.2 Environmental Analysis November 29, 2005 "Minimal" risk to groundwater contamination? Residents expect a 0% risk to groundwater contamination. Please more clearly quantify the risk associated with the proposed expansion. Further ahaiysis required regarding air quality and stormwater impacts? Conducted as part of permitting? Why would this analysis not be required as part of the EIS? Section 8.3 Economic and Social Impacts This e."ntire paragraph is biased in favor of the proposed expansion. There are significant adverse impacts if the expansion is approved. .Specifically, there are adverse impacts relating to odor, visual screening, traffic, environment, recreational enjoyment and home values for over 80 families {@ 250 _ residents). Mitigation would be to appropriately compensate all negatively impacted homeowners should the expansion be approved. This would include, but not be limited to compensation for: 1) loss of home value (determined by impartial survey or other study) 2) degradation of quality of living due to the generation of odors 3) degradation of quality of living due to limited availability to effectively screen 4) degradation of quality of living due to potential adverse traffic effects 5) degradation of enjoyment of nearby parks due to odors/screening/traffic 6) risk to environmeht-namely risk of ground water contamination Thank you for the opportunity to share the comments and questions of the concerned residents of our area. We look forward to seeing the revised Draft EIS. ,- i Dave Stei er, President of Ridges of Rice-Lake Homeowners Association (on behalf of Ridges of Rice Lake Homeowners) cc: EJk Riyer City Council Governor Pawlenty Ridges Legal Counsel r Minnesota Pollution Control Agency . ~: 7 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Elk River { ~~ andfill.Expansion Nw ~ o zoos `` City of Elk River °~ - November 15, 2005 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Your Comments! Please take this opporlunity.to provide comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document. If complete, please feel free to submit your comment sheet at-the end of the meeting. Written comments. should be addressed to Debra Moynihan, EIS Project Manager, at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), 520 Lafayette Road North; St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194. The,public-has unti14:30 p.m.. on Thursday, December 1, 2005, to comment on the draft EIS for tl~e proposed expansion of the Elk River Landfill. MPCA will consider all written comments received by this date. MPCA staff will respond to written comments and make any necessary revisions when preparing the final EIS. ~:; _ whom ~ j ~ ~y /~~ '`~, ~ , _ . - _ ie~~ ~o . Q©~/.rte e .D. O~ ` ~i c..~- v ~ pse f t .~ -L/ - ~h ~~'rm,~r'te /~Li4~ '~ i ~~~ ~ ~r~ i~~~ (For additional mace. continue nn hacks;rle ~f t 14 CtIP.P.~' ~ V ~ I Name (Required. Please print.) Address (Required. Please print.) .; t V~~~~ ~~~~..1 i~ ~~d as (street) . . . City, State, Zip) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 (651) 296-6300, toll-free (800) 657-3864, TTY (651.) 282-5332 or (800) 657-3864 This. material can be made available in alternative fo"rmats for people with disabilities. ® Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30 percent fibers from paper recycled by consumers. i `1r~ li~/G i~ r ~_ ~~ Minnesota Comments on the Draft Pollution Agen v Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Elk River Landfill Ex ansi= ~=~~.6 ~_-gip p t ~`` OHO 1 200 City of Elk River ,(~ November 15, 2005 ` F 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. ,1! *, Your Comments! ,.~,~ Please take this opportunity to provide comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document_ If complete, please feel free to submit your comment sheet at the end of the meeting. Written comments should be addressed to Debra Moynihan, EIS Project Manager, at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MI'CA), 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194. The public has unti14:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 1, 2005, to comment on.the draft EIS for the proposed expansion of the Elk River Landfill. MPCA will consider all written comments received by this date. MPCA staff will respond to written comments and make any necessary revisions when preparing the final EIS. (ror auuitionai space, continue on backside of this sheet.) Name (Required. Please print.) Address (Required. Please print.) ll.~ ~ ~~ (Street) 1 5 ~ (city, state, Zip) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 (651) 296-6300, toll-free (800) 657-3864, TTY (651) 282-5332 or (800) 657-3864 This material can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. ® Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30 percent fibers from paper recycled by consumers. ATTACHMENT 2b Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Elk River Landfill Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS The following presents the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) response to comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). The content of the EIS was finalized with the opportunity for public input and is laid out in the EIS Scoping Decision Document adopted by the MPCA Citizens' Board on January 25,2005. Because the adequacy of the EIS will be determined in relation to the approved scope, the MPCA staff does not generally respond to comments that identify inadequacy as the result of environmental issues that are outside the approved scope of the EIS. In addition, the MPCA staff will generally not respond to comments that identify issues that would be more appropriately covered during pemitting, when the design of the proposed project is more fully developed. Design details will be open for public comment upon completion of the draft permit.. Some Commenters felt that the Draft EIS should have included all the technical reports-that were completed for the proposed Southern Development Area (SDA). In accordance with Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Rules (Minn. R. ch. 4410), these technical reports are not required to be part of the EIS document, but maybe incorporated by reference. The information incorporated by reference is found in Appendix B of the EIS, and is available for public review. 1. Comments by Jeff Ubl, Janet Dalgleish, Steve Klein, Charles Gantzer Barr Engineering Company, on the behalf of David Lucas, County Solid Waste Officer, Sherburne County Letter received by a-mail, December 1.2005. Comment 1-1: The overview of ground water regulations governing municipal solid landfills appears to be complete and accurate. Response: Comment is noted. Comment 1-2: The description of soils and rock is consistent with previous reports. However the description of the till and lacustrine units under the upper outwash unit give the impression that they are fairly homogenous. The comment provides information from the Geomatrix report (2004) that indicates that the soils have differing amounts of fine-grained material and varying thickness. Response: The- soil properties are described in detail in the Geomatrix report (2004, 2005). The individual units were combined into a combined representative unit for discussion purposes and to provide a clear comparison to the upper and lower outwash units which are not comprised offine-grained materials. The information provided in the EIS is adequate for purposes of environmental review. Comment 1-3: In general, the hydrogeological conditions in Section 6.1.3 are accurately described and the numeric calculations are correct. However, the application of Darcy's Law to estimate the rate of travel through glacial till does not consider the variability of the till sediments and potential clay till fractures that may increase the till's permeability in localized areas. Although the fine-grained sediments will decrease the travel time from the upper outwash sand to the lower outwash sand, it is not unusual for Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement contaminants to be transported through sandy silts and sandy clays. The numeric calculation of 2,750 years for contaminants to be transported 5 feet is unrealistic and sandy silts and clays rarely form a complete confining unit. Response: The travel time calculations are estimates based on the permeability data, gradients, and measured physical properties of the soil. As described in the Draft EIS, ground water moves horizontally an estimated 10,000 times faster in the upper outwash than it can move vertically in the Superior Lobe Till Complex (very little horizontal flow is likely in the till unit). For this reason, the upper outwash is the most appropriate monitoring zone for the facility in accordance with Minnesota Solid Waste Rules. Please also see Response 1-4 below. Comment 1-4: The unconfined aquifer in the upper outwash unit will be the primary monitoring zone, but no monitoring is planned for the lower outwash unit due to the previous conclusion that the lower till complex. is a confining unit and is expected to be relatively impervious. The current plan is to monitor the lower outwash for water levels only. Commenter believes that since the confining unit ranges from sandy-silt to clay sediments of variable thickness, the lower outwash aquifer should be monitored annually at a minimum. Response: As discussed in Response 1-3, the data indicate that a release would be detected in the upper outwash unit long before it would be evident in the lower unit, regardless of the stated variability in the till unit. The Minnesota Solid Waste Rules [Minn. R. 7035.2815; subp. 10, item (C) (3)] requires the owner/operator to initiate appropriate actions in the event of a release including, but not limited to, the installation-and monitoring of additional wells, parameters, and frequencies. If contamination is detected in the upper outwash unit, the MPCA would have the authority to require further monitoring, including monitoring of the lower unit. Comment 1-5: Section 6.1.5 in the Draft EIS describes an idealized interpretation of contaminant transport at landfills. Modern landfills are designed to prevent leaks but leachate does leak from some lined landfills. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) described are partially but not completely adsorbed to organic molecules. Response: The discussion in the EIS is adequate for purposes of environmental review. This section provides a discussion of a hypothetical release in order to integrate the conceptual model and allow an evaluation of whether the primary. monitoring zone will be adequate to detect a release as required by Minnesota Solid Waste Rules. The details and dynamics of contaminant fate and transport are generalized because the SDA is not yet constructed. Therefore, details such as those indicated above (e.g., whether the landfill will leak, the leachate volume, the location of the leak, concentrations of VOCs relative to the adsorption to the matrix, etc.) are not within the scope of either the hydrogeologic investigation or the EIS. Comment 1-6: Commenter concurs with the finding in the EIS that the risk to Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex is minimal as ground water predominantly flows to the southwest. Response: Comment noted. Comment 1-7: Five domestic wells are located within 1,000 feet west of the proposed SDA. The wells are 100 feet to about 140 feet deep and are probably screened in the lower outwash sand. Although the Landfill monitors several of the private wells, Commenter believes that these wells would be better 2 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Fact Statement protected if at least two monitoring wells were added to the compliance monitoring network along the west side of the SDA site. Response: The final location, number, and type of wells will be addressed in the permit. Comment is noted. Comment 1-8: In several locations in Section 6.2 of the Draft EIS regarding stormwater management, the study presents concentrated flow velocities on turfed Swale areas (such as in perimeter ditches and drainage terraces) where velocities far the 25-year and 100-year events will be less than 5 feet per second (fps). The Draft EIS references the MPCA's requirement for velocities to be less than 5 fps in those areas. Based on the Commenter's experience, velocities greater than 4 fps on most turfed areas will cause excessive. if not extensive erosion. Therefore, Commenter recommends installing permanent turf- .enforcing material in any concentrated flow area where turf is to be established and maintained. Commenter suggests some specific products to use to accomplish this recommendation. Response: Comment is acknowledged-and will be considered by the MPCA during the permitting process. Comment 1-9: Section 6-2 of the Draft EIS discusses riprap that is proposed to be placed at the outlets of various pipes used as part of the proposed stormwater management system. Commenter believes that the riprap should 1) be placed in the downstream channel to a point where flow velocities are 4 fps or .less, and 2) be placed from the end of the pipe to the bottom of the sedimentation basin where pipes discharge into sedimentation basins. It is not clear from the permit drawings referenced in the, Draft EIS .whether this is proposed in the design. Response: Comment is acknowledged. The design details will be finalized prior to permitting. Comment 1-10: In areas where concrete pipe is to be placed in steep slope areas, the joints should be tied and the designer may wish to consider anti-seepage collars to prevent scouring along a pipe. It is -not clear from the permit drawings referenced in the Draft EIS, whether these features are included in the design.. Response: Comment is acknowledged. The design details will be finalized prior to permitting. Comment 1-11: Figure 15 in the Draft EIS does not appear to show Permanent Sedimentation Basin P-2. Response:. Permanent Sedimentation Basin P-2 does appear on Figurel5. Permanent Sedimentation Basin P-2 is located at the southeast corner of the proposed expansion. It is located in Subwatershed 9, denoted with the leader "Proposed Sedimentation Pond" and the label "P-2" is present in light text. Comment 1-12: Section 6.2.4.4 of the Draft EIS describes a sediment volume for sediment deposits, but it does not appear to mention the design water quality treatment zone volume of the basins. Response: The sedimentation ponds were designed using the Pitt Method, which requires peak outflow of the pond to be less than or equal to 5.66 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre of pond surface (Sedimentation Pond P-1 = 2.57 cfs/acre of pond surface, Sedimentation Pond P-2 = 5.65 cfs/acre of pond surface). However, Sedimentation Pond P-2 also meets the more conservative Walker. Method design for Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement water quality, which provides a dead storage volume equal to the runoff volume for the 2.5-inch, 24-hour rainfall event using a Natural Resource Conservation Service Type II storm distribution. The current design for Sedimentation Pond P-1 does not allow for adequate detention time due to the proximity of the pond inlet to the outlet. Pond P-1 will need to be re-designed prior to final permitting. As designed, Pond P-1 has a peak storage capacity of 239, 499 cubic feet at elevation 991.62 and a cumulative storage capacity of 768,741 cubic feet at elevation 998. Pond P-2 has a peak storage capacity of 430,933 cubic feet at elevation 1,013.56 and a cumulative storage capacity of 1,195,391 cubic feet at elevation 1,020. Regarding rate control, the ponds have been designed to meet Post-Development and Pre-Development conditions for the 25-year, 24-hour, storm event (4.7 inches). The pond re-design should not affect the discharge rate or volume. Re-design will focus on increasing the detention time. Comment 1-13: Section 6.2.6 of the Draft EIS references computed soil loss which appears to be sufficient for most turfed areas. However, this would not apply to swales and ditches that aren't protected by turf-reinforcing material where the flow velocities will exceed 4 fps. Response: Soil loss calculations were computed for the overall area, not individual drainage channels. The MPCA may only require that facilities design to standards that have been set by rule or permit. The requirement for flow velocities to not exceed 5 fps comes from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater Permit: The MPCA cannot hold the facility to a higher standard than this. However, the facility may choose to design to a higher standard. Given the severe storm events during the Fall of 2005, Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL or Landfill) is taking a closer look at the stormwater management system at the existing site. The soil loss calculations will be further examined in permitting. The scenario presented in the EIS is considered the worst-case design for the SDA. Any changes or upgrades to the design should only result in less impact -less sediment transport from the site. Comment 1-14: The Commenter believes that the EIS should address two fundamental issues with regard to odorous emissions and odor complaints: 1) does the Elk River Landfill currently generate verifiable odor complaints from its neighbors, and 2) will the frequency of verifiable odor complaints increase or decrease with the proposed expansion of the Landfill and corresponding expansion of the gas capture/treatment. equipment to handle the increased production of landfill gas? Response: The MPCA agrees that the EIS should have provided a discussion on the issues,raised by the Commenter insofar as the scope indicated that the EIS would address "sources of landfill gas emissions and describe the existing control practices and monitoring plans used by ERL to detect landfill gases generated by the facility and current and proposed plans used to mitigate and respond to landfill emissions." The ERL tracks all odor complaints received. A summary of the odor complaints received in 2004 and 2005 is provided in Table 6-15 on the errata sheet prepared for the Final EIS. The summary includes information concerning the follow-up investigation, potential sources, and if the complaint could be verified. Fifteen complaints were received by the Landfill during 2004 and 2005. The majority of the complaints (10-11) were from a single property owner located to the northeast of the Landfill, and the majority of those complaints (7 to 8) were unable to be verified by ERL staff, regulatory agencies, or by correlating weather data. Throughout 2004 and 2005, one verifiable complaint was received. Five complaints were received that could not be verified, due to when the complaint was reported and follow-up investigations were conducted. However, as the. summary shows, these complaints were deemed possible based on weather data and/or on-site activities at the time of the complaint. With regard to the question posed by the Commenter, due to efforts taken by ERL to determine the sources of odors 4 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement and plans to mitigate these sources, the MPCA staff does not expect to see an increase in the frequency of odor complaints with the proposed expansion of the Landfill. Please also refer to Responses 1-16, 1-17 and 1-18 below. Comment 1-15: The Draft EIS describes the existence of an odor complaint line for neighbors to log complaints and describes the existence of an on-site weather station. It appears that no information was presented to correlate the two data sets (complaint log and weather information) into a set of verifiable odor complaints. Despite the presence of a complaint log and weather data, the Draft EIS appears to make no mention if any complaints are even registered with ERL or the County. Response: A summary of this information is now provided in Table 6-15 on the errata sheet for the Final EIS. Comment 1-16: Odor evaluations of the gas exhausted from a leachate storage tank, an engine combusting the landfill gas, a breather vent for the engine, and a flare were performed on two dates (October 2004 and March 2005). Other than comparing the detection-threshold odor numbers for the four sampled sources, no interpretive information was provided in the Draft EIS. For example, were the detection-threshold odor numbers in the 100s (not a concern), in the 1000s (potential concern), or in the 10,000s (definite concern)? Response: The MPCA has incorporated the odor testing results for the four sources tested into Table 6-11 on the errata sheet for the Final EIS. Results of the testing conducted by St. Croix Sensory, Inc., are described in more detail in the Fourth Quarter Leachate Recirculation Report and the Second Quarter 20Q5 Leachate Recirculation Report submitted to the MPCA, city of Elk River and Sherburne County. As outlined in these reports, the test data indicated two of the four sources tested appeared to be possible odor sources. These two possible sources included the engine exhaust and the exhaust from the crank case breather vent. Based on the testing results, the only source that could be firmly identified as having a significant impact on odors in the area was the crank case breather vent. ERL is taking action to mitigate odors from the crank case breather vent, as explained in Response 2-26 below. Comment 1-17: In addition to the detection-threshold odor numbers, the Draft EIS suggests that airflow rate information is available for at least three of the four sampled sources. Why was no odor emission rate data generated from the measured detection-threshold odor numbers and airflow rate values? With odor emission rate data and the stack parameters for the sampled sources, air quality modeling could have been performed to estimate potential odor impacts. The current odor impacts and the anticipated odor impacts for the Landfill expansion (at least in terms of the sampled sources) could have been quantified. Air quality modeling has been used in EISs to assess potential odor impacts (e.g., the Hancock Pro-Pork EIS). Response: The scope did not identify that the EIS would include modeling information for odors. The MPCA staff does not disagree with the Commenter that such modeling is possible utilizing information from the odor testing that ERL and Elk River Municipal Utilities (ERMU) voluntarily conducted during the Fall of 2004 and Spring of 2005. However, in addition to the odor test results, flow rates from the various emissions sources would need to be measured, detailed weather information would need to be researched (including prevailing wind directions and speeds), and information regarding possible receptors would need to be put together and entered into the model. There may be options to calculate flow rates from the various emissions sources, but to date, such calculations have not been done. Based on the number of verified odor complaints the Landfill has received, and discussions with ERL's air Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement modeling/permitting consultant (Barr Engineering), the MPCA permit staff determined that odor modeling is not warranted for issuance of the proposed solid waste permit. Comment 1-18: Despite the presence of odor strength data for the four sources, the Draft EIS does not use the data compiled to provide a quantifiable evaluation of current and potential odor impacts. Does the intensity of the odors generated by the sample sources suggest the potential for odor complaints or not? Response: The MPCA agrees that the Draft EIS did not use the data to provide a quantifiable evaluation of current and potential odor impacts. However, this is in accordance with the approved scoping decision. In answer to the question, the MPCA staff agrees that (as explained in Response 1-16) the test data indicated that two of the sources tested appeared to be possible odor sources. In particular, the crank case breather vent had a detection threshold over 10,000, and a recognition threshold for that source was 6,700. As a result of this testing, it appears that the crank case breather vent is the only significant source of odors from this facility and, therefore, ERL is taking action to mitigate odors from this source (see Response 2-26). As a result of this odor testing, MPCA staff does not anticipate that the expansion will increase the potential for odor complaints. Comment 1-19: The Draft EIS indicates that some of the sampled odor sources contained compounds such as hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and n-butyl mercaptan. The reported-odor threshold .concentrations for these compounds vary from about 55 parts per billion based on volume (ppbv) for carbonyl sulfide, about 3 ppbv for hydrogen sulfide, and about 0.05 ppbv for n-butyl mercaptan. Commenter states that the key point they are making is that small downwind concentrations of the odorous compounds found in uncombusted and combusted landfill gas can contribute to odor complaints. Response: Comment is noted. Comment 1-20: It appears that the no listing of the measured gas concentrations is provided in the EIS. The reader is left to speculate if the emitted gas concentrations are significant in terms of odor impacts. Response: MPCA staff agrees that this data should have been provided in the EIS.. This data is now provided in the errata sheet prepared for the Final EIS. Comment 1-21: In summary, the Draft EIS provides no evaluation of current odor impacts and no evaluation of potential odor impacts associated with the expanded Landfill. The Draft EIS does indicate that the data required for performing an odor impact evaluation exists, but it does not perform the evaluation. Also, the data, which could be used by the reader to develop their own conclusions, does not appear to be provided. Because the Draft EIS appears to provide no evaluation of odor impacts, the odor section of the EIS needs to be extensively re-written. Response: See Responses 1-I6, 1-17, 1-18, and 1-20 above. The MPCA staff has included additional information about odors in response to the comments, and in the errata document. 2. Comments by Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator, City of Elk River. Letter received December 1, 2005. Comment 2-l: Table 5-1 l in the Draft EIS list of "indirect, adverse" effects for the "no build" option should include: added air quality impacts from haul vehicles, added cost of infrastructure maintenance resulting from haul vehicles, reduction in waste-to-energy benefits based on lack of equipment at Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Designated Alternative Landfill Facilities (DALFs) and lost economy of scale in disposal operations when compared to most other DALFs. Response: As identified in the Draft EIS, of the 348,911 tons of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) going to ERL, approximately 243,483 tons are received from existing transfer stations and Resource Recovery Facilities (KBEs). It is assumed that this waste would be transferred directly to a DALE if the "no build" option were chosen. Additionally, it was assumed that an increase in capacity of the RRFs would result in an additional 15,000 tons of waste direct-hauled to the Elk River RRF. Approximately 97,534 tons of MSW should be assumed to be handled by a transfer facility at the ERL if the "no build" option were chosen. If the "no-build" option were chosen, haul vehicle traffic at the site may actually decrease due to the waste being diverted directly to the DALFs. However, the feasibility analysis of building a transfer station at the ERL is beyond the scope of this EIS. Therefore, it is not known if a transfer station can be permitted and built and thus increase the amount of haul vehicle traffic and associated infrastructure maintenance. There would be, decreased waste-to-energy (WTE) benefits if the no-build option were chosen. The life span of WTE benefits at ERL would be significantly shortened. Some of the DALF's have existing WTE facilities that are designed for the current permitted capacity. Adding ERL waste would not benefit these facilities as the waste would occupy airspace accounted for in facility design and WTE projections. WTE benefits would be lost if the waste is delivered to a DALE with no WTE facility. If all of the ERL waste were diverted to one DALE, there. would be no loss in economy of scale. It would merely be shifted to that DALE. However, since ERL receives waste from a large area and multiple transfer stations, the "dispersion" of ERL wastes to the numerous. DALFs identified in Section 5 would result in a lost economy of scale. Comment 2-2: Section 6.1.4.4 of the EIS states that a ground water divide exists at the northern edge of the SDA. The interpretation of a ground water flow divide has not been made in investigation reports for the SDA. The ground water contours in this portion of the site may more accurately be described as divergent near the northwest corner of the SDA due to the till flow boundary. Response: Pages 21-22 of the Revised Hydrogeologic Evaluation Report, prepared by Geomatrix (June 2005), identified that the till `highs' act as a ground water flow barrier, which locally diverts the ground water flow direction. The report. goes on to state, "The ground. water flow divergence implies the presence of a ground water flow divide in the northwest portion of the SDA." Comment 2-3: Significant conclusions are made from ground water data for March 4, 2004. Water level data presented in Figure 16 of the June 2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Evaluation for the SDA indicates that the March 4, 2004 data varies by less than 0.5 feet from the average water level collected over an approximate two year period. Commenter suggests that the EIS include a figure which shows the ground water flow interpretation for March 4, 2004. Response: A groundwater flow map from the March 31, 2005, sampling event was included in the EIS. No significant changes in water elevation data was noted between the March 2004 and the. March 2005 that would alter the interpretation presented in Figures 6 and 9 of the EIS. Comment 2-4: Figures 5 and 8 presented in the EIS show a significant thickness of saturated upper outwash and do not explicitly demonstrate that a ground water divide exists. 7 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk Rivez, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement Response: To adjust the water table elevation to reflect what is noted on the water table map would be barely noticeable given the scale of Figures 5 and 8, and would not materially alter the interpretation. Comment 2-5: The discussion in Section 6.1.5.1 should include an analysis of the vertical gradients through the till confining layer which were presented in the June 2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Evaluation for the SDA. The magnitude and consistency of vertical gradients supported the conclusion that the upper and lower outwash units were not in hydraulic connection. Response: As discussed in section 6.1.4.3 of the EIS, the till confining unit has a geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of 1 X 10_g centimeters per second (cm/sec). The upper outwash sand has a geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of 7 X 10_Z cm/sec and the lower outwash sand of 2 X 10"3 cm/sec. This would tend to prevent migration of contaminants to the lower outwash unit. Comment 2-6: -The discussion in Section 6.1.6:1 should identify that the highest potential for release of leachate for the liner system is located at the leachate collection sumps. These areas will have the highest hydraulic head on the liner system. Leak detection lysimeters are placed in these locations for this reason. Response: This issue is discussed in Section 6.1.6.3 of the Draft EIS. Comment 2-7: It should be noted in Section 6.1.6.2 that, for the SDA, very little contaminant attenuation via chenucal and/or biochemical processes will occur based on the aquifer and geologic conditions. Response: This section discusses. general fate and transport dynamics for a hypothetical release., It is difficult to state even a relative degree of attenuation without discussion of specific release location and dynamics. For example, if the release occurred into the unsaturated zone, in an area underlain by silt or clay, the potential for chemical and biochemical processes maybe quite different from another area with only coarse outwash. Comment 2-8: Section 6.1.6.3 of the EIS suggests that the location of the leachate sump areas should be modified to a position which is south of the "no-flow" boundary. This is presumed to add an additional safety factor to prevent impacts to the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. There are numerous benefits for the current placement of leachate sumps in terms of design and operation of the facility.. The added wetland complex safety factor associated with relocating leachate sumps is considered too small to warrant implementing this recommendation. Response: Comment noted. Comment 2-9: Section 6.1.6.4 presents a discussion of the well driller logs for three offsite water wells located in close proximity to the SDA. The EIS concludes that because the wells are screened in the lower outwash unit and separated from the lower outwash unit by the clay confining unit, they are unlikely to be affected by a hypothetical release at the SDA.. It is important to note that the continuity of the clay confining layer beyond the SDA boundaries has not been demonstrated.. There is a significant possibility that the lower and upper outwash units are in hydraulic connection beyond the SDA, thereby providing a hypothetical contaminant flow pathway to the screened intervals for residential wells. Response: A review of the well logs for the residential wells shows similar stratigraphy as that observed at the SDA. Although the lack of elevation data on these logs makes it difficult to precisely correlate lithologic units, there is evidence to conclude there may be an additional (second) confining unit separating the screened intervals from the upper outwash. Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment 2-10: The conclusions of the ground water impact analysis in Section 6.1.7 should state that the construction of a base composite liner and leak detection lysimeters greatly reduce the potential for ground water impacts for the SDA. Response: MPCA staff agrees and the comment is noted. Comment 2-11: Section 6.2.2.5 under Stormwater Management states that "A section 404 permit should not be required and will be verified during the permitting process." It appears that there is a potential that the Site development could adversely impact the wetland by increasing the sediment loading and changing the hydrology of the wetland. The need fora 404 permit should be determined with the EIS evaluation. Response: A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Section 404 Permit is required for filling wetlands for development, grading or pushing material around within a wetland, disturbing wetland soil during land clearing, or other such physical activities that would disturb wetland soils. The USAGE does not have the authority to regulate discharges to wetlands in the form of a stormwater discharge, as the Commenter suggests. The stormwater discharge is regulated through the various NPDES Stormwater Permits and the Solid Waste Permit issued by the MPCA, and also through the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), which will be implemented by the city of Elk River. However, as identified in Section 6.2.8 of the EIS, it is not clear if the location and elevation of the proposed outlet pipe from the southwest wetland will disturb wetland soils. Therefore, the EIS concludes that the need for a Section 404 permit is not anticipated, but this will need to be verified during permitting when details are more clearly developed. Comment 2-12: What is the interpreted applicability of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) for the wetland located at the Site? Are there plans to drain; fill or excavate any wetlands? The City of Elk River is the Local Government Unit for WCA and does require an application to be submitted regardless of whether the project meets the de minimis requirements. Response: ERL does not intend to drain, fill, or excavate any wetlands in the area. However, as explained in response 2-11, it cannot be determined for sure if there will be any physical impacts on the wetland from the project until the details are more fully developed. The EIS scope stated that the applicable regulations would be identified and briefly described in the EIS. The EIS identified the city of Elk River as the local government unit responsible for implementing WCA. Comment is noted. Comment 2-13: For Table 6-7 what volume (acre-feet) of stormwater will flow into the wetland located in the southwest corner of the Site for the post-closure condition? How does this volume compare with the existing condition volume for 25 and 100 year design storm events? Response: Based on the HydroCad analysis provided by ERL, the postclosure volumes that will enter the wetland. for 25-and 100-year storm events are 22.3 acre-feet and 31.9 acre-feet, respectively. The existing conditions volumes (see Section 6.3.3.1) for the wetland for 25- and 100-year storm events are 1.1 acre-feet and 2.0 acre-feet, respectively. Comment 2-14: The water level in the southwest wetland will increase by approximately 2 feet for the post-closure condition in response to design storm events. The EIS scoping document (page 4) indicated that the EIS would address the potential physical impacts to the wetland that will occur from the post- closure hydraulic loading. Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the. Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement Response: According to Table 6-7 in the EIS, the HydroCad modeling indicates that the wetland elevation will increase 2.26 feet during a 25-year storm and 2.11 feet during a 100-year storm. The EIS goes on to state that evaluation for the inclusion of control features should be done prior to issuance of the Stormwater Permit. As a result of the EIS evaluation, MPCA believes the stormwater basins in the south will need to be re-designed. The purpose of the EIS is not to do a re-design, but to comment on the design currently being proposed and come up with reasonable mitigation measures. As a mitigative measure, the EIS states-that more design work is needed and that will be addressed through the permitting process. The potential bounce in the southwest wetland will be examined as part of the re-design. Please also see Response 3-3 below. Comment 2-15: What mass of sediments associated-with stormwater will flow into the southwest wetland for the postclosure condition? How does this mass of sediments compare with the existing condition for 25 and 100 year design storm events? The EIS scoping document (page 4) indicated that the EIS would address any potential changes in sediment loading. to the wetland. Response: As identified in the EIS, the current design for Sedimentation Pond P-1 does not allow for adequate detention time due to the proximity of the pond inlet to its outlet. Pond P-1 will be re-designed prior to final permitting. As a result, although the EIS discusses potential changes in sediment loading, no precise calculation is possible at this time. However, sediment removal efficiency guidelines provided by Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) can be employed for a general evaluation of the loading. Sediment removal efficiency is not based on mass, but on particle size (see Table 6-8 of the EIS). The NiJRP guidelines presented in "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" (MPCA, March 2001) suggest 90 percent total suspended solids removal is attainable in a basin with a surface area equal to or greater than one percent of the total watershed area. Sedimentation basin P-1 has surface area of 109,823 square feet at .elevation 998 that exceed one percent (43,995 square feet) of the total watershed area (4,399,560 square feet) entering the pond. Comment 2-16: What are the relevant standards related to modifying acreage and associated runoff volumes for watersheds? Response: MPCA has encountered comments on this issue in previous projects having the potential to shift the flow of water from one watershed to a different watershed. Since the SDA lies in an area where three watersheds meet, staff decided to include an analysis of this issue as part of the scope. Despite comments received in previous projects stating that it is unacceptable to shift water from one watershed to another, staff has not been able to obtain a citation from anyone for this requirement. Comment 2-17: Are there any culverts which convey surface water beneath the former rail bed from the SDA to the Riee Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex? Response: Based on a walk along the western property line of the proposed SDA, there are no visible culverts that connect the area of the SDA to the wetland complex. There is a culvert located in the northern portion of the existing ERL demolition facility. Comment 2-18: What is the potential for hydraulic and sediment impact to the County Ditch 31 wetland complex located south of the SDA? Response: Analysis of the hydraulic and sediment impact to County Ditch 31 and its associated wetland complex was not included as part of the scope for this EIS: However, HydroCad analysis provided by ERL states the increase in peak elevation for the 100-year storm event is less than 0.1 feet. 10 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment 2-19: The first paragraph in Section 6.2.7 of the EIS states that "any water directed to the north during ongoing operation and development and closure conditions will be managed by existing facilities". What volume of water is anticipated to flow to the north during development? What is the capacity of existing runoff and sediment control structures to handle hydraulic and sediment loading at various stages of development prior to closure? Response: As detailed in permitting documents and the EIS, the majority of stormwater from the SDA during interim operating conditions will be directed to a temporary sedimentation pond located to the south of the operating phase of the Landfill, similar to current operations. During the interim development of the first few phases of the SDA, some stormwater from the eastern and western sideslopes may be directed to the north until the southern stormwater sedimentation ponds and ditches can be constructed, which may lag development of the Landfill due to mining. MPCA staff is aware that stormwater calculations and modeling during the various stages of phased development have not been conducted. While the amount of stormwater that may be directed to existing stormwater infrastructure has not been quantified, it should be noted that the existing stormwater infrastructure is designed to control all stormwater from the Landfill in its closed condition, which includes the south face of the Landfill as currently permitted. However, with the SDA expansion, stormwater from the south slope of the open Landfill will be directed to the temporary sedimentation pond located to the south of the open cell. The length of the. south face of the Landfill as currently permitted is approximately 1,600 feet wide, and includes 2,160 feet of benches that serve as stormwater diversion berms. At this time, it is not anticipated that interim conditions where stormwater is routed to the north will extend past Ce1121. With each cell being 200 feet wide, this would translate to approximately 1,600 feet (800 feet on the east and west side). With an anticipated interim stormwater control berm placed along the side-slope of both the west and east sides of the Landfill during development of Ce1121, no more than approximately 1,600 feet of interim berms would be in place. Thus, it is unlikely that any additional water over the current design capacities would be directed to the north during interim operating conditions. Comment 2-20: Information presented in Section 6.3.1.2 regarding the characteristics and generation of landfill gas should be supplemented with ERL site-specific information where possible. ERL conducts routine analysis of landfill gas for compliance with the MPCA Solid Waste Permit and also for operation of the Landfill Gas-to-Energy facility at the site. Response: Landfill gas generated at ERL falls within the. ranges included in Section 6.3.1.2.. Specific information regarding the landfill gas generated at the ERL is submitted to the MPCA, Sherburne County, and the city of Elk River on a quarterly and annual basis depending on the information requested. Based on recent information collected in 2004-2005, ERL's landfill gas has the following percentages by volume of the some of the components listed in Table 6-10 of the EIS: Com onent Percent b Volume Methane 50-55 avera e 52-53 Carbon Dioxide . 35-45 Ox en 0.08-0.15 Sulfides 0.17 Some of the components listed in Table 6-10 are calculated annually based on the waste gate receipts as part of the Landfill's annual emissions reports. Many of the above components. have been measured as a concentration from the flare or engine exhaust as required for performance testing; however, these components have not been measured in the actual landfill gas. Additionally, it should be noted that there 11 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement is wide variation in the landfill gas data collected, based on the location of testing, age of the waste in the area, along with the weather conditions. Trace organics testing of ERL's landfill gas was conducted in 2004 on the ERL's landfill gas prior to destruction in the engines or flare. This information is available at the MPCA, Sherburne County, the city of Elk River, or at the ERL. Based on the variability of landfill gas due to the age of the waste, MPCA staff believes that the use of published factors and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (LJSEPA) emissions models in calculating emissions rates of the SDA is better than the use of actual but variable and limited data. These standard models, which were used to calculate the emissions rates of waste in the SDA, factor in the changing age of the waste over time when calculating the. landfill gas emissions, and thus are more reflective than using emissions rates from the existing Landfill Comment 2-21: The EIS should reference the April and July 2005 applications for major modifications for the Landfill and the Waste-to-Energy facility in the applicable regulations section. Response: In Apri12005, the ERL submitted an application for major modification of the ERL's existing air permit. The Apri12005 major modification included an updated New Source Performance Standards (NSPS} Design Plan, along with changes to the Title V Air Permit relating to the engine generator sets qualifying fora "treatment exemption" from certain permit requirements. In July 2005, a second major modification to the ERL's existing air permit was submitted. This July 2005 major modification was submitted to include the proposed fourth engine/generator set to the Landfill's Title V Air Permit. The July 2005 major modification was accompanied by an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, which was required for the installation of the fourth engine/generator set. Both permit modifications, along with. a minor administrative amendment regarding equipment calibration, are. currently being fmalized and the ERL will be issued a new air permit in early 2006. This permit modification is not necessarily directly relevant to the SDA, as the NSPS Design Plan will need to be revised to include the SDA, and an application for major modification of the ERL's Title V Air Permit will need to be prepared and submitted to include the SDA at a future date. Comment 2-22: The discussion in Section 6.3.2.2 of the EIS regarding the Minnesota Solid Waste Permit should reference the leachate recirculation pilot study and the specific provisions of the MPCA permit that relate to landfill gas. Response: The leachate recirculation pilot study is taking place in the existing Landfill and is outside the scope of the EIS. The bulleted items listed on page 56 of the Draft EIS are the specific conditions listed in the Solid Waste Permit SW-074 for the ERL. Comment 2-23: The flow rate of landfill gas collected from the entire site will increase significantly. It is apparent that ERL has not indicated a corresponding expansion of the Landfill Gas-to-Energy facility. A commitment should be made by ERL to expand the Landfill Gas-to-Energy facility to maximize practical energy recovery form the site. Response: The potential expansion of the Landfill Gas-to-Energy facility was discussed in the Scoping EAW and this issue was not taken forward for further study in the EIS. The Scoping EAW included a statement of ERL's commitment to responsible management of the landfill gas generated at the Landfill, including the SDA. The ERL has acknowledged that the proposed SDA will require expansion of the collection, combustion, and landfill gas monitoring systems and modification of the Title V Air Permit. The ERL is currently working with landfill gas system design consultants to determine the final gas collection and control system design for the SDA, and will be discussing the future infrastructure 12 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement necessary to comply with applicable air regulations. Following the completion of the design of the system, the ERL will be amending their Title V Air Permit and revising their NSPS Design Plan to include the SDA. Comment 2-24: Section 6.4.3 provides a discussion of the odor testing that was conducted at the Landfill, however, it is not clear what the overall intent of the studies conducted was and what the specific conclusions were. Do these results identify the source of odors experienced by offsite receptors? Is there a way to quantify the generation of odors from the potential sources as a flow rate? Response: MPCA agrees that the EIS should have provided an explanation of why the odor studies were conducted. The overall intent of the voluntary odor testing the ERL and ERMU conducted was to see if there were any "point sources" of odors at the facility other than the actual Landfill itself. The reason was at least partially based on the description of odor complaints that the facility had received, which were not being described as typical landfill related odors, but seemed to consistently have more of a petroleum or chemical based description and were located in the vicinity of the Landfill Gas-to-Energy plant. Results of the testing conducted by St. Croix Sensory, Inc., were described in the Fourth Quarter Leachate Recirculation Report and the Second Quarter 2005 Leachate Recirculation Report submitted to the MPCA, the city of Elk River and Sherburne County.. As outlined in these reports, the test data indicated two of the four sources tested appeared to be possible odor sources. These two possible sources included the engine exhaust and the exhaust from the crank case breather vent. Based on the testing results, the only source which was truly identified as having a significant impact on odors in the area was the crank case breather vent. ERL and ERMU have committed to installing a control device on the crank case breather vent, which was noted to be the most likely source of noted odors.. Please see Response 1-17 regarding the question on quantifying the generation of odors from the potential sources as a flow rate. Comment 2-25: The EIS should note that the odor tracking hotline has been discontinued (with NIPCA approval) due to lack of use. Odor complaints were typically received by the city of Elk River, County and MPCA. Response: The odor tracking hotline was discontinued by ERL with MPCA approval due to lack of use. A log of odor complaints received in 2004 and 2005 is provided in the errata sheet prepared for the Final EIS.. Please note that the majority of calls were received by the ERL; however these calls were received via the Landfill's general telephone number, not the odor hotline, and thus the reason for the disconnection. The log notes that some calls were received by the city of Elk River, Sherburne County and the MPCA. The ERL needs prompt notification from regulators when such calls are received, so the complaints can be investigated as soon as possible. Comment 2-26: What odor mitigation techniques will be implementedfor the four potential odor sources (Leachate storage tank vent, landfill gas engine exhaust stacks, flare exhaust and landfill gas engine breather vent) identified in Section 6.4.3 of the EIS? Response: As stated in Response 2-24, the intent of the odor testing ERL and ERMU conducted was to see if there were any "point sources" of odors at the facility other than the actual Landfill itself. As shown by the test results, the Leachate tank vent and the flare exhaust were determined to have such low odor detection and recognition thresholds that they would not be linked to any odors noted in the vicinity of the facility, and thus no odor mitigation techniques are necessary for these two sources. The test data indicated the engine exhaust and the exhaust from the crank case breather vent were both possible odor 13 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement sources, as they each had odor detection threshold above 1,000, indicating they were a possible source of odors. However, based on the testing results, the only source which was identified as having a significant impact on odors in the area was the crank case breather vent. The ERL and ERMU are placing control equipment, which is commercially known as a "Smog Hog," on this vent. This control device includes a charcoal filter, and is expected to substantially reduce the emissions and odors associated with this vent. The equipment has been ordered and will be installed upon receipt. At this time,-the ERL and ERMU do not have plans to install any odor mitigation equipment on the exhaust from the engines. This will be re-evaluated by ERL and ERMU if complaints in and around the Landfill Gas-to-Energy facility continue to occur following the installation of the control equipment on the crank case breather vent. Comment 2-27: Elk River Landfill is required to develop a detailed Screening Plan for the SDA to minimize visual impacts. This Plan should be developed in draft format with specific graphics to reflect the plan view of the screening renderings (Figures 24, 26, 35, 37, 40 and 42). The Plan needs to show the development of screening at various phases of waste deposit development. The Screening Plan needs to be consistent with the End Use Plan for the site. Response: Comment is noted. Comment 2-28: The fourth paragraph under Section 6.5.3 of the EIS indicates that the 1500 feet of screening berm will cost $700,000. A typographical error appears to have been made. Based on the analysis provided, the cost of the berm should be $70,000. What is the purpose of including a cost analysis for this aspect of landfill development? Response: Correction noted. Cost analyses are typically required when evaluating alternatives. The Scoping Decision Document identified that the potential costs of other screening options would be presented. Comment 2-29: The City of Elk River updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2004 and the EIS should reflect that information. Response: Section 6.6.3 of the Draft EIS is based on the City of Elk River's Comprehensive Plan. Section 6.6.3.1 "Existing Land Use," notes that the 2004 Comprehensive Plan maps existing land uses as of 2002. Section 6.6.3.2 "Future Land Use" states that "the 2025 Future Land map contained within the city of Elk River's 2004 Comprehensive Plan indicates that the proposed future land use for the project property is Mining, as shown on Figure 52 of the EIS." Comment 2-30: Sherburne County has the 2004 aerial photography and therefore, this should be used rather than the 2003 aerial photos. There has been significant development in the vicinity of the site in the last several years. The current number of residences (2005) should be ground-truthed. -Response: A review of the 2004 aerial photograph does not indicate any additional residences within one-quarter of a mile of the SDA property. Comment 2-31: The current grading plan within the anticipated right of way for the future MnDOT 221~`/TH 169 interchange does not appear to be consistent with future roadway construction. The plan shows a 45 foot depression with 2:1 sideslopes on the roadway side of the depression. The EIS preparers should solicit specific comment by MnDOT project officials on the feasibility of the proposed development plan for the SDA in relation to the planned interchange. There were no reference documents contained in the bibliography of the EIS regarding MnDOT plans or consultations with MnDOT 14 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Ells River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement personnel. The difference between the 6 acre and 16 acre interchange design scenario should be resolved with the finalization of the EIS. Response: The MPCA staff did solicit specific comment from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) project manager assigned to the 221St Avenue/TH 169 interchange improvements. These e-mail exchanges should have been provided in the bibliography for the Draft EIS Please also refer to Response 6-6 below regarding the comment about resolving the design scenario. In all likelihood, the new interchange will be constructed before the Landfill will be able to build proposed Ce1121. Under a `worst-case' scenario (from the Landfill's perspective), Cell 21 and beyond could be impacted by the new interchange. The impact would result in a redesign of those cells to a smaller footprint, thus reducing the overall expansion and life of the SDA. As such, the EIS presents the largest landfill expansion footprint possible with the proposed interchange only resulting in an expansion equal to or smaller than that presented. 3. Comments by Matt Langan, Environmental Planner. Environmental Review Unit, Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter dated November 30, 2005. Comment 3-1: With respect to groundwater impacts; the Final EIS should clarify what mitigation measures will be used to prevent pollution of the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex if the monitoring wells detect pollution. Response: If an intervention limit defined in the permit is exceeded in the ground water,. the Landfill would be required to take the steps outlined in Minn. R. 7035.2185, subp. 4, item G., and its Contingency Action Plan (CAP). The CAP is part of the permit application. The CAP outlines he following possible mitigation measures: 1. If an exceedance of an intervention limit is confirmed, the next step is to determine the extent and magnitude of the problem. This may be done by continuing to monitor the existing points or by installing additional monitoring points. 2. A feasibility study will be submitted to the MPCA to determine what corrective action is necessary. Examples of corrective actions are: • continuing to monitor the ground water and if necessary, expand the monitoring system; • construction of the final cover; • repairing the final cap or surface drainage features if a problem has been identified; • repairing the leachate collection system if a problem has been identified; • installation of a ground water extraction system and/or ground water flow barrier; and • installation or modification of landfill gas extraction wells. Comment 3-2: Section 6.2.5.4 should describe the existing size, type, or vegetation composition of the wetland located in the southwest corner of the proposed site. Response: The southwest unnamed wetland is classified by the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) as a Palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetland with asemi-permanently flooded water regime. This kind of wetland typically would be classified as a Type 1V Deep Marsh wetland. Plants typically found in deep marshes include: cattails (Typha sp.), bulrushes (Scirpus/Schoenoplectus sp.), water-lilies (Nymphea/Nuphar sp), duckweeds (Lemna/Spirodela/Wolffia sp.), coontail (Ceratophyllum sp), 15 Ells River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement pondweeds (Potamogeton sp) and/or water milfoil (Myriophyllum sp). The estimated area of this wetland based on the NWI polygon area is 1.33 acres. Comment 3-3: Table 6-7 provides data on wetland bounce from different storm events. The Final EIS should discuss vegetation changes and wetland type and size changes that may occur due to the altered hydrologic regime, including predicted bounces. Response: According to a report published by the. State of Minnesota Stormwater Advisory Committee entitled "Stormwater and Wetlands: Planning and Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impacts of Urban Stormwater and Snowmelt Runoff on Wetlands (June 1997)," deep marsh plant communities have standing water depths from six inches to three or more feet during most of the growing season. The vegetation is characterized by emergent aquatic plants growing in permanent to semi- permanent shallow water. The emergent plants typically become established and spread when water levels are low or when the marsh substrate is exposed, and then persist when water levels rise. However, if water levels rise too quickly, or rise to higher than normal levels, emergent vegetation may not survive, or it may rise to the water surface as floating mats. According to this report, deep marshes are considered "moderately susceptible" to changes in water levels, meaning that they can tolerate inundation up to 12 inches, but axe adversely impacted by sediment and/or nutrient loading and prolonged high water levels. Please also see Response 2-14 above. Comment 3-4: The Final EIS should clarify whether the outlet pipe discussed in the second paragraph of Section 6.2.8 is an existing outlet pipe or a proposed outlet pipe. Response: The outlet pipe discussed in Section 6.2.8 is a proposed outlet pipe. 4. Comments by Don Sherper. Letter received November 30,-2005. Comment 41: Commenter states that the site management of the Landfill has historically been courteous and responsive to questions raised and open to suggested changes. Commenter believes the Elk River Landfill staff has made an honest effort to control debris. They also have accepted roadside litter collected by the township in which they are located, thereby helping to maintain a cleaner community. Response: Comment is noted. Comment 42: Commenter has two concerns. The first concern relates to periodic odors from the methane operation. Odors are noticeable when driving by the Landfill on Highway 169. In addition, some homeowners near the Landfill have complained about odors at their residences. On a few occasions, commenter can even detect the odor at his home, which is located across Rice Lake and its wetland, over a mile away. Commenter asks what steps will be initiated to contain these odors. Response: Please see Responses 2-24 and 2-26. With regard to landfill-related odors, the ERL is committed to expanding the gas collection and control system as necessary to control landfill gas emissions. In addition, as outlined in the EIS, the ERL utilizes several odor control techniques as part of daily operations. Comment 43: Commenter's second concern is that the shoreland area from the ordinary high water level of Rice Lake not be infringed upon in any future changes or expansion of the north construction/demolition debris site. 16 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environrnental Impact Statement Response: While this question is outside the scope of the EIS, at this time the Landfill does not have any plans to alter the configuration or design of the construction and demolition debris landfill submitted as part of the Request for Permit Modification approved in October 2003: This Request for Permit Modification included both an interim design and final design for the construction and demolition debris landfill. To date, only the interim design has been approved by the MPCA, Sherburne County, and Livonia Township. Comment 44: Commenter states that although he recognizes and appreciates the present management's assurances, Commenter would not want to see any MSW deposited on the north side in the township nor infringement on any shoreland/wetland. Response: This issue is outside of the scope of the EIS study, which is limited to the proposed expansion of the southern end of the Landfill. ERL has not had any discussions with MPCA staff regarding the placement of MSW in Livonia Township. 5. Comments by Heidi Tomich, Certified Professional Geolosist, on the behalf of Candace Kies, resident of Ridses of Rice Lake. Letter received by e-mail on December 1, 2005. Comment 5-1: Commenter notes that in many cases the comments are essentially redundant in order to address repeating concerns throughout the document. Response: For the purpose of this Response to Comments document, MPCA staff has reorganized the comments to eliminate redundancy, while retaining any new issues that have been raised within the repeating comments. The full text of the Commenter's letter is found in Appendix A. Comment 5-2: Expansion of the Elk River Landfill should not be granted until the existing Landfill has been adequately investigated to confirm that there have been no impacts to the Lower Wash Unit (drinking water unit) for all likely contaminants that may or have migrated from the existing gravel pit Landfill into the Lower Wash drinking ground water zone. Response: Ground water impacts from the existing Landfill are not within the scope of the EIS. Comment 5-3: Expansion of the Landfill should not be granted until at a minimum, confirmation sampling has been obtained at appropriate locations to show that there has been no migration of contamination via ground water discharge into the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex from the existing Landfill. Response: See response to Comment 5-2 above. Comment 5-4: Commenter does not see how the Southern Development Area (SDA) site has been adequately characterized to arrive at the conclusions stated in the first and second bullets contained in Section 1.1.2 of the EIS because. Figure 8 has only `conceptual cross-sections" and there is no evidence that there has been sufficient borehole sampling to confirm a continuous impervious confining layer of till across the Landfill. Statements presented in the first and second bullets do not appear factual based on the data presented in the EIS. Response: The conclusions stated in Section 1.1.2 are based on the discussion contained in the EIS and evaluation of the data presented in the hydrogeologic investigation conducted for the proposed SDA. The EIS confirms that the hydrogeologic investigation met or exceeded the requirements of Minn. R. 17 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7035.2815. It is not the intent of the EIS to present all the subsurface data collected during previous hydrogeologic investigations. The Commenter is referred to Appendix B of the Dra$ EIS for a list of the technical reports and data used to prepare the EIS. Comment 5-5; Commenter states that the EIS should provide figures showing all the ground water monitoring wells that are being tested for contamination for each of the water bearing units. The EIS should also show the location of all other wells used for monitoring ground water levels for each of the hydrostatically distinct zones. The EIS should include the hydrogeological logs for the monitoring wells used for contamination monitoring. Response: See response to Comment 5-4. The EIS includes monitoring well locations shown on Figures 6, 7, and 9. Final well locations will be determined as part of the permit and are not within the scope of the EIS. Comment 5-6: Commenter asks how the statement regarding the potential impact to downgradient receptors is low (contained in the fourth bullet of Section 1.1.2) can be made because the EIS does not appear to provide the data to adequately and safely make this statement. Regular and ongoing sampling and analysis of ground water immediately adjacent and downgradient of the Landfill in the Lower Wash Unit should be conducted as an early warning of contamination for human receptors. The Commenter asks if there has been any sampling to date of wells located between the community drinking water supply wells and the Landfill, and if such wells exist? Response: The EIS is not required to present all subsurface data collected in previous hydrogeologic investigations. The EQB Rules (Minn. R. 4410.2400) allows the EIS to incorporate this data by reference to reduce the bulk of the EIS. The technical data used to prepare the EIS is available to any party upon request. Minn. R. 7035.2815, subp. 10, item 2, requires the monitoring system be designed to "allow early detection" of the release of leachate. This would be accomplished with monitoring of the upper outwash sand. The sampling program for the existing Landfill also includes private well water sampling. Baseline sampling of the proposed ground water monitoring system for the SDA has been conducted. The sampling results did not identify any impacts to the ground water. Comment 5-7: Commenter asks if there have been any other studies to assess potential impact to flora and/or fauna receptors in and around the wetlands? Comment believes that such studies should be done because there is a reasonable assumption that ground water discharge is occurring into the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. Response: The hydrogeologic investigation documented that only a very small amount of ground water from the SDA may discharge to the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. Please also see Comment 1-6 and its corresponding response. Ground water monitoring would allow corrective action to be implemented prior to contamination potentially discharging to the wetland complex. Comment 5-8: Commenter asks how the Draft EIS can come to the conclusion that potential impact to the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex is low given that the ground water elevations shown in Figures 6, 8, and 9 indicate that the discharge to the wetland complex comes from the direction ofthe existing Landfill? Figure 9 should be revised and expanded to reflect actual ground water flow to include the wetlands and the elevation of the surface water present there (which is 925 feet above sea level.) 18 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Response: These conclusions are about the potential impacts from the proposed SDA, not the existing Landfill. The ground water issues related to the existing Landfill are outside the scope of the EIS. The ground water elevations at the SDA do not indicate significant discharge to the wetland complex. Comment 5-9: Commenter believes that there is likely hydraulic communication between the Upper Wash and possibly the Lower Wash Units with the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex locate immediately west of the Landfill. Response: See Responses 5-2 and 5-8 above. The ground water elevations do not indicate significant discharge to the wetland complex from the vicinity of the SDA. Comment 5-10: Section 1.1.7 regarding Economic and Social Impacts should include a bullet addressing the potential aesthetic issues that may decrease homeowner's property value. Response: See Responses 6-4 and 6-8 below. Comment 5-11: The EIS should provide a discussion on the economic impact to homeowners in the area if the drinking ground water (Lower Wash Unit) is not adequately sampled and monitored to discover ground water contamination from the Landfill. What would be the devaluation of landowner's property if their sole source of drinking water has been impacted? What would be the cost to replace their drinking water supply system? Response: The ground water will be monitored in accordance with Minnesota Solid Waste Rules and the requirements specified by the permit. These requirements are designed to protect drinking water supplies. If a drinking water source is impacted, corrective action would be implemented and potentially an alternative water supply source or treatment would be provided. The resident(s) would not be expected to pay for replacement of theirwater supply well. The questions regarding the impact of contamination on the value of property is outside of the scope of the EIS study. Comment 5-12: There appears to be no plan in place to address remediation of the ground water to prevent impact to homeowners' drinking water supply. There needs to be an adequate ground water monitoring system established to assess the current state of the drinking water unit (Lower Wash Unit) and a plan in place to address remediation of any contaminated ground water. Response: Details of the environmental monitoring system and CAP are required as part of the Solid Waste Permit. Comment 5-13: There is no evidence in the EIS to indicate that there is not ground water discharge into the wetlands and nearby surface water. Based on the ground water elevations presented in multiple figures in the EIS, ground water does discharge into the adjoining Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex, including surface water bodies west of the site. Response: See Response 5-2, 5-8, and 5-9 above. The comment expresses concern about the existing Landfill, not the proposed SDA. Comment 5-14: Section 6.1.3.1 of the EIS states that the surgical (sic) geology of the area consists of a 100-200 foot thick sequence of unconsolidated glacial and glacial fluvial deposits consisting of sand and gravel that also contain some silt and till. Based on this information, there is nothing in the document to 19 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement indicate that this area has a continuous confining layer to prevent migration of waste contaminants. at depth. Response: Details of the Superior Lobe till complex are provided in Section 6.1.3.3 and 6.1.4.3 of the Draft EIS. This information is based on detailed boring logs, cross-sections and maps included in the referenced hydrogeological reports. Comment 5-15: Commenter states that the information in paragraph two of Section 6.1.3.3 essentially confirms that there may not be a continuous confining layer that prevents contamination from migrating downward in the Upper Glacial Till Complex. Response: -The Upper (Des Moines Lobe) Till complex is generally located above the water table and, therefore, cannot be construed as a confining unit. Although this unit may act as a barrier to infiltration from a release in the unsaturated zone, the EIS does not assert that this unit is a confining layer from a ground water perspective. This unit is not to be confused with the lower till complex, which is the confining layer between the upper and lower outwash units. Comment 5-16: The information in paragraph three of Section 6.1.3.3 indicates that the lower subunit of the Upper Glacial Till Complex is silty-sand and does not appear to be an effective. barrier to downward ground water flow based on the data provided in this document. Response: See Response 5-15 above. Comment 5-17: The information in paragraph four of Section 6.1.3.3 states that the subunits form a single...unit that acts as a barrier to infiltration (where present) under the proposed facility. If this unit is not continuous under the existing facility and/or the proposed expansion area, it is misleading to say that this unit provides a barrier to infiltration. Response: Paragraph four of Section 6.1.3.3 states that "where present" the till may be a barrier to ground water flow. This unit is not to be confused with the lower till complex, which is the confming layer between the upper and lower outwash units. Comment 5-18: Even if there is a confining layer to vertical ground water flow, is it confining to prevent any chlorinated organic migration? Most silts and clays can allow many feet of migration fairly rapidly in the presence of chlorinated organic compounds, in part due to osmosis and chemical alteration of the silts and/or clays by the contaminants. Response: The term vertical ground water flow indicates this comment is in regard to saturated flow.. Dissolved phase chlorinated organic compounds would most likely migrate horizontally in the Upper Outwash unit, not vertically into the fine grained till deposits. The ground water monitoring system would detect the presence of chlorinated organics before they could potentially reach the confining unit. Comment 5-19: The second paragraph in Section 6.1.3.3 should be re-phrased to indicate it is the first monitoring zone because it is the first zone where contamination could be detected, assuming monitor wells have been located and screened adequately, based on the geology, to be able to observe contamination impact in this zone. 20 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Response: The statement in the Draft EIS is accurate and consistent with the Minnesota Solid Waste Rules. The final number, position, and location of monitoring well screens will be determined during the permitting process. Comment 5-20: Was the hydraulic conductivity of this potential confining zone [Lower Till (Superior Lobe) Complex] based on real world pump tests to determine the connectivity of this unit? If so, what is the hydraulic connectivity for this unit based on the pump tests? How thick is this unit at the Landfill? Commenter asserts that pumping tests must be conducted to establish that there is no hydraulic communication between the Upper Outwash Unit and the Lower Outwash Unit. Response: Hydraulic conductivity of the Lower Till complex is based on laboratory-measured mean permeability values of 1 x 10_g cm/s. These values are not inferred from pumping tests. The lateral continuity of the Lower Till complex is based on several lines of evidence as discussed in the Draft EIS and the Geomatrix reports. The characterization of this unit and the hydrogeologic conditions at the SDA meet the requirements of Minnesota Solid Waste Rules. Comment 5-21: Has the Eau Claire Formation discussed in Section 6.1.3.4 of the Draft EIS been detected at or immediately adjacent to the site? Has the Galesville Sandstone been encountered at or immediately adjacent to the site? Response: Yes, Section 6.1.3.4 of the Draft EIS states "the uppermost bedrock in the area is the Eau Claire Formation, a regional confining unit...A relatively thin mantle of the Galesville Sandstone (basal portion) has been encountered above the Eau Claire Formation... ". Comment 5-22: Are there any wells set into the Mount Simon/Hinckley Formation? Is this formation used at all for drinking water or other supply in the nearby area (less than one mile away from the Landfill)? If so, there should be a minimum of one monitor well installed and sampled to effectively detect if contamination from the Landfill will breach this zone. Response: There are wells screened in the Mount Simon/Hinckley Formation. This unit is used for drinking water supply, but is separated by at least two glacial till units and a regional confining layer. As stated in Section 6.1.3.4, "this unit is routinely monitored for ground water quality in private wells located downgradient of the facility." Site-specific ground water monitoring requirements will be defined during the solid waste permitting process. Comment 5-23: Commenter asks "what is the localized flow of the ground water at the site for the unconsolidated and consolidated units? Based on Figure 8, it appears to flow in all directions (except perhaps east and due north)." Response: Figure 8 shows flow predominantly to the southwest from under the majority of the SDA site, as do Figures 6, 7, and 9. Comment 5-24: Commenter requests all documentation that indicates that the Mount Simon/Hinckley Unit is not hydraulically connected to the upper unconsolidated waterbearing unit(s). Response: The supporting documentation and data from Geomatrix reports is available at the MPCA offices. The regional geologic information is publicly available from various sources upon request. 21 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment 5-25: Commenter asserts that information in the EIS indicates that there is likely ground water discharge to the wetlands located immediately west of the Landfill and therefore the sentence in the second paragraph stating that "...regional ground water flow is limited to outwash deposits..." should be revised to reflect that discharge is occurring into the wetlands west. of the Landfill. Response: The ground water flow from the existing Landfill is not within the scope of the EIS. The investigation data indicates that flow under the SDA is predominantly to the southwest (away from the wetland complex), as is shown on Figures 6 through 9 of the Draft EIS. Comment 5-26: Commenter states that contrary to what is stated in Section 6.1.4.1 of the EIS, there is no evidence that surface water is recharging the glacial ground water zone, although it may occur temporarily during rainfall events as an anomaly. Response: The Draft EIS states that recharge of the ground water at the SDA site comes primarily from infiltration of precipitation in the upland areas located east of the SDA. Given the permeable nature of the soils in this area, it is a generally accepted hydrogeologic principle that infiltration in this type of soils does occur. Comment 5-27: Commenter states that it is possible that there maybe localized ground water flow to the east, as the proposed SDA site is located directly on an intersection of three watershed boundaries. There may perhaps even flow to the north, but the data presented do not currently support flow to the north or the east. Response: The statement made by the Commenter is not supported by the data presented in the Draft EIS for the SDA. Regional ground water flow at the SDA would not be influenced by localized flow within. a specific, small watershed. Comment 5-28: Commenter asks if the gravel mining areas enhance (increase) infiltration of precipitation into the lower geological units as well at the site of the existing Landfill? Commenter asks if there is adequate cover for the existing Landfill and potential expansion site to prevent infiltration from directly above the Landfill Response: Only a portion of the SDA is currently mined, but infiltration directly into the lower till complex or lower outwash (thereby bypassing the watex table) is not supported by any field evidence. The question of infiltration through the existing Landfill is beyond the scope of the EIS. Infiltration through the SDA would be negligible due to the liner and final cover system. Comment 5-29: Commenter requests a revision of Figure 6 to reflect the presence of the cross-section C-C' on the figure and the soil boring locations for this cross-section. Commenter asserts that any. additional cross sections and associated soil borings that are representative of the western side of the Landfill should be presented so that informed conclusions regarding the potential for a confining wall-like zone of "Till" can be made by the readers of the EIS. Response: The section line location for C-C' (Figure 5) apparently did-not show up on the printed copies of Figure 6, and will be added to the Final EIS. The locations of each boring on the section for Figure 5 are shown on Figure 6. Additional cross sections and data can be found in the referenced reports. There is no discussion in the Draft EIS of a laterally confining "wall of Till." 22 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment 5-30: Commenter states that although test samples taken to determine vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Lower (Superior Lobe) Till Complex showed low vertical permeability, contaminants that are likely present at the Facility (chlorinated solvents) may increase the hydraulic conductivity in the Till. Response: It is extremely unlikely that dissolved phase organic compounds will cause the changes in hydraulic conductivity within any of the geologic units at the SDA. Ground water flow through the upper outwash sand is predominately horizontal. Contamination would mosf likely be detected in the monitoring wells of this unit. If it is necessary to implement corrective action, the ground water monitoring system may be expanded to include the base of the upper outwash. If contamination was detected in these wells such that the permeability could be adversely affected, appropriate corrective action would be implemented. Comment 5-31: Commenter states that there is no way to assess that, the subsurface has been adequately sampled and logged to determine the presence of a continuous, even five foot thick, confming layer in the Lower Till Complex without presenting the soil boring logs made at the Facility in this EIS. Response: Complete reproduction of all of the field data collected at the facility is not required for the EIS and may be incorporated by reference (see Responses 5-6 and 5-24). The SDA investigation meets or exceeds the requirements of Minnesota Solid Waste Rules part 7035.2815. Comment 5-32: The details of the logs and screened intervals are needed to effectively evaluate whether the vertical gradient claims are in fact representative or realistic for the Lower Till Complex on the site. It is of note, that the vertical gradient is substantially higher (very steep) as compared to the lateral gradient of the Upper Outwash presented. Response: See Response 5-31 above. Data supporting the conclusion that the vertical gradient of the Lower Till Complex is significantly higher than that of the Upper Outwash sand is presented in the hydrogeologic study referenced in Appendix B of the EIS. Comment 5-33: Commenter asserts that the first paragraph in Section 6.1.5.1 should be revised to reflect the facts. Commenter states that there are no facts to support that a release from the Facility would travel mainly in the upper outwash saturated unit based on the evidence presented in the EIS. Response: The statements in Section 6.1.5.1 are consistent with the data included in the referenced reports and represented by the figures shown in the Draft EIS. The upper outwash is the uppermost saturated zone and is the interval in which a release would first be detected. Commenter has not presented any data to support her conclusion. Comment 5-34: Commenter states that the lower outwash units should be investigated and monitored for contamination to determine if contamination is present from the Landfill. Monitoring should include heavy metals and chlorinated organics (which have a density greater than water and would likely migrate downwards even if ground water flow is predominantly laterally to the west, southwest, and south). Response: A discussion of contamination from the existing Landfill is not within the scope of the EIS. For the SDA, the lower outwash is not the primary monitoring zone. In accordance with the rules (see Response 1-4 above), the lower outwash zone may require monitoring if there is evidence of a release in the upper outwash unit. Required parameters for ground water monitoring for MSW landfills are defined 23 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the Minnesota Solid Waste Rules and the Facility's Solid Waste Permit, and include VOCs and inorganics as discussed in Section 6.1.2 of the Draft EIS. Comment 5-35: Commenter asserts that the two paragraphs in Section 6.1.6 are misleading and should. be revised to reflect the fact that there is no synthetic liner in place for this Facility and that the existing Landfill was built in 1973 into existing gravel quarries, if this is the case. The Landfill should not be presented as a "modern" landfill as it is not engineered to prevent migration of contamination from the site and it is inaccurate to describe a potential release as "hypothetical" as there is not enough evidence in the EIS to present that there has been a release from this existing Landfill facility. Response: The statements in the Draft EIS are accurate and based on the field and engineering data presented in the referenced reports for the SDA. As stated previously, the existing Landfill is not within the scope of the EIS. The MPCA staff acknowledges that the existing landfill, parts of which are unlined, has caused contamination. Less than half of the existing Landfill acreage is occupied by unlined fill areas. The rest of the existing site meets the USEPA Subtitle D and Minnesota Solid Waste Regulations for lined mixed municipal solid waste disposal. Documents that describe this contamination are available for review at the MPCA. However, the MPCA staff does not believe that conditions at the existing Landfill will affect the proposed SDA, and therefore the EIS scope did not include analysis of the existing Landfill as iequired content. Comment 5-36: Commenter states that one cannot evaluate whether the Upper Wash monitoring wells adequately monitor the Upper Wash ground water for contamination without having the information regarding where the monitoring wells are screened in comparison to the well's specific geology. Commenter also states that monitoring of the Upper Outwash ground water only is not enough to detect a release. Response: Information on the monitoring well screened intervals is included in the referenced reports. Please note that the final location of wells and screened intervals will be addressed within the Solid Waste Permit for the facility. The hydrogeologic data and the conceptual model (described in the Draft EIS) indicate that the Upper Outwash is the primary monitoring zone for detection of a hypothetical release from the SDA. The interpretation of ground water flow presented in the Draft EIS is straightforward and correlates with the ground water elevations measured in the monitoring wells that are screened within this unit. Comment 5-37: Commenter asserts that the statement contained in the second paragraph of Section 6.1.6.1 of the EIS (regarding the detection of a hypothetical release in the downgradient wells located near the boundary of the SDA) is only true if there is no downward migration. Response: See Response 5-36 above. The placement of ground water monitoring wells in the upper outwash sand would most likely be the point where potential contamination of the site would be first detected. If the concentration of contamination was confirmed above the intervention limit, corrective action would be implemented. This corrective action could include, but not be limited to, the installation of additional ground water monitoring points to determine the horizontal and vertical extent of the contamination. Comment 5-38: Commenter asserts that the second paragraph in Section 6.1.6.2 is essentially stating that dilution is the only solution proposed for this site when contamination is discovered. 24 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement Response: Section 6.1.6.2 states that "the primary physical process related to attenuation of contaminants is dispersion." The process of dispersion only reinforces the concept that a ground water monitoring system would detect a potential leachate release from the facility. The latter part of the section also describes other chemical and biological mechanisms that result in reduced concentrations. The term "dilution" in this context is not synonymous, and would not provide an accurate description of the processes involved. As such, this section does not imply that the facility would rely on this process as the only solution to potential contamination. Comment 5-39: Commenter states that the third paragraph of Section 6.1.6.2 the EIS regarding a hypothetical release from the northern portion of the SDA should include a discussion of chlorinated solvents which will likely migrate fairly easily through aone-foot confining clayey or silty layer that is noted in the discussion of the Lower (Superior Lobe) Till complex in Section 6.1.4.3. Response: See Response 5-18 above. Comment 5-40: Commenter requests that all conclusions stated in the first paragraph of Section 6.1.6.3 be revised because the contours on Figures 6 and ground water flow lines on Figure 9 indicate that the bulk of the ground water flow is to the west, directly into the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. It is incorrect to state that the'ground water only migrates to the southwest. Response: See Response 5-23. Analysis of the conditions related to the existing Landfill is not within the scope of the EIS. Comment 5-41: Commenter asserts that there is no evidence in the EIS to indicate that there is a ground water divide on the northern edge of the SDA. Response: The evidence for a ground water divide is shown on Figures 5, 6, $, and 9, and discussed in Section 6.1.4.4 and in the referenced reports. Commenter has not provided data which supports her conclusion. Comment 5-42: Commenter states that the facts presented in the EIS do not assert that a "small portion of flow from under the SDA may move toward the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex on a seasonal basis" as stated in the third paragraph of Section 6.1.6.3. Response: Please see Figures 6, 8, and 9 of the Draft EIS. Supporting information is also contained in the referenced hydrogeologic reports. The hydrogeologic investigation indicates that only a small portion of the ground water flowing under the SDA-moves to the northwest. Commenter has not provided data which supports their conclusion. Comment 5-43: Commenter asks if there are significant hydrostatic level differences between the Upper Wash and the Lower Wash to support that there is no hydrogeologic connection (and therefore an effective confining unit) between the two saturated zones? If so, these facts should be presented to support the conclusions made in paragraphs three and four of Section 6.1.6.4. Response: Section 6.1.6.4 is an evaluation of off-site potential receptors. The private wells discussed in Section 6.1.6.4 are included with the on-site monitoring network. A detailed evaluation of the off-site confining units is not required under Minnesota Solid Waste Rules and is not within the scope of the EIS. Also, please see Response 5-15 above. 25 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment 5-44: The conclusions in paragraph five of Section 6.1.6.4 regarding two higher capacity wells downgradient from the SDA should be revised after the ground water flows are presented realistically in Figure 6 and flowlines are re-drawn in Figure 9 to indicate that primary ground water flow occurs. to the west, in addition to the south and southwest. Response: The two higher capacity wells are screened in deeper bedrock units and are hydraulically separated from the facility by one or more confining units. See Responses 5-23 and 5-29 in response to the comment on the figures in the Draft EIS. Comment 5-45: The existing Landfill and the proposed SDA have not been adequately evaluated for potential of ground water contamination to conclude that the SDA meets the requirements of applicable ground water regulations, including drinking water standards for Class 1 waters. Response: Evaluation of the existing Landfill is not within the scope of the EIS. The EIS adequately characterizes the SDA. Site-specific water quality standards for the. SDA will be determined during the solid waste permitting process. In-general, ground water quality standards for VOCs are more restrictive than drinking water standards for Class I waters. Comment 5-46: Commenter asserts that the conclusion stated in the second bullet in Section 6.1.7 highlights that the zone of concern (the Lower Wash Unit) is not, in fact, effectively monitored to determine whether a release has occurred to this zone or to detect if a release does occur to this zone in the future. Response: See Response 5-33. Comment 5-47: Although lysimeters may provide an early warning of lateral unsaturated contamination migration and of downward migration immediately from above the end of the lysimeter, the lysimeters in no way provide adequate determination of vertical migration of waste for the existing Landfill or for the proposed SDA. Response: The lysimeters are not intended to determine the "vertical migration of waste" for the SDA. The existing Landfill is not within the scope of the EIS. Comment 5-48: Commenter asserts that there is no way, based on the evidence presented in the EIS, that it can be determined whether monitoring wells in place or proposed would be useful in determining whether ground water contamination could be discovered (intercepted) before it reaches the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. Response: Based on the position of the wells and the ground water flow directions shown on Figure 6, it appears that the portion of the proposed monitoring network for the ground water flow path that is toward the wetland complex meets and exceeds the requirements of the Minnesota Solid Waste Rules. Comment 5-49: Section 6.2.2.7 regarding water quality standards for potential receiving waters of stormwater runoff should be revised to include the drinking-water standards of the Lower Wash Unit that may. be potential or actual receiving water. Response: Ground water compliance standards are addressed in Section 6.1.2 of the Draft EIS. 26 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6. Comments by Dave Steiner. President of Ridges of Rice Lake Homeowners Association on the behalf of the Ridges of Rice Lake Homeowners. Letter received December 1 2005 Comment 6-1: Commenter states that the EIS does not appear to be impartial in nature. The adverse impacts from the proposed project are understated or limited in description. Impacts related to the "no build" option, however, are described in detail and in some instances the potential upside benefits of the "no build" alternative are ignored or unexplored. The commenter believes that the EIS presents a biased point of view in favor of expanding the Landfill. Response: The Commenter's opinion is noted. The EIS study may appear biased to the reader because all other reasonable alternatives to the proposed project (i.e., alternative sites, scale, design, technologies) were eliminated during the EIS scoping process. The only other alternative left to evaluate along side of the proposed project is the "no build" alternative, which basically means sending the waste to other solid waste disposal facilities, some of which are located out of state. MPCA staff believes the EIS provides a balanced and impartial analysis of the "no build" alternatives to the expansion. The EIS describes both the positive .and negative impacts of the alternatives. Comment 6-2: With respect to the "no build" alternative, Commenter disagrees with the conclusion that the loss of employment at Elk River Landfill is truly an adverse impact. Response: Commenter's opinion is noted.- The EIS Scoping Decision Document states that for any alternative analyzed in the EIS, the analysis will include a succinct discussion of potentially significant direct or indirect, adverse or beneficial effects associated with the alternative. Generally speaking, loss of employment is not considered a beneficial effect and, therefore, it has been appropriately categorized as an adverse impact in the context used. Comment 6-3: The Commenter references a finding in the EIS that states that "the proposed SDA has the potential to generate odors." Commenter states that odors have huge residential impact and therefore must be clearly and completely stated. The expansion would generate- new odors that would not exist if the expansion is not approved. Any decision-maker in this process should be exposed to the potential odors in order to make an informed decision. Response: The MPCA staff acknowledges that odors have the potential to impact residential neighbors and that the extended years of operation would be cause for further concern on this issue. The odor (landfill gas emissions) issue was added to the EIS scope as a result of public input during the scoping process. As discussed in the revised odor section (Section 6.4.5 of the errata document), over the past several years, very few odor complaints have been received by the ERL, the city of Elk river, Sherburne County, or the state. While, ERL staff conducts on-site odor inspections daily, occasionally odors from the facility may not be detected during these inspections. Inspectors from the MPCA, Sherburne County, and the city of Elk River have experienced the mild odors at the Landfill on rare occasions. The ERL and/or the regulatory agencies need to receive prompt notification from residents regarding odors. This allows the ERL to properly investigate odor related issues, and modify any on-site operations as necessary based on the complaints. It is the ERL's and Waste Management's policy to respond promptly and appropriately to all calls from their neighbors and the public, and all calls received at the ERL regarding odors (whether to the ERL directly or to regulatory agencies) are taken very seriously and investigated. Comment 6-4: Since the only access to the Ridges of Rice. Lake neighborhood is from 221 S` Avenue, the SDA expansion would create adverse visual impacts, which would negatively impact the homeowners' home value. 27 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Response: The EIS finds that there are limited opportunities to screen the expansion area from Location #6 on 2215` Avenue effectively using the typical mixture of trees as a screening method. Alternative screening methods maybe appropriate for this side of the proposed SDA (see Comment 2-27 from the city of Elk River). Potential impacts to residential property values from the expansion were not included as part of the EIS scope. Commenter's opinion is noted. Please also see Response 6-8. Comment 6-5: Commenter disagrees with a finding in the EIS that states "the proposed project is compatible with existing and future land uses in the project area." Commenter states that it appears as though the Land Use Plan provides a separate category for "Landfill" and this was not part of the Comprehensive Plan Task Forces Proposal. In fact, given it's proximity to residential homes and park areas, this proposed landfill expansion is NOT compatible. Response: As explained in Section 6.6.1 of the EIS, Chapter 30 of the City Zoning Code establishes a Solid Waste Facility overlay zoning district which allows for solid waste facilities as conditional uses. The EIS goes on to explain that the city of Elk River will need to rezone the area of the SDA and issue a conditional-use permit for the expansion. There are numerous requirements and standards that the project would need to meet prior to obtaining a conditional use permit from the -city of Elk River. The purpose of the EIS. is to provide information regarding the local land use plans and regulations that would affect the proposed project; not to make judgments on local land use decisions. Comment 6-6: Commenter states that the 221St Avenue/Highway 169 intersection is already an extremely dangerous intersection and that it would be irresponsible for the EIS to be considered complete until a design, of the interchange improvements has been completed and the impacts of the designed intersection studied. Commenter recommends that the timeline for the EIS be extended so that the true impact can be determined. Response: The EQB rules (Minn. R. 4410.2800) require that the EIS study be completed within a specific timeline (280 days) using the best available data and information to assess the impact. The 2215` Avenue/Highway 169 interchange improvements are the responsibility of MNDOT, not the Landfill. The proposed improvements appear to be a priority for MNDOT; however, it may take several years before the actual interchange configuration is developed. Please also see Response 2-31. Comment 6-7: The Commenter states that the EIS study makes an assumption that the only revenue that could be generated from the site would come from the proposed expansion. Commenter asserts that there are multiple, if not infinite options for future uses of the site proposed for the SDA. Other communities have found ways to attract businesses like Cabellas that could generate huge revenues, new jobs and civic pride that would surpass the benefits that the proposed SDA presents. Response: The EQB rules (Minn. R. 4410.2300, subp. G) require that the EIS study compare potentially significant impacts of the proposal with those of other reasonable alternatives to the project. The rules also allow the exclusion of an alternative if that alternative fails to meet the underlying need for or purpose of the project. The underlying need and purpose of this proposed project is the disposal of mixed municipal solid waste. The action before the MPCA and the other regulatory governmental units is the expansion of a landfill or, no expansion: The EIS is not required to examine other potential uses for the property as the Commenter suggests. Please also see Response 6-1. 28 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment 6-8: Commenter states that the analysis and comments related to negative economic impact for the proposed expansion would have to neighboring residential property appears to be missing in the EIS study and offers a method in the form of a survey that could. be used to quantify the negative impact to neighboring property values. This data should be used to compensate the adversely impacted residents should the expansion be approved. Response: As stated in Response 6-4 above, potential impacts to residential property values from the expansion were not included as part of the EIS scope. MPCA staff considered including impacts to property values in the EIS, but feared that the results would be largely based on speculation, since it is difficult to predict how the market would react to the project before it is constructed.. However, in other parts of the country, Waste Management has commissioned studies of the effect of landfills and landfill expansions on surrounding property values. Some states, such as Illinois, require such an evaluation to be done by an independent party as part of any expansion or siting of a new landfill. Illinois law states "...the facility will be located so as to minimize any effect on the value of the surrounding properties...." The general methodology used in these studies is the comparable property value analysis. The premise behind this is if there is any impact on property value caused by proximity to a landfill, then this impact would be reflected by a comparison of sale prices, annualized rates of appreciation, and other indicators to properties far removed from the landfill. These studies include a "target area," which is an area close to the landfill, and a "control area," which is an area far removed from the landfill ERL.staff has copies of several studies from Illinois performed at multiple sites with very similar scenarios to the Elk River Landfill SDA expansion. The studies are from three landfills originally located in rural areas that became suburban areas, some of which included affluent homes located near the landfill, where the landfill underwent an expansion. One additional study was for a greenfield site located in a similar area. Three of the studies were for landfills located in the Chicago area, and one was for a landfill near Peoria. The four studies were conducted between 1993 and 2003. All four of these studies found there to be no impact to the values of properties located next to landfills, landfills that underwent an .expansion, or a newly-sited landfill. One of the studies. included almost 20 years of property sales, so there was sufficient data to support the analysis and conclusion of no impact. The MPCA does not understand how the survey proposed by the Commenter would result in a fair quantification of the impacts to neighboring property values: Also, it is not the purpose of the EIS to devise a compensation plan to address negative impacts from the proposal. Comment 6-9: Analysis and comments related to the positive economic benefits that alternative commerciaUindustrial businesses could bring to the 109-acre SDA site appear to be missing from the EIS. Commenter states that while it is fair to describe the jobs that are planned to be lost under the current proposal, it is unfair to assume no other job opportunities could be created along the high-traffic, high visibility commercially/industrially zoned property. It has been suggested that city planners could apply. "typical" employment density for this type of property and determine that perhaps hundreds of new jobs could be created. Response: Please see Response 6-7 above. The purpose of the EIS is to evaluate the potential social and economic impacts of the proposed project, and reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. 29 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment 6-10: Commenter states that there is much neighborhood concern over the lack of guarantee that the drinking water will not be contaminated. The wording in Section 6.1.6.3 of the EIS does not state clearly that there would be no negative impact. Residents are concerned about the wording used that a release would "likely be detected." What would be the worst "likely" outcome if the release were not detected? Response: Monitoring of residential water supply wells is a requirement of the current permit, and this requirement would remain with the modified permit for the expansion. ERL monitors several wells that are included in its permit, but ERL also voluntarily monitors several surrounding drinking water wells for residents, including the Ridges of Rice Lake well, which are not included in the permit. If the presence of contamination was confirmed and determined to be originating from the facility, corrective action would be implemented. Users of the water supply system would be promptly notified of the test results. The type of corrective action implemented would depend on the type and concentration of the contamination detected. Comment 6-11: Commenter states that residents should not be asked to experience any odors from any new proposal. (-, ~,_ / Q J ~~ , Response: Comment is acknowledged ~ ~ ~ `~' ~ ~ ~ -Pik-C.t-- ~ ~~~y+~a~fY~-'~ ~ Comment 6-12: If the City of Elk River reads the comments presented in Section 6.6.1.1 of the EIS, it must realize that significant, adverse impacts would be created by the proposed expansion. There are significant adverse impacts from odor and visual effects on persons residing in the area. There are significant adverse impacts on the value of neighboring property. There are poorly defined, potentially adverse impacts on the environment, including ground water quality. According to Chapter 58, it appears as though a solid waste facility license should not be granted. Response: As described in the EIS, Chapter 58 of the City Code specifically regulates solid waste facilities, including the location, licensing, standards and operations of such facilities. The city of Elk River may impose additional specific standards, as necessary, to minimize adverse effects on neighboring properties. Commenter', opinion is noted and will be passed on to the city of Elk River. Comment 6-13: Commenter states that according to Chapter 30 of the City Code, the city of Elk River can only issue a conditional use permit if certain conditions apply. Commenter asserts that the conditional use permit cannot be issued because: 1) property in the immediate vicinity would be detrimentally affected by the expansion, 2) there are concerns over ill-defined traffic impact and questionable ground water purity, and 3) the expansion would be detrimental to person's quality of living because of odors generated. Response: This comment will be passed on to the city of Elk River for consideration during its permitting process. Comment 6-14: The Commenter disagrees with the last statement made in Section 7.3.1 of the EIS that the SDA would not.impact plans for the existing recreational resource (Rice Lake Park). Commenter asserts that the odors and limited visual screening of the proposed SDA would adversely impact the level of enjoyment of this resource. 30 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement Response: The statement in Section 7.3.1 was made in the context of physical impacts from expansion of the park toward the SDA property. Available information from the city of Elk River indicates that there are no plans to expand Rice Lake Park toward the SDA. The part of the comment regarding impacts from limited screening opportunities and from odors, however, is noted. The future Rice Lake Park is located near Location #4 of the visual impacts analysis of the EIS. The existing tree line provides an effective screen for the park. However, it maybe appropriate for the city of Elk River to require additional screening measures to benefit the park if these trees are removed in the future for any. reason. Please see Response 6-3 regarding odors. Comment 6-15: Commenter refers to a statement in Section 8.2 of the EIS that indicates that there will be "minimal risk of contamination to ground water" as a result of the expansion. Commenter states that the residents expect a 0% risk to ground water contamination and asks that the EIS more clearly quantify the risk associated with the proposed expansion. Response: The Minnesota Solid Waste Rules do not require that a solid waste facility demonstrate that it will pose zero percent risk to the environment. The Permittee is required to submit a CAP in the ,permit application to evaluate the feasibility of corrective actions. The current CAP for the Landfill identifies a number of steps that would be taken should ground water monitoring confirm the presence of contamination above the intervention limit at the compliance boundary. See Response 3-1 for additional detail on the CAP requirements. MPCA acknowledges that the wording in .Section 8.2 should have been more in line with the conclusions listed in Section 6.1.7 of the EIS. MPCA believes the information provided by the EIS is consistent will the approved scope and provides a reasonable picture of the potential impacts to ground water. Comment 6-16: Commenter asks why the EIS study finds that further analysis on stormwater and air quality impacts would need to be conducted as part of permitting? Why would this analysis not be required as part of the EIS? Response: The EIS looks at currently available data and information to determine the environmental impacts of a proposed project. Some of the design details for the proposed project are not fully developed at this stage. These details will be fleshed-out during the development of the plans and specifications for the proposed SDA if a permit is issued for the expansion. MPCA staff will conduct a detailed review of the plans and specifications. The EIS does point out specific areas in the current stage of the design that need additional attention during the permitting process and provides suggestions on how to mitigate these shortcomings. Comment 6-17: Commenter states that the paragraph under Section 8.3 summarizing the findings for economic and social impacts is biased in favor of the proposed expansion. The Commenter asserts that there are adverse impacts relating to odor, visual screening, traffic, environment, recreational enjoyment and home values for over 80 families. The Commenter states that mitigation would be to appropriately. compensate all negatively impacted homeowners should the expansion be approved for loss of home value,. degradation of quality of living due to odors, the limited availability of screening controls, potential adverse traffic effects, enjoyment of nearby parks, and the risk of ground water contamination. Response: Comment is noted. Please see responses 6-1, 6-7, and 6-8, above. 31 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Responses to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7. Comments by Neil Gabnon, resident of Rides of Rice Lake. Letter received November 30, 2005. Comment 7-1: Commenter is a Ridges of Rice Lake homeowner who is 100% opposed to the further expansion of the already highest capacity landfill in Minnesota. Response: Comment noted. Comment 7-2: Commenter states the following reasons for opposing further development of the Landfill: 1) hurts resale ability substantially; 2) more landfill compounds existing issues, such as odor, etc.; 3) increased traffic on 22151 Avenue; 4) environmentaUhealth impacts. Response: Comments noted. Please see Responses 6-3, 6-4, 6-6, 6-8, 6-10, and 6-15, above. Comment 7-3: Commenter states that he does not accept the "no increase in traffic" argument posed by MPCA staff at the November 15, 2005 public meeting. Response: Comment noted. The expansion of the Landfill is not expected to increase the amount of traffic associated with the landfill operation. The overall operation of the SDA is not anticipated to include significant increases in waste flow over the cun: ent operation, which would in turn result in an increase in the number of trucks hauling waste. However, since the life of the Landfill will be extended, the length of time truck traffic will occur from landfill operations will also be extended. Comment.?-4: Commenter believes that residents are not safe from cancer or respiratory problems as a result of the Landfill expansion. Response: Comment is noted. The issue of an Air Emissions Risk Analysis (AERA) was not brought up by anyone during the scoping process and, therefore, was not taken forward for study in the EIS. However, an AERA has been completed for the proposed expansion of the Elk River LandfilUElk River Municipal Utilities Landfill Gas-to-Energy facility located on the site of the existing Landfill. -Based on a very conservative analysis, the potential cancer and noncancer health risks were slightly above thresholds. However, due to the conservative nature of the analysis, MPCA finds that the project (including the potential emissions projected for the SDA expansion) would not pose unacceptable risks to the public. Also, the dispersion modeling showed maximum impact occurs along the eastern boundary of the property for both acute and chronic risks. 8. Comments by Wendy Butlett, resident of Rides of Rice Lake. Letter received December 1, 2005. Comment 8-1: Commenter is a Ridges of Rice Lake resident who strongly opposes the proposed Landfill expansion and asks that the "no build" option be accepted by decision-makers. Response: Comment is noted by MPCA and will be passed on to Sherburne County and the city of Elk River. Comment 8-2: Commenter is deeply concerned about the reduction of quality of life in the neighborhood due to the bad smell and noise of such an expansion. 32 Elk River Landfill Final EIS Elk River, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Response: Comment is noted. The Minnesota rules pertaining to community noise are contained in Minn. R. ch. 7030. The most stringent noise .limits are applied during the nighttime from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The operating hours for the Landfill are 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday. No violations of noise standards have been measured at the current Landfill facility, and operations at the proposed SDA will be similar to those at the current Facility. All equipment and vehicles utilized at the SDA site will be periodically inspected and maintained with muffler systems to minimize noise from the equipment. The distance from the proposed site and the tree line on the west side will aid in the attenuation of noise. Please also refer to Responses 6-3 and 6-12. Comment &3: Commenter feels certain that the property value of the homes near the expanded Landfill will be negatively affected: Response: Comment noted. See Responses 6-4 and 6-8 above. 33 v~ ATTACHMENT 2c Elk River Landfill Expansion FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEM-ENT .IANUARY 2006 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55155 Elk River Landfill MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ERRATA for the ELK RIVER LANDFILL EXPANSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT January 2006 The following revisions shall be made to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dated October 2005..The revisions to the draft are a result of comments received during the public notice period. These revisions,. the response to comments document, and the Draft EIS. that was mailed October 21, 2005, to interested parties together comprise the-Final EIS for the-Elk River Landfill Expansion. Cover Sheet Item 5: Replace the word "Draft" with "Final" {both instances). Page v Replace Page v with the attached revised Page v. Section 6.4.3 Add the following text after the third paragraph: The following table presents the odor testing results conducted during the Fall of 2004 and the Spring of 2005.. Table 6-11 ,Odor Testing Results Source Detection Threshold Reco nition Threshold Leachate Tank Vent - 950 580 Engine Exhaust 1,900. 1,200 Flare Exhaust . 300 170 Crank Case Breather Vent 14,000 6,700 As shown above, only the crank case breather vent had a detection threshold over 10,000, and the recognition threshold for that source was 6,700. As a result, the ERL and Elk River Municipal Utilities (ERMU) have decided to install control equipment on the crank case breather vent, known commercially as a "smog hog." This control device is expected to significantly reduce the odors associated with this source. Add the following text after the seventh paragraph: The following table presents the chemical composition of the exhaust gases from the four sources tested in the Fall of 2004 and Spring of 2005. Table 6-12 Chemical Composition of Exhaust Gases l.eacahte lank- ent; En ne. Exh FIeHe:E xhaa~st aw 1.FG ~csather Y snt. Exhaust erK n m b y b1/ a m':. m ttb . ... .... e - ' 2Q I '. R - . ~ .. - ~ . ~. 1S Suicide 28;5 11.8- 42 00 17 2rki 34 13 0 226 0 92 t00 tQ3 R2 Metl1 n ND ND NQ ND ND' ND ND NO 112 57 N rtEtii Sutii a 9A5" 3 .2` ND ND D' Q ND ND ~. `3 g' DiNi! ds. 15.5 4:88 D ND ND' D N D y1, 1 :7 e n D D .8 teR n N . D. ND ND D ND P.. ND. 33A 8. 7` o-Pt° n Sult&de ND ND ND' D D ND: NQ ND D NQ NQ ND ND ND N N ene N. M - N6 ND' NQ !i8.$ erc n N N ND: ND N SuNkie ND ND. ND ND ND ND ND: ND ND D M .. .. ........ Ott ND ND: ND: ND ND' NQ ND D ND D D N D 1? N N enc i a D ND' ND: ND' N Ifide ND ND 0 ND: ND NQ D N ',- apaiyle reported is betaw latnratory mskhad reporting limit; consirkr result,an esdrriate. Add the following text after the last paragraph: Following the receipt of the odor evaluation, ERL discussed the possible need for modeling the results obtained with ERL's air modeling/permitting consultant. Based on the number of verified odor complaints received by the Landfill at that time (in the Spring of 2005, ERL had received no verified odor .complaints and five possible odor complaints), and discussions with the air modeling/permitting consultant, it was determined that such modeling was not necessary. The most recent set of performance testing was detailed in Results of the February 11, 2004, Testing for NMOC Concentrations from the Enclosed Flare, dated March 2004, prepared by Bart Engineering. The following is a summary of the information: Table 6-13 Enclosed Flare Performance Testing Results Parameter Result Methane, m 167.7 *NMOC, m as ro ane 3:0 02, % 18.3 Moisture Content, % 3.74 NMOC, m as Hexane corrected to 3% 02 10.5 Estimated Gas flow to Flare 379 cfin *NMOC = nonmethanogenic organic compounds The flow rate to each of the engine generator sets and to the flare is measured on a continuous basis. Currently, the flow rate to the flare is approximately 1,100 to 1,200 cfm, and the flow to each of the engine generator sets is approximately 275 to 300 cfin. However, the flow rates (or emission rates) from each of these control devices is not measured. Flow rates were measured during previous performance testing done following construction of the enclosed flare and summarized in a report entitled Compliance Test Report, NMOC, Enclosed Flare dated Apri12001, prepared by Earth Tech. The following flow rates were measured at that time: Table 6-14 Enclosed Flare Flow Rates Avera a Veloci and Flow Rates Veloci , fts 19 Volumetric Flow Rate, ACFM 59,791 Volumetric Flow Rate, SCFM 17,480 .Volumetric Flow Rate, DSCFM 16,320 Section °6.4.5 , Add the.following text after the second paragraph: The ERL tracks all odor complaints received by the Facility. Based on these records, -the following odor complaints were received in 2004 and 2005: Table 6-15 Odor Complaint Log, 2004 and 2005 Date. Made .Logged by Description Verified b 2/18/2004 Neighbor E)tI, Odor was described as not a Landfill odor, No to NE something else, .more petroleum, probably coming for the LFG-to-energy plant. ERMU did ambient air testing with. a~portable gas meter in area of plant, but no detectable readings found, and thus not able to link odor to any on-site activities. Wind was 6 h from the west. 3/02/2004 Neighbor ERL EItL call County to assist with odor No to NE investigation. County arrived on site shortly after receiving complaint and investigated the odor with ERL staff. County noted no odors. No activities at BRL able to be linked to odor. Wind was WNW at 10 h. 3/10/2004 Unknown County County and City visited site in response to call No received. A mild odor. was observed, but not strong enough to be a nuisance off-site. Additional inspections were done by County in following days with no odors noted. WSW wind at 15-25 h. Date Made Logged by Description Verified b 7/7/2004 Neighbor ERL Described as a bad odor in area of gas plant. Likely to NE ERL staff did note a slight odor, but unable to determine source of odor on site. Wind ENE at 15 h. 7/11/2004 Neighbor MPCA Described as a bad odor. Did receive three No (reported to NE inches of rain, but no special activities occurring 7/12/2004) on site, and no odors noted on site. No wind and rainin at time of co Taint. 7/12/2004 Neighbor ERL Stated was coming from the gas plant. ERL and .Maybe to NE ERMU looking at hiring testing company to " determine sources of odors at gas plant. Wind from NW-N at 1 h. 8/28/2004 - Neighbor ERL No special activities occurring. ERL called City. No 8/30/2004. to NE to assist in odor investigation. ERL staff did not (reported detect any odors on site or at neighbors' 8/30/2004) residence on-8/30, and did not register any readings with portable gas meters. Wind from WNWat8m h. 9/24/2004 - Neighbor MPCA Due to time of call, ERL staff not able to No 9/26/2004 to NE adequately investigate. Odor not described as (reported from landfill, though no specifics given. ERL 9/29/2004) ' tried to contact resident, but unable to get details. Wind directions varied during time period from SW atOtoSmph,WatOtoSmph,andSEat0 to 5 h durin time frame of odors. 10/1/2004 Neighbor ERL Described as smell from landfill: ERL staff No to NE investigated andnoted a slight odor at south gate, but no odor at resident's home. Did note gas fumes from vehicle traffic due to summer vacation travelers onHwy 169 N (adjacent to residence . Wind NW at 5 to 10 h. 10/2/2004 Neighbor ERL Described as real bad odor from landfill: ERL Likely . to NE staff & outside consultant visited residence, and may have noted a slight odor. No activities " occurring at landfill causing odors. Wind from west at 10-15 h 11/11/2004 Neighbor ERL Reported a real strong odor during evening. No (reported to NE Staff noted no odors in morning. ERL submitted 11/12/2004) a series of letters to resident. to document steps the facility wanted to take to resolve odors the resident was experiencing and the resident's refusal of such actions. 3/4/2005 County County Strong smell after hours on a Friday (6:00 p.m.). Maybe (reported (Hwy East Reported to ERI, on Monday. Due to timing of 3/7/2005) of ERL) reporting, unable to investigate. No smell noted at the facility on Saturday, and no activities being conducted on site causing an increase in odors.. Prevailing wind was less than 1 mph from the NW at time of co Taint. 10/11/2005 Neighbor ERL Caller from Ridges of Rice Lake noted strong No to SW smell outside her house. ERL staff investigated, and did not detect any odor. Contacted three other nei hors in the area, and none of them Date Made Logged by Description Verified b noted any smell. Additionally, County was at ERL at time of call, and noted no odors during their inspection. Facility had received seven inches of rain the week before. Wind speed and- directionnot available (weather station damaged durin storm . 10/25/2005 Neighbor ERL, City & Caller noted strong garbage smell. Caller also Yes to SW County noted having never had odor issues with facility before. This complaint was following a series of intense rain events that caused ponding of water in Cell 17. Odor was linked to area were leachate was being pumped'from Cell 17 into Cell 16. Leachate pumping operations between Cell 17 & 16 were ceased immediately, cover was placed over the trenches in Cell 16, and additional cover was placed in surrounding areas of Cell 16. Following these measures; no odors were noted in the area, such that ERL received a call that Friday from the original caller thanking the facili for ro tl correctin the issue 12/8/2005 Two City (ERL & . Two calls to City from residents of Ridges of Likely Neighbors County also Rice Lake. City investigated the odor calls, and to SW contacted) noted slight odor in southwest corner of the ERL (in vicinity of Cell 17 where water was previously ponded due to rain events). However City noted no odors in neighborhood where calls originated. Conditions were calm (no measurable winds eed or direction at time . Additional information regarding each of the above odor complaints is provided in the quarterly leachate recirculation reports, which are provided to the MPCA, Sherburne County, and the city of Elk. River for review-each quarter. Such data includes detailed weather data from the on-site weather station, which was installed in August 2004, and an analysis of such data with regard to the time and location of each of the recorded complaints. It is important that regulators promptly notify ERL when any odor complaints are received. This allows the ERL to properly investigate odor related issues, and modify any. on-site operations as necessary based on the complaints. If any additional odor complaint calls were received by Sherburne County, the city of Elk River, or the MPCA during 2004 or 2005, the complaints were not relayed to the ERL .and were, therefore, not included in Table 6-15. Fifteen odor complaints were received by the facility during 2004 and 2005. The majority of the complaints (10 to 11) were from a single property owner located to the northeast of the Landfill, and the majority of these complaints (7 to 8) were unable to be verified by ERL staff, regulatory agencies, or by correlating weather data. Throughout 2004 and 2005, one verifiable complaint was received, and five complaints were received that while not verifiable, either due to when the complaint was reported or follow-up investigations, were deemed possible based on weather data and/or on-site activities at the time of the complaint. Section 6.5.3 Last sentence: Replace $700,000 with $70,000. Figure 6 Replace Figure 6 with the attached revised Figure 6. Appendix B -Bibliography Add: Timothy Bray, MNDOT District 3. E-mail correspondence to Debra Moynihan. "Elk River Landfill expansion EIS," July 14, 2005 Table 6-5 Sedimentation Basin HydroCAD Modeling Results Table 6-6 Flow Velocities Associated with Basin Outlets and other Drainage Structures Table 6-7 Southwest Wetland Storage Analysis Pre-development and Post- . development Comparison .Table 6-8 ,Sediment Removal Summary Table 6-9 Summary of Potential Impacts to Different Watersheds Table 6-10 Typical Landfill Gas Components Table 6-11 Odor Testing Results Table 6-12 Chemical Composition of Exhaust Gases Table 6-13 Enclosed Flare Performance Testing Results Table 6-14 Enclosed Flare Flow Rates Table 6-15 Odor Complaint Log, 2004 and 2005 Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix B Bibliography Appendix C Definitions P: IPro/ectrIPCAIPCA05011FinalElSlfrnal eis 122005.doc v Elk River Landfill Expansion August 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement S N _ 'E ~ U - @ _ ¢ Z~v ~lD W ~ y~y ~ J WWWWJ ~Cp LL ' ~ ~=. U 0 W 4 a~J Uj UX ~ h J o' g pG> o ¢~ ¢W o a 3 m$ c>?z~ '9' w a~ aJ z J ~ ~ S w` wpWd it u. gW ~~ ~ w aW a ~ ~ 8 ¢Z ~ c ~°o, -~~ ? O U C~ U C7 (9 a o H ~ N H ~ q p O Q~ u r U z NO `n0 O w W O XK ~.. p a° P ~Z ar >_ ° ~ g a~ a~ °° OJ ~ Z ~a = ~ E c ~aaY ~O ~O O WJ w m a~ w ~ ° ~~>w a~ of v~ a~ 3 a ¢a J c~ a g yz~ ® O ~" ~ i -- ~ a=o f : ° a n. ~ N d ! ui n c Amy o a N u' ~ °z v ~ 0 ~- N _-___ l -- a - _ ... a _ - \. ~\ us tee _ '~~„~.w•r~"'° - ~ o ~ 3 _ FD _~,~ ~ / m N .... i ~ ..,„.. : ~ ~ Q ~ k ~ u ~cn ~ ~ i CO n y 9 m n m ~ -~ 1 ~ L: ~ j .5 ~ i Q 3 ~.' ~ i E N 3 i s e r, ' ~ •. ~ 1 N N ~ Q ,`V e U .,~ CAW ~~ ,`a 9 m ~ N r ~ p x - ~ /~•~ ~ ~ "lam" ~ (n I O~ ~ ~ 2 f {y~~ i ' J s J i I ~ - ~1 _ Y ,! n U 1 U W W 5 W ~ W ! W W I W W W aJ f.` / ~. ~ ~ a LC ~ d ~ _ ~ ~ lY _r s~ ,r ~ d 4 t=- tom- ~ t- t' F ~ - F Wp tom- F 1~- °~ / ,~. ! -~/ ~,,..- 5 \ W ~ ~ _ LL LL ~ n LL.' v LL ` `. b " N ~ N N ~ CV N N ' ~ ~ r I ~ ! S6,J ' J F, J i -l J Z J ~ J ~ ~ M ~ \ ~~/J _ S J J J J J J ~ J 3 ' U ~ U - U U ~ W j W Vi e W W w ~ w~ g :/~ !~ ° N fl. ~ i ~ ~ m (~~ ~ E ~ ! i ' YCjt~ i N _ ~ ¢ Q m ; ~ O(n ~^ O V e 1 '\ ; , 1 i I ~ ~ ` N Z aj N ! I ~ .` ~^. j ! O ~ ~ I / ~ ~y+. i~ ! ~ ~` an :n i jt j J P A ., ~ - ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ! M m .~. 3 pn v d ~ _, ., o a n. .._..... - a S ._. _ , Q - ~_, uS r - d m i ' _. _ \ "....,, ------- ~ 3-.._.._ _ - ~ . - , ..,. ,. ~ w _~... .. '~ ~ ass ,W w '`-.., ..__... F . ,y ,~ m ~ ~ ,. ~w p¢o .. .: a~ ~'.. uBp~OZ B~ UY~ 9L90 50 \ 6-MSCry\UBD\ LORL(Itl \ sO(10/ \:N ATTACHMENT 3a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Elk River Landfill Expansion Final Environmental Impact Statement LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Rebecca. Haug, Environmental Administrator, City of Elk River. Letter received January 30, 2006. city of Elk - River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 January 27, 2006 ~~r~ ~ Zoos PAGE.......... aP....... Ms. Debra Moynihan Project Manager Environmental Review and Operations Section Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 t_afayette Road North S#. Paul, MN 55155-4194 RE: Elk River landfill Expansion Final Environmental Impact Statement, January 2006 Dear Ms. Moynihan: The City of Elk River (Clty} has completed a review of the above-referenced document for the Waste Management,... Inc:: (V1/M1} 'Elk River 4:andfill. , .The City _ is concerned that the Final Environmental Impact-Statement (EIS) has not achieved the objectives ~of~ the° EIS ~ scopirg document 'for a number of important issues. The City requests tha# additional analysis be .completed to,address these concerns .and to more accurately define the potential environmental impacts for our: residents. ., .. . A review of the specific MPCA responses to the December 1, 2005 comment letter-has been completed. Clarification and further comment on a number of technical points is provided for future reference. Please refer to Appendix A of the Final EIS, January 2006 for the original EIS comment and MPCA response. Odors Numerous comments on the EI$ were received regarding the potential for future odors generated at the Site. The MPCA concludes that the only source of odors that can be fim~lly identified is a "crankcase breather vent for the Waste#o Energy Plant located at the site. Information presented in the EIS En'ata (January 2006} indicate odor complaints associated with- rainfall events and landfill operations conducted for Cell 17. MPCA's conclusion related to odors does not appear to be supported by the additional information contained in the errata. The City requests that a quantitative assessment be made for the effectiveness of the ~Srnog Hog° control equipment for current and- future operations. Odors associated with landfill operations within the waste cells- should be ftarther investiga#ed and specific mitigative measures proposed for the site. _ .. Comment 1-14, Odor Complaints - The MPCA response reviews odor complaints and qualifies them as °verified" or "unverified'`: it is. .important to note that the; ircumstances for investigeting odor complaints are/were highly variable and confirmation of odors experienced is a subjective assessment,_ for the most part.' Unverified odor complaints should not be discounted in the overall odor assessment-for the Site. Phone: 763.635.1000 ` ' Fax: 763.635.1Og0 www ci.elk-river.mn.us `' ~ Page 2 January 27, 2006 Water Resources The- EIS scoping document indicated that the EIS would address the potential physical impacts to the wetland that will occur from the post-closure hydraulic and sediment loading to the wetland. !n response to the City's comment, the MPCA indicated that the hydraulic loading to the wetland will increase from the existing condition of 1.1 acre-feet to 22.3 acre-feet in the post-closure condition for the 25-year design storm. However, the EIS and MPCA response to comments do not identify the anticipated change in sediment loading for the wetland. The City requests that this analysis be completed. The Cjty is concerned regarding the accuracy of the. hydraulic evaluation for the wetland which indicates a water level increase of 2.26 feet (above existing conditions) for the 25-year design storm. Information provided to the MPCA regarding this evaluation would likely yield a greater increase in water level for the current wetland outlet design. The City requested a conclusion regarding potential impacts to the wetland and MPCA responded that the stormwater basins for the site need to be redesigned in the permitting phase of the project. The City respectfully believes is conclusion does not meet the intent of the EIS scoping document. The landfill expansion proposes surface water discharge from the southwest comer of development where no discharge currently occurs. The City questioned the potential downstream .affect of site development for County Ditch 31. The MPCA responded that this offsite analysis is beyond the scope of the EIS. The MPCA further indicated that the hydrauNc impact to the wetland complex for the 100-year storm event is less than 0.1 feet. The City disagrees and requests that the EIS address the potential hydraulic impact to County Ditch 31 considering .the recent urbanization of the area and increased flooding concerns for downstream land owners. In summary, the City requests that additional analysis be conducted to accurately .assess the Impacts to the onsite wetland, pond redesign and downstream receiving waters. We request that the MPCA conclude whether the impacts are significant and if so, provide specific provisions to mitigate these impacts. Comment 2-11. US Army Cores of Engineers Section 404 permit The response rndreated that USAGE does not have authority to regulate discharges to wetlands in the form of a stormwater discharge. The City contacted its representative from the USAGE, Yvonne Berner .and was infomtied that all discharges including stormwater are regulated ~ the discharge results in increased sediment- loading to the wetland. The USAGE can request the preparation of a 404 permit application for review. Comment 2-15. Sedimen# Loading to the Wetland Prease calculations are not necessary. Calculations are appropriate to enable a comparative analysis. between the existing conditions and -the proposed development. An estimate of sediment mass loading to the wetland can be made by multiplying the anticipated total suspended solids concentration for the outlet of sedimentation basin P-1 by the volume of water that will be discharged for the design storm event. Comment 2-17. Culverts peneath Rail Bed Representatives of the City completed a field survey of the western property boundary of the SDA in December 2005 and identified the existence of an approximate 18-inch diameter reinforced Page 3 January 27, 2006 concrete culvert pipe which conveys surface water from the landfill to the Rice LakelTibbits Brook wetland complex. This culvert is located. at engineering plan station N 246850, or approximately 350 north of Cell 18, which is the first cell of the landfill expansion. The amount of surface water flow to the culvert during the initial stages of landfill expansion has not been quantified with the current engineering plans. Comment 2-8. Water Wells The response implies that litholigic units between the landfill and residential water wells are able to be correlated. The City maintains that the continuity of the clay confining layer beyond the SDA boundaries cannot be demonstrated with the existing information. The response al&o indicates that "there is evidence to conclude that there may be an additional (second) confining unit separating the screened intervals from the upper outwash". The City requests that this evidence be provided. Visual Impacts The EIS presented photographic renderings for visual screening for the landfill without reference to any coordinating plan document. The City's comment for the draft EIS was not addressed and the City believes that the EIS falls short of the intent of the EIS scoping document. The City requests that this issue be corriprehensively addressed by the development of a draft Screening Plan (Plan). The Plan should show the development of screening at various phases of the landfill expansion and waste deposit development. The Screening Plan should be consistent w~h the. End Use Plan for the. site. Highway 7691nterchange The City commented on the need for specific input from MnDOT project offiaals on the feasibility of the proposed 'landfill development plan for the SDA in .relation to the planned interchange for 221~t Street. The City notes that a comment letter was not received by MPCA and is concerned with the lack of input from MnDOT related to the development of the Site in relation to future roadway infrastructure. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding the City's review and comment of the final EIS document. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca Haug Environmental Administrator cc: .Lori Johnson, City of Elk River Dave Lucas, Sherburne County Debra Walters, Elk River Landfill, WMI Q:W-C1CER12000-020\Cort1Letters 2005U1U51108EIS_Comments.doc ATTACIIMENT 3b Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Elk River Landfill Expansion Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EIS 1. Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator City of Elk River Letter received January 30, 2006. Comment 1-1: The city of Elk River (City) states that the MPCA received numerous comments on the EiS concerning the potential for future odors generated at the site and that the MPCA concludes that the only source of odors that can be firmly identified is a "crankcase breather vent" for the landfill gas-to- energy plant located at the site. Information presented in the EIS Errata indicates odor complaints associated with rainfall events and landfill operations conducted for Cell 17. The MPCA's conclusion related to odors does not appear to be supported by the additional information provided in the Errata. The City requests that a quantitative assessment be made for the effectiveness of the "Smog Hog" control equipment for current and future operations. Odors associated with landfill operations within the waste cells should be further investigated and specific mitigative measures proposed for the site. Response: MPCA staff received several comments on the Draft EIS from Sherburne County concerning the complaints that had been received over the past two years and the odor testing that had been .conducted by Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL or Landfill) and Elk River Municipal Utilities (1RMU) to determine the cause of those odors. Sherburne County staff felt that this information should have been included in greater detaiLthan what had been provided in the Draft EIS. MPCA staff appreciates the constructive comments from Sherburne County and included the additional information requested into the Errata sheet for the Final EIS. The information in the Errata is not a conclusion made by MPCA, but a summary of the odor test results voluntarily conducted by the ERL and ERMU. The results identified the "crank case breather vent" as having the most detectable odor of the point sources tested and MPCA staff has no reason to question the data. As for the additional informationconcerning the complaints received, unless a specific source or reason can be identified as causing the odor at the time of the complaint, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to apply mitigative measures. As noted in the Errata, when ERL received odor complaints, it investigated the site to try to verify the odor and/or determine the source or cause of the odor. In most cases, the odor was not able to be verified and there were no on-site activities or events occurring that seemed likely to be the cause of the complaint. However, in some instances, it was noted that the odors stemmed from an _ activity at the site (e.g., trenching through the waste to install a new gas header pipe,. successive heavy rainfall events). The MPCA agrees that mitigative measures are possible for these types of odor events. The mitigative measure that can be taken by ERL is specific to the activity causing the odors. If a trench needs to be dug through the waste, it is best if done during winter months and the .length of time that waste is exposed should be kept to an absolute minimum. For excessive rainfall events, additional pumping can be. provided to remove water from the waste as quickly as possible. Sometimes placing additional cover material is all that is needed to contain the odor. These are typical situations that all landfills must address and manage as part of the day-to-day operations of the site. ERL has repeatedly demonstrated its timeliness in responding to odor complaints that can be associated with these types of c ,, Elk River Landfill Expansion Final Environmental Impact Statement Elk River, Minnesota Response to Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement activities. MPCA staff believes that these types of odor issues have been, and will continue to be, appropriately addressed and managed at the Landfill facility and that the information provided in the EIS as supplemented is adequate to address the odor issue. The MPCA staff notes that it was the complaints that were identified as being more of a "petroleum or gassy" nature, and not the typical landfill-related odors, that led to ERL investigating other odor sources at the site. This led to the discovery of the crankcase breather vent. The City's request for a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the "Smog Hog" control equipment proposed for the crank case breather vent is outside the scope of the EIS. The Final Scoping Decision document stated that the EIS would "identify sources of landfill gas emissions and describe the existing control practices and monitoring plans used by ERL to detect landfill gases generated by the facility and current and proposed plans used to mitigate and respond to landfill gas emissions." The MPCA believes the information provided in the Final EIS adequately addresses landfill gas emissions and the odor issue as provided in the approved scope. Comment 1-2: The MPCA's response to Comment 1-14 on the Draft EIS reviews odor complaints and qualifies them as "verified" or "unverified." The City comments that it is important to note that the circumstances- for investigating odor complaints are/were highly variable and confirmation of odors experienced is a subjective assessment, for the most part. Unverified odor complaints should not be discounted in the overall assessment for the site. Response:. The MPCA does not discount unverified odor complaints. Otherwise, the unverified complaint information would not have been provided in Table 6-15 of the Final EIS (Errata sheet.) Please also see Response 1-1 above. Comment 1-3: The City comments that the EIS scoping document indicated that the EIS would address the potential physical impacts to the wetland that will occur from the post-closure hydraulic and sediment loading to the wetland. In response to the City's comment [on the draft EIS], the MPCA indicated that the hydraulic loading to the wetland will increase from the existing condition of 1.1 acre-feet to 22.3 acre- feet in the post closure condition for the 25-year design storm. However, the EIS and MPCA response to comments do not identify the anticipated change in sediment loading for the wetland. The City requests that this analysis be completed and suggests an approach using total suspended solids (TSS) data. Response: -The City's suggested approach to calculating sediment loading to tie wetland is not possible with the available data. The City suggests multiplying the anticipated TSS concentration for the outlet of sedimentation basin P-1 by the volume of water that will be discharged for the design storm event. However, the available data does not quantify TSS concentration. The scope of the EIS did not direct the preparers of the EIS to perform additional. calculations, but to analyze the available data. Although the 1VIPCA staff does not believe that the TSS approach is viable, a comparative analysis. can be performed given the soil loss calculations provided and summarized in Table 6-9 of the EIS. Existing conditions calculations assume there is the potential for 136.6 tons/year of sediment to be produced and introduced to the southwest wetland. Sediment loading for fmal construction conditions suggests a potential .for 241.9 tons/year of sediment be produced. However, the stormwater produced during final construction conditions will be treated through detention basins. Assuming a minimum of 90 percent removal efficiency (it maybe greater efficiency), the sediment amount leaving basin P-1 will be 24.19 tons/year that will be introduced into the- southwest wetland. This is a decrease of 112.41 tons/year from existing conditions. 2 . ~' Elk River Landfill Expansion Final Environmental Impact Statement Elk River, Minnesota Response to Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement Not all of the sediment produced in existing conditions may reach the wetland. There may be deposition points along the flow paths and flow within. the watershed may not all be directed to the southwest wetland. However, even if a quarter of the sediments produced during existing conditions reach the southwest wetland, there would. be no net increase in sediment loading. The scope states that the EIS consultant will use the stormwater management calculations .and modeling assumptions that were developed by ERL for the comparison analyses. In other words; the Scoping Decision Document stated that the EIS would evaluate theproposed project using existing modeling information and calculations generated by ERL during the design. The EIS evaluation of sediment loading to the wetland is based on design standards and sediment removal efficiencies of the sedimentation basin P-1, which provides a general comparison of the sediment loadings. MPCA staff believes that the discussion on potential changes in sediment loadings to the southwest wetland fulfills the scope of the EIS. Comment 1-4: The City is concerned regarding the accuracy of the hydraulic evaluation for the wetland which indicates a water level increase of 2.26 feet (above existing conditions) for the 25-year design storm. Information provided to the MPCA regarding this. evaluation would likely yield a greater increase in water level .for the current wetland outlet design. In its comment on the Draft EIS, the City requested a conclusion regarding the potential impacts to-the wetland and MPCA responded that the stormwater basins for the site need to be redesigned in the permitting phase of the project. The City respectfully believes this conclusion does not meet the intent of the EIS scoping document. - Response: As noted above, the scope of the EIS directs the EIS consultant to use available data and_ assumptions provided by ERL. A review of the data provided to the MPCA suggests that a water level increase of 2.26 feet is reasonable with the proposed 18-inch outlet. Additional calculations performed during subsequent review do not suggest otherwise, The stormwater controls will be redesigned as stated in the EIS. Peak flows and discharges can be modified during redesign, if necessary. Since the City did - not provide the basis for questioning the peak hydraulic loading to the wetland, MPCA staff cannot provide a more specific response to that concern. The purpose of the EIS is to examine the proposed project within the approved scope and identify potential adverse effects from the project inconsideration of the reasonably available measures that could reduce or eliminate the adverse effect. The EIS analysis concludes that, based on the current design of the stormwater basins, the stormwater discharge from the project has the potential to impact the wetland located in the southwest corner of the Southern Development Area (SDA) site and recommends the basins be redesigned as a mitigation measure. A precise description of the impacts to the wetland from the current proposal is not possible and would serve no further purpose. MPCA staff believes the EIS meets the intent of the approved scope. Comment 1-5: The landfill expansion. proposes surface water discharge from the southwest corner of development where no discharge currently occurs. The City questioned the potential downstream effect of site development for County Ditch 31 (see Comment 2-I8 on the Draft EIS.) The MPCA responded that this offsite analysis is beyond the scope of the EIS. The MPCA further indicated that the hydraulic impact to the wetland complex for the 100-year storm event is less than 0.1 feet. The City disagrees and .requests that the EIS address the potential hydraulic impact to County Ditch 31 considering the recent. urbanization of the area and increased flooding concerns for downstream land owners. Elk River Landfill Expansion Final Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Final Environmental Impact Statement '~ , Response: The approved Scoping Decision Document (included as Exhibit A to Attachment 1) does not provide for an analysis of stormwater impacts to County Ditch 31 and its associated wetland complex. The scope specifically identifies that the EIS will discuss impacts to the Rice Lake/Tibbitts Brook wetland complex and the wetland located in the southwest corner of the SDA site. At the time of scoping, the MPCA staff did not believe that there was the potential for significant impacts to County Ditch 31, nor did anyone bring this issue to MPCA staff's attention at that time. Comment 1-6: In summary, the City requests that additional analysis be conducted to accurately assess the impacts from stormwater to the onsite wetland, pond redesign and downstream receiving waters. We request that the MPCA conclude whether the impacts are significant and if so, provide specific provisions to mitigate these impacts. Response: Please see Responses 1-3, 1-4, and 1-5 above. The MPCA staff believes that the Final EIS contains adequate information on these issues. The EIS concludes that, as currently designed, the stormwater management system would impact the wetland. The stormwater management system will need to be re-designed during the permitting process, but the MPCA staff does not believe that it is reasonable to postpone a decision on the adequacy of the EIS for this design process. If the re-design is not adequately protective and there are significant impacts to the wetland from the stormwater discharge, the Landfill will need to meet the requirements for wetland mitigation from the Industrial Stormwater Permit. Wetland mitigation will also become a permit condition of the Solid Waste Permit. Comment 1-7: The response to Comment 2-11 on the Draft EIS indicated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not have authority to regulate discharges to wetlands in the form of a stormwater discharge. The City contacted its representative from the USACE, Yvonne Berner and was informed that all discharges-- including stormwater-- are regulated if the discharge results in increased sediment loading to the wetland. The USACE can request the preparation of a 404 permit application for review. Response: MPCA staff contacted Marita Valencia, .the USAGE, to discuss the City's comments and to confirm the MPCA staff's understanding of the USACE's authority in relation to the discharge of treated stormwater to a wetland. The point of using a sedimentation basin is to protect the wetland from hydraulic and/or sediment loading. The EIS found that the sedimentation basin, as currently proposed, will impact the southwest wetland, and recommends that the basin be re-designed. After contacting the USACE, MPCA staff stands behind its original response that the USAGE regulates the deposition of fill into wetlands and other types of physical activities-that disturb wetland soils. The USAGE representative indicated that if the USACE was brought into a project as the result of physical activities (such as for the placement of the proposed outlet pipe from.the southwest wetland) that require a Section 404 permit, staff would also look at the potential indirect impacts, such as a discharge from a stormwater basin. In that context, the City's understanding of the USACE's regulatory authorities over the stormwater discharge is correct. However, if there-are no physical activities that require the issuance of a Section 404 permit, the USACE would not issue a Section 404 permit for the treated stormwater discharge alone. -The EIS and response to comments on the Draft EIS state that ERL does not anticipate the need for a USACE permit to address the physical disturbances to the wetland, but this will need to be verified during permitting. when the details are more clearly developed. The Scoping Decision Document states that the EIS will identify the known governmental permits and/or approvals required for the expansion along with the unit of government responsible for each decision. The scope goes on to explain, that while the EIS will provide a variety of information useful for permitting and approval decisions, it is not intended to provide all data and information required for these actions. 4 ~ F 1 Elk River Landfill Expansion Final Environmental Impact Statement Elk River, Minnesota Response to Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement All required permit applications and information for the project will be developed and submitted independent of the EIS. The MPCA believes that the EIS adequately addresses the Section 404 permit issue as provided by the approved scope. Comment 1-8: With respect to MPCA's response to Comment 2-15 on the Draft EIS, the City comments that precise calculations on sediment loading to the southwest wetland are not necessary. The City states that calculations are appropriate to enable a comparative analysis between the existing conditions and the proposed development: An estimate of sediment mass loading to the wetland can be made by multiplying the anticipated total suspended solids concentration for the outlet of sedimentation basin P-1 by the volume of water that will be discharged for the design storm event.. Response: Comment noted..See Responses l-3 and 1-4 above. Comment 1-9: Representatives of the City completed a field survey of the western property of the SDA in December 2005 and identified the existence of an approximate 18-inch diameter reinforced concrete culvert pipe which conveys surface water from the landfill to the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. This culvert is located at engineering plan station N 246850, or approximately 350 north of . Cell 18, which is the first cell of the landfill expansion. The amount of surface water flow to the culvert during the initial stages of landfill expansion has not been quantified with the current engineering plans. Response: As indicated in a response to a previous comment from the City on the Draft EIS, the ERL previously conducted a visual survey of the SDA's western property boundary and did not observe any culverts connecting the proposed SDA to the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. The culvert the City is referring to is actually one of three known culverts connecting the existing Landfill to the Rice;Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. These three culverts are located on the existing Landfill property, not the SDA. The culvert referred to by the City, and verified by ERL on February 22, 2006,. is a 24-inch concrete culvertlocated along the western property boundary near existing Cell 16. The two other culverts located along the western boundary of the existing Landfill property include a 24-inch concrete culvert located near the northern edge of Cell 11, and a 16-inch stainless steel culvert located just north of that, near the existing Demolition Cell D-3. In the EIS and response to comments on the Draft EIS, the MPCA has stated that the majority of the stormwater from the SDA during interim conditions will be directed to a temporary sedimentation pond located to the south of the operating phase of the Landfill, similar to current and historic operating practices at the ERL facility. This stormwater will not impact the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. It is possible that during development of the first few phases of the SDA, a small amount of stormwater from the western sideslope of the SDA maybe directed north to the existing stormwater infrastructure. The amount of stormwater from the SDA that will utilize existing stormwater infrastructure during these first few phases of development has not been quantified, though it is anticipated to be less than the current design capacities of the stormwater infrastructure (which are included in a previous Permit Application dated September 1999, revised June 2001, prepared by Wenck). Any stormwater from the SDA utilizing the existing stormwater infrastructure that would have the potential to flow through the southern 24-inch culvert would be treated. in the existing stormwater pond located in the southwestern portion of the existing Landfill (referred to as Pond P2 in the Permit Application dated September 1999, revised June 2001, prepared by Wenck). This stormwater pond has a storage capacity of 1.44 acre-feet, a flow rate out of the pond at nine cubic foot per second through a 12-inch culvert, and has an A:Qout Ratio. (area of pond surface to flow out of pond)- of 5,760 square feet per cubic feet per second, which indicates the pond will settle out fine silt particles, thus minimizing any sediment to the Rice Lake/Tibbits Brook wetland complex. r Elk River Landfill Expansion Final Environmental Impact Statement Response to Comments on the Elk River, Minnesota Final Environmental Impact Statement Comment 1-10: The City comments that the MPCA's response to Comment 2-9 on the Draft EIS implies that litholigic units between the Landfill and residential water wells are able to be correlated. The City maintains that the continuity of the clay confining layer beyond the SDA boundaries cannot be demonstrated with the existing information. The MPCA's response also indicates that "there is evidence to conclude that there may be an additional (second) confining unit separating the screened intervals from the upper outwash." The City requests that this evidence be provided. Response: Evaluation of the continuity of the confining units beyond the limits of the SDA is not within the approved scope of the EIS. The information on the hydrogeology in the EIS is adequate; however, in response to the prior comment, the MPCA staff undertook an examination of well boring records presented in Appendix B of Geomatrix (2005). These records show multiple confining units at depth in certain off-site wells (e.g., Minnesota unique well numbers 655131, 52979, and 626780). The MPCA staff recognizes that the quality of the information from the residential wells logs is not equivalent with the quality of on-site information; nonetheless, the presence of these units and their approximate elevations are suggestive of additional confining unit(s). Comment 1-11: The City comments that the EIS presented photographic renderings for visual screening for the SDA without reference to any coordinating plan document. The City states that its comment on the Draft EIS was not addressed and the City believes that the EIS falls short of the intent of the EIS scoping. document. The City requests that this issue be comprehensively addressed by the development of a draft Screening Plan. The Screening Plan should show the development of screening at various phases of the landfill expansion and waste deposit development. The Screening Plan should be consistent with the End Use Plan for the site. Response: MPCA staff apologizes for the failure to address the City's comment on the Draft EIS regarding visual impacts. The City's comment was interpreted as an informational item rather than a comment requiring a response. MPCA did not intend.to-have the visual impact analysis fulfill the requirements of a comprehensive Screening Plan required by the City. If that had been the case, MPCA would have clearly stated that in the scope and referenced the Screening Plan required. The scope is very specific about the key locations chosen for the visual impact analysis and the phases of landfill development that would be illustrated. During the public notice comment period for the Scoping Decision Document, the City did not comment that the visual impact analysis should serve as a draft Screening Plan. MPCA believes the visual impacts analysis, as provided, clearly fulfills the intent of the EIS scope: Comment 1-12: The City commented on the need for specific input from Minnesota Department of Transportation (1VIl~TDOT) project officials on the feasibility of the proposed landfill development. plan for the SDA in relation to the planned interchange for 221 ~ Street. The City notes that a comment letter was not received by the MPCA and is concerned with the lack of input from MnDOT related to the development of the SDA in relation to future roadway infrastructure. Response: The Scoping Decision Document stated that the EIS would confirm current or updated plans proposed by MNDOT for the Trunk Highway l69/221St Street intersection improvements and evaluate the impacts of the Landfill expansion on MNDOT's proposed plan. Since the configuration for this intersection has not been developed, MNDOT staff provided the best information they have at this time. ~~ 6 Landmark Environmental LLC June 2, 2009 Ms. Rebecca Haug Environmental Administrator City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Ells River, MN 55330 RE: Elk River Landfill Southern Development Area -Land Use Application Elk River Landfill License and CUP review Dear Ms. Haug: Landmark Environmental has completed a review of the above-referenced document and the current License and CUP for the Ells River Landfill (ERL} project, as requested. Elk River Landfill Southern Development Area -Land Use Application The following comments were generated related to potential environmental concerns associated with the proposed landfill expansion. Landmark personnel have been involved in the evaluation of the hydrogeologic site characterization and facility engineering since the development of this project in 2003. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Section 1-2 discusses the EIS process and the conclusions of the envirommental effects of the landfill expansion. The application state that "the EIS findings concluded that environmental impacts would likely be minimal, and that the proposed management and mitigation standards would meet or exceed regulatory requirements". A review of the March 28, 2006 "Findings of Fact" for the final EIS does not indicate that "environmental impacts would likely be minimal". The Findings of Fact does however; indicate that "the EIS adequately presents methods by which adverse enviromnental impacts can be mitigated (Section VL, #39., page 7). The City of Elk River provided comments at various points ui the EIS process. These are summarized as follows: 1. Offsite surface water impacts 2. Impacts to onsite and offsite wetlands 3. Landfill gas (LFG) management 4. Odor 5. visual impacts 6. MnDOT TH 101/169 Corridor Management Plan Throughout the site investigation, engineering design and EIS processes for the expansion area, these concerns have been primarily addressed by the MPCA and the Elk River Landfill. Remaining environmental concerns will be mitigated through provisions of a License and Conditional Use Permit for the facility. 2042 W. 98`" Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55439 Phone: (952} 887-9601 Fax: (952) 887-9605 vvww.landmarkenv.com Ms Rebecca Haug June 2, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Gas-To-EnerQv The application discusses the collection of LFG to reduce green house gas emissions, air pollution and odors in Section 1.2.2. It is important to note that the landfill is compelled by EPA regulations to collect LFG based on the large size of the waste deposit. The landfill has the option of combusting the LFG in a flare or utilizing an engine for energy recovery. Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF) Section 1.2.3 of the application indicates a desire to create a HHWF at the landfill site. The applicant makes no commitment to construct and operate the HHWF. Site Screenine Section 1.2.4 discusses the screening plan for the SDA for the various bomidaries of the SDA. The vegetation Plan for the South boundary does not appear to be feasible considering the engineeruig development plans (see Wenck Associates, Sheet 2, plan station N24440, E581400). Particular concerns relate to the area near the outlet to Sedimentation Pond, P2 and westward along 221St Street. Waste fill limit setbacks should be increased in this area to accommodate the needed sedimentation ponds, access road and proposed screening. The west boundary of the site is not planned for screening enhancement due to the existing vegetation. It should be noted that the majority of vegetation is deciduous and will not provide opaque screening from November to May. It is recommended that the applicant develop a buffer and/or screening maintenance plan to assure that dead/diseased vegetation is removed and replaced as needed to maintain the effectiveness of screening. It is important to note that the setback distances of up to 450 feet that are stated, represent the distance to waste fill limit and not the distance to site improvements such as access roads, leachate holding tanks, facility structures and sedimentation ponds. Proposed Landfill Design Section 1.2.5 discusses the detail of the landfill design. The applicant is proposing the construction, operation and closure of the SDA utilizing state-of--the-Art technologies and procedures. An important aspect of the proposal is landfill leachate recirculation which enables the liquids collected at the base of the landfill to be reintroduced near the upper levels of the waste mass. The advantages of this technique are to: (1) reduce the time to waste stabilization, Q2) enable higher waste density at closure, (3) decrease the cost of offsite leachate treatment, and (4) reduce the demand on public infrashucture. Leachate recirculation will greatly increase the amount of Iandfill gas that will be generated from the landfill. The primary concerns relate to landfill gas collection and the prevention of fugitive gas emissions and odors. Temporary final cover is proposed as an element of the September 2008 "Leachate Recirculation Permit Application" proposal. The criteria for when an area would receive temporary final cover indicating the maximum length of time of inactive fill operations needs to be identified. Similarly, the maximum area allowed for inactive fill areas prior to placing temporary final cover need to be identified by the applicant. ERL has proposed that the leachate cleanout risers will be perforated along a portion of the sideslope. The April 16, 2009 engineering plans do not show this detail. ERL must commit to conducting active extraction from cleanout risers if positive LFG pressure is observed. Ms Rebecca Haug June 2, 2009 Page 3 of 6 To provide additional LFG extraction capacity, the design must be modified to place horizontal LFG collection piping within the sand drainage layer at the east west ridge (high point) of the liner system. The supplemental LFG collection piping must extend up the sideslopes to enable connection to the LFG extraction system and to enable cleanout maintenance. Another strong concern of the current design relates to LFG control at the south, liner transition bean (temporary) for the next cell. Operational experience has shown LFG (and odor) releases through the drainage layer. One option to reduce this effect would be to extend a FML flap back over the sand drainage layer for a distance of 10 feet. The flap would be removed at the time of the subsequent cell construction. Plan Sheet 5 of Leachate Recirculation Plan presents the details related to the drainfield design. It is recommended that the main east-west, 4-inch pipe for the drainfield be solid pipe. The current design will result in a higher localized Leachate dosing in the vicinity of 50 foot lateral pipe tees. A solid walled pipe would also help ensure even dosing along the entve length of the drainfield. Plan Sheet 6 of the Leachate Recirculation Plan presents the details related to the piping systems. The location of detail 3/6 is not referenced to a plan drawing. A detail which shows the transition from the buried pipe to the ground surface at the edge of the liner system must be provided. What techniques will be used for frost protection in areas where the depth of burial for Leachate forcemain piping is less than standard? ERL must prepare detailed record drawingsldocuments of recirculation drainfield construction, which are certified by an engineer. The drawings will include survey measurements of the drainfield areas to document position within the cell, suitable base contours and piping elevations. All construction must be fully documented. This information is critical in potential problem resolution during later stages of landfill operation. The City understands that tecluiology concerning landfill design and operations is constantly evolving and encourages ERL to implement new approaches where appropriate. The City's support of ERL's Leachate recirculation proposal is an example. ERL has full opportunity to utilize new technologies and best practices as they are developed by identifying the relevant changes with corresponding justification demonstrating operational compliance with the CUP and License. Grading and Drainage Mining activities for the SDA are described in the September 30, 2002 "Application for Amendments to Conditional Use Permits for Mineral Extraction and Landfill Operation". Mining will be conducted to within 50 feet of the east and south property boundaries and within five feet of groundwater table. This activity essentially mines the available soils from the site. It appears that a very significant volume of general fill soils will be necessary to construct the liner basegrades for the final construction phases as provided by the engineering plans. ERL has not provided an earthwork balance analysis for the construction and operation of the site. A concern exists that sufficient native soils will be available for operation and general construction such that import of general fill materials is not needed to complete landfill operations. ERL has stated that the volume of reject sand from mining operations will be sufficient to provide operational cover and general fill for all liner and final cover construction sequences. Prior to construction approval of the final development of the site (cells 25A and 25B), ERL shall provide an appropriate earthwork balance for construction and operation such that the amount of fill imported into the site is minimized. Ms Rebecca Haug June 2, 2009 Page 4 of 6 During site development, the applicant has indicated that all stormwater for active areas will be routed to temporary sedimentation basins which will infiltrate and evaporate collected surface water drainage. No surface water discharge will be allowed from developed areas of the site until the necessary permanent storm water collection, treatment and discharge system is constructed. The surface water management plan for the SDA has improved significantly since the initial proposal. The first statement made in Section 1.2.6. which reads..."The ERL has made it their priority to handle and control all stoimwater generated on the SDA site", is somewhat misleading however. This statement is true within the engineering design for the facility, accommodating a nominal 25-year, 24- hour storm event. Calculations provided by the applicant indicate the hydraulic capacity of sedimentation pond P-1 to accommodate roughly a 50-year, 24-hour storm event. For storm events which exceed the retention capacity, surface water will be routed to the onsite wetland located in the southwest corner of the development and potentially to offsite receptors. The applicant has established a contingency action fund to provide for corrective actions for unexpected occurrences such as severe rainfall events. The contingency action cost estimates for "severe erosion repair" must to be increased to account for corrective actions for potential wetland damage resulting from a severe rainfall event. The current storm water plans need to be amended to include provisions for erosion control in pet7meter surface water chamieis. Rip rap and/or erosion control matting must to be added based on potential flow velocities for design storm events. The surface water management system involves the construction of a storm sewer from the outlet of sedimentation pond, P-1 northerly to the Rice Lake wetland complex. A significant section of the storm will be constructed under the City-owned trail property. The applicant will need to obtain an easement from the Ciry for this construction. Landfill End Use Section 1.2.8 of the application discusses the alternative end uses for the site. The City has previously commented (June 17, 2004) on the need to enhance surface water control on the topslopes of the waste deposit. For typical final contour design, the length of uncontrolled surface water drainage is excessive. Additional surface water control berms which may be needed will break up the area into smaller areas for active end uses. The current final contour design does not address these concerns. The barrier layer of the fuial cover system increases the time for cover soils to fully drain. This condition may significantly reduce the practicality of turf surfaces for active uses. From a landfill post- closure operations and maintenance perspective, passive end uses for the site are preferred. Elk River Landfill License and CUP Review The current ERL license and CUP have been reviewed in light of the operations that are being conducted at the site. The following comments and suggested additions to these documents are based on site visits and review of recent annual reports for ERL. Recommended conditions could be inserted in Section 4.) "Suecific Additional Operational Requirements" starting on page 7 of the current license agreement. Leachate Seeps There have been a number of Leachate seeps which have occurred in recent years. Documentation on the precise location of seeps has not been developed. This information is critical in potential problem resolution during later stages of landfill operation. The documentation of the seeps should include a Ms Rebecca Haug June 2, 2009 Page 5 of 6 survey position with an elevation. This would also enable a more useful evaluation of the potential relationship with the leachate recirculation system. Gas Probe Monitoringand Analysis Significant positive pressure readings for gas probes have been indicated over the past several years. This condition may indicate landfill gas migration beyond the waste boundaries. In order to fully evaluate this situation, the landfill must collect and report gas concentration and pressure for each probe for each monitoring event. The landfill must also collect temperature and barometric pressure for the site at the time of the monitoring event and the preceding three days before the monitoring event. All gas probe monitoring data must be fully evaluated in the annual operating report. Groundwater linpacts With the submittal of investigative reports, ERL has concluded that P304C area impacts are the result of landfill gas effects. This situation is similar to P-320 area where contaminants are observed in deeper horizons of the outwash deposit. As previously noted the P304C well is screened 40-50 below the groundwater surface and located more than 500 feet from an unlined area of the landfill. Landfill gas effects are more common for water table wells in proximity to unlined landfill areas. The results for gas probe, GP-17 which is located directly adjacent to P304C, show no detectable levels of methane for monitoring conducted in recent years. Tetralrydrofuran and ethyl ether, which are signature parameters for leachate impacts for PC17C, show increasing trends. The evidence for P304C indicates that leachate impacts are also occurring. P314C is located in a sidegradient orientation to P304C and the source area for groundwater at P314C may involve more extensive contamination. The screen position for nearby well P303C is roughly 20 feet in elevation above the screen elevation for P314C and may be missing potential contamination in the deeper portion of the outwash at this location. ERL must conduct additional contaminant investigation and monitoring in the vicinity of P304C, P320 and an area southeast of P314C. This approach is supported with emphasis on evaluating the deeper outwash. Amiual Existing Conditions Plan The Annual Operating Report must include afull-sized enguieering plan to fully illustrate all facility features reviewed in the annual report (landfill gas probes, monitoring wells, gas collection infrastructure, leachate recirculation iifrashucture, etc). The Plan must identify permitted and remaining volumes. Leachate Collection Svstem Maintenance The Annual Operating Report includes iiformation concerning the pressure jetting of the leachate collection system. ERL must provide a full analysis of the maintenance activities including discussions of the need for corrective actions when abnormal conditions are reported by the maintenance crew. Full-Scale Recirculation ERL has proposed the discontiiuation of the Pilot Program and the implementation of full-scale leachate recirculation at the Site. ERL has ideirtified a program for design, operation and ongoing monitoring. The City supports this proposal with the following additional conditions: • Complete engineering plans with a supporting design report must be provided for all proposed leachate recirculation drainfield areas and associated equipment. The engineering report will provide design basis acid operational parameters to ensure even dosing of drainfield areas Ms Rebecca Haug June 2, 2009 Page 6 of 6 • Complete as-built documentation, including surveys, for all drainfield areas and .associated equipment. • All areas where leachate circulation occurs must expand the landfill gas collection system to include horizontal collection lines at the base liner and within the waste matrix. • The City encourages the implementation of an onsite leachate treatment system to reduce the indirect infrastructure and environmental costs of off-site leachate management. • The proposal. to delay final. cover construction may be acceptable if the use of temporary cover systems can mitigate fugitive landfill gas emissions and infiltration of precipitation. • The City encourages the application of leachate at the working face to provide initial and uniform wetting of the v~~aste mass. This technique may help to ultimately stabilize the waste more quickly. Equipment and procedures which are used must address environmental and work safety concerns for ambient conditions at the working face. • Annual reporting must include a map indicating the surveyed location of seeps and evaluation of their source in light of recirculation operations. Ambient Air Monitoring The current air monitoring for landfill gas emissions field survey is only conducted for the topslope area accounts for roughly 20 percent of the fill area. There is a higher likelihood that emissions will occur on the sideslope based on the horizontal stratification of the waste and preferred movement of landfill gas. ERL must modify the area of traverse to include all sideslope and topslope areas for ambient air monitoring events. The safety concern for vehicles on landfill sideslopes can be mitigated by traverse on foot with the survey instrument. If concentrations exceed 500 ppm explosive gas (calibrated to methane), corrective actions are required to amend the Landfill cover to mitigate fugitive emissions. This requirement is important in identifying fugitive gas emissions/odors and ensuring that site conditions are corrected to mitigate their effects. Rejected Waste Loads and Random Load Inspections ERL must provide a list of rejected waste loads and summary with the Annual Operating Report. A summary and analysis of random load inspections (as provided in section 4.2.1. of the April 2008 Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan) must be provided with the Annual Operating Report. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding my review of the application and current License/CUP. Sincerely, Landmar En 'ro ental, LLC atthew edvina, P.E. Project Engineer F:\PROJECTS\CER-City of EIk River\2009-07.01\CorrU,etters 2009\1t090502Haug.doc Land Use Introduction Land use patterns define the community The organization of residential, business, and public uses influences how people choose to live, work and play in the community. The Land Use Plan also seeks to accommodate growth while reinforcing the desired qualities of the community. The Land Use Plan will guide future development in Elk River in a manner that achieves the vision for the community's future. Implementation of the Land Use Plan produces several important implications: • Uses. Every parcel is placed into a specific land use category. Each category includes a description of the type of land use intended for that category. This description should match with the types and forms of development currently found in Elk River and desired for the future. Relationships. Much like a jigsaw puzzle, the true picture comes from how each piece fits together into a whole. The Land Use Plan guides how elements of the built and natural environment come together in Elk River. These relationships will determine how Elk River will look, function and feel. • Actions. The Land Use Plan sets the framework for public actions and investments. Utilities, streets, parks, and facilities are all influenced by the form and pace of development. Existing Land Use The planning process began with an investigation and analysis of existing land use. Elk River is constantly changing. Development converts vacant land to built uses. Redevelopment changes the character and, at times, the use of land. The analysis that follows takes a snapshot of Elk River in 2002. The picture shows both graphically and numerically Elk River as it exists today. This information forms the foundation of the Land Use Plan by describing: • The nature and diversity of land uses in Elk River. • The relationships between built and natural features of the community. • Areas with potential capacity to accommodate future growth. The map in Figure 5-1 on the next page shows existing land use in Elk River. This inventory of land uses evolved during the planning process. A variety of sources contributed to the inventory including property information, aerial photography, and windshield surveys. Existing Uses The inventory of existing land uses divides Elk River into a series of residential, commercial, industrial and public use types. A brief description of each category of existing land use follows. Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River 5~~ Land Use ®e y~ . ~ ~ ~ {' F' } ~ s;_.i `~ r k~;;, ~:: Y 1 :. y :~l r " ~~ r 'a, o c `r k ~ , i 3 ASSISSIPPI RD ~ ~ ~ '"c._ - - -~ Existing Land Use I' Rural Residential Urban Residential High Density Residential Central Business District (Commercial) Community Commercial -Highway Business Commercial Light Industrial Medium Industrial _ Public/Semi-Public '. Mining ~( landfill Open Space ® Wetlands/100 Yr Flood Plain f. Un-developed Open Water ___ Elk River Parcel 12 02 02 \}_ d 11} 1 1f~ 1 :' .~: ~3': ~~ N 0~ Miles J'l _ _4 (221STAVE Nl~ 209TH AVE NY1~ 197TH AVE N W I A~ENw I Figure 5- I Existing Land Use (2002) Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River 5~2 Land Use Rural Residential. The Rural Residential category shows the pattern of residential '~ - development outside of the Urban Service Area. Housing in these areas consists of single-family detached housing units. The area consists of a combination of farmsteads, large lot rural subdivisions and cluster subdivisions. Urban Residential. This land use depicts the residential development pattern within the Urban Service Area. The housing units consist of both single-family detached and attached housing units. Attached unit types include duplexes and townhomes. High Density Residential -This category includes all forms of multiple family dwelling units such as apartment buildings and condominiums. Central Business District (Commercial) -Retail, service and office uses in and around Downtown Elk River are placed in this category. Highway Business. Outside of the Central Business District, the majority of commercial land uses are placed in this category. The uses range from commercial areas that are occupied by professional trades (such as finance, insurance, and real estate) to more intense commercial activities requiring highway orientation for access and visibility. Community Commercial. Smaller, neighborhood-oriented commercial uses fall into this category.. Industrial. This category includes all forms of businesses with manufacturing, distribution, warehousing or other industrial use. The majority of Elk River industrial development is classified as Light Industrial. Only the Cretex property is classified as Medium Industrial. This use denotes a more intensive use both in terms of activity and land area. Public/Semi-Public. These lands designate parcels used for governmental (City, County, School District) and institutional (church) purposes. Mining. Properties in this use are included in the designated gravel mining district. These areas are currently being mined or are set aside for future mining. Land Fill. This area is designated for use as a sanitary land fill. Open Space. The elements of the public park system fall into this category. Private recreation facilities (such as golf courses) are also classified as Open Space. Wetlands/100 Year Flood Plain. The land use map includes areas identified as wetlands according to the most recent National Wetland Inventory. This category also includes properties within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood plain. Open Water. This category seeks to identify bodies of water in the community. All other property is classified as Undeveloped. Building the Future - A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River 5~3 Analysis of Existing Land Use _ _ Elk River contains over 25,000 acres of land. The chart in Figure 5-2 shows the estimated distribution of existing land uses. The numbers in the chart refer to the acres in the land use and its share of the total. The analysis of existing land use in Elk River illustrates several important issues about current and future development: • The vacant category in this chart includes all of the non-developed land uses. These uses include wetlands, flood plain, open water, other natural areas, and other undeveloped land. Over one-half of all land in Elk River falls into one of these land uses categories. • Residential development is the largest "built" land use... The three residential categories account for 23% of total land use. Residential uses make up 55% all non-vacant land use. • Commercial and industrial uses represent 5% of total land use (11% of non-vacant uses). • Covering almost 5% of total land area, the gravel mining area provides a significant development opportunitt~ for the future. Medium Density High Density Rural Residential- Residential-2,246-9% Residential-44-0% 3,657-I4% Landfill- 132- I % Mining-1,364-5~ Highway Business-344• I% Central Business District-97-0% Community Commercial-26-0% Light Industry-591-2% Medium Industry-156- I% Vacant-14,538-58 Public/Semi-Public-534- Open Space-1,705-7% 2% Figure 5-2 Distribution o f Existing Land Use Land Use Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River 5~4 Current (1995) Plan The map in Figure 5-3 contains the current land use plan for Elk River. This plan comes from the 1995 update of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan reflects subsequent modifications of land use designations and the Urban Service Boundary: This map is provided as a point of reference for comparing existing land uses and the 2025 Land Use Plan. The current land use plan relies on the land use categories described in Appendix C. e 11:ST AVE NA' + _ =i r 319TH AYE MN 141Tp AVE NW ~ ~ti fetSTAYE tyW Legend Existing land Use cortvnim+ty l',ortrneroia+ Apricuhura ~ Hgtrxay Business '~ LoW De~Ry Residerttisl Light Industry - ~'~ Med"am Density Residential ~ Medium lodustry - Ftigh Density Residential 'Open Space CentTat Busirress District i Public/Semf-PUb6c _^ Qpen Water ets[. Urban mice Area $oundary 2002 Elk River Parcel 12 02 02 ~.~ X -__ Figure 5-3 Current/ 1995 Land Use Plan Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River Land Use 5~5 `~ g.~ ,,, ,; I ~. ~2 " r ~ ~ ,~ o ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . '~ j -1 ~~ ?~ i - ..:•~i ~ ~~i ~1~ N~~~ Legend I Future Land Use Category ~' '. Rural Residential Medium Industrial '. Urban Residential ®Public/Semi-Public ', ® High Oensfly Resitlerttal ~ Open Space ~,, M&ed Use Landfll i Y -_'~ Old Town ~~ Mining ~~ Community Commeroial Agricubural Research i Highway Business Open Water ~L.UJ Convnercial Reserve e...r, Urban Service Area Boundary 2002 Lght Industrial __ . _., '. E& River Parcel 72 02 02 Phasing Plan from Agricultur e to Rural Residential ~~~ 0 0.5 N 2_,~ ~..... Figure 5-4 Land Use Plan (2004) Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River Land Use 5~7 Land Use This Rural Residential land use will be phased in over the period 2005 to 2010 in the area identified as Agriculture. Property will be converted from Agriculture to Rural Residential on July 1, 2005, January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2010 pursuant to the phasing shown in Figure 5-4. Urban Residential The Urban Residential area includes land guided for residential use in areas that will be served by the municipal sanitary sewer system. This category replaces the Medium Density Residential land use category in the current plan. As with Rural Residential, the name "Urban Residential" is a more accurate description of the land use. The land use will be guided by the density of development and not the type of housing. Densities of this development pattern would range from a low density pattern consisting mostly of single family detached homes at 2 units per acre to a An urban residential pattern at a more dense pattern of smaller lots or attached housing at up to 8 units per acre. density of 6 to 8 units per acre. This category would average an overall density of approximately 3 to 4 uriits per acre. This density would be averaged over all lands designated Urban Residential. ___ ,,_ . Implementation of this land use category will likely require multiple zoning districts that apply alternative density restrictions in order to achieve the overall density of 3 to 4 units per acre. Urban residential land uses include single family detached housing, duplexes, townhomes and multiple-family dwellings. Housing units may be owner or renter occupied. High Density Residential The High Density Residential land use category consists of multi-family attached housing oriented in a vertical fashion, more commonly referred to as apartments and condominiums. This land use category may accommodate a combination of side by side townhomes and multi-story buildings as illustrated at right. The densities targeted in this category are over 8 and up to 20 units per acre. High Density uses are located in places with compatible adjacent land uses and where the local street system will accommodate the traffic. Potential settings include adjacent to commercial districts, employment centers, civic centers, park facilities, transit facilities and principal roadway corridors. When planned adjacent to lower density neighborhoods, high density housing can be designed to transition from its most intense use (3 or 4 story apartments) to a lower density (small lot single family or attached townhomes) as it approaches lower density neighborhoods. High Density Residential uses may also be located in appropriately zoned locations within the Mixed Use and Old Town categories. Mixed Use The Mixed Use land use category allows a mixture of housing, jobs and retail service uses within close proximity to each other. This land use creates the potential A high density residential pattern at for people to work close to their jobs and offers an environment where one can ° density of 15 to 20 units per acre. Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River sus :...~~_. ~~E .:,` . An urban residential pattern at a density o f 2 to 3 units per acre. live with less reliance on the car. This area provides another setting for high;_ densitST residential land use in Elk River. ?~"~"; - Mixed Use is a new land use category. It does not appear in the 1995 plan, but reflects current market trends that seek to integrate residential and nonresidential development in a common setting close to transit services. The Plan contains a single location of Mixed Use. The property is bounded by CountS~ Road 12, CountS~ Road 13 and Twin Lakes Road. Mixed use is frequently proposed in the redevelopment of commercial areas. ' `''_:~` "Vertical" mixed use puts retail and housing uses into a single building. This form of mixed use typically puts residential uses over street level retail or office uses - - _ _ The Mixed Use designation may also include a more horizontal arrangement o.f `_ ~ `' , uses with strong pedestrian connections to foster a pedestrian friendly environment. vertical mixed use (housing over Old Town retail and office) The Old Town land use category reflects the unique land use mixture in and r around the Downtown. This area is based on the Central Business District area in ~~,., ~- = y the 1995 plan and is expanded to include areas around the Downtown with related ~ -: development issues. These areas include: ~~ - • Residential areas between Jackson and Highway 169. _ ~'~ _.. • Mixture of uses between the school campus and Downtown. -- - • Original Elk River residential neighborhoods surrounding Downtown `~ The CitcT's revitalization objectives for the current Central Business District will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A variety of uses fit into the Old Town designation: community-scale retail, professional services, public/civic uses, park, offices, dining and entertainment, banking, lodging, and housing. Uses need to be compatible with the character and scale of the Downtown area. Old Town is the home for a wide range of housing. The Plan seeks to protect and promote the maintenance of the single-family neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are an important part of Elk River's heritage and identity and offer affordable housing options. The majority of the existing high density housing is located in the Old Town area. ~~ A master plan the integrates a mix of land uses. The Old Town designation reflects the need and opportunity for preservation, A pedestrian friendly environment is revitalization, renovation and redevelopment. Redevelopment should be oriented a characteristic of the Old Town to housing, commercial uses and public spaces that support the existing character designation. of the area. The Old Town area contains a variety of civic features. The School campus forms the north edge of this area. Lion's Park Center, Elk River Library and Handke School are all important civic elements of this area. These facilities provide character and attract people into this area. These facilities build connections with the community and provide market opportunity for local businesses. Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River Land Use An historic "mainstreet"character should be preserved in downtown. 5~9 Parks and natural features play an essential role in the plan for Old Town. This `~ area pro~rides the greatest opportunity for improved access and connection with the Mississippi River. Lake Orono creates the western boundary for this area. Linkages from Old Town into the western neighborhoods and ci~-ic institutions of western Elk River are important. Community Commercial The Community Commercial land use focuses on community retail development. These uses are often service and convenience oriented. Development is typically Public spaces are essential parts of the Old Town category. smaller in size and oriented more towards the neighborhood. Examples of Community Commercial uses include drug store, hardware store, and coffee shop often arranged in a "strip mall" configuration. Developments under the community commercial designation tend to consist of less than 100,000 square feet of retail and professional services. Whereas areas developing under the Highway Business designation are often in excess of 200,000 square feet. The current plan makes limited use of the Community Commercial designation. These areas appear as small pockets of retail de~-elopment along the highway corridors. The changes in the Highway Business and Old Town land uses replace some existing Community Commercial areas. In the land use plan, the Community Commercial land use focuses on neighborhood oriented retail areas with no direct connection to the highway corridors. The Plan allows for the creation of neighborhood commercial "nodes". These nodes are small areas of commercial uses integrated with residential neighborhoods...- r °>~<;7, Specific locations for these areas of Community Commercial do not appear on -~ ! . the Land Use Map. The location of these uses will be determined through the ~ ;`~ , , ;~ .,.;: , development process. The locations of neighborhood commercial areas will be ~ guided by the following principles: _ . .:~ ~ ' • Developed as part of a larger (40 acres or more) residential development "` '~'" ` '~`" ~` ` '~'`~- project. x,_ __,_ -~~. -:~ • Designed to minimize non local traffic flow through adjacent residential neighborhoods. • Limited in size to not more than 20,000 square feet of retail or service space • Well connected to adjacent neighborhoods by trails and sidewalks A gas/convenience store or a • Designed to minimize the intrusion of non-desirable commercial activities commercial strip mall are examples on adjacent residential uses of Community Commercial uses. • Located on or near collector roads or kev intersections to maximize market viability • Not allowed within '/Z mile of other approved or existing neighborhood commercial node or other Community Commercial land use. Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River 5~io Land Use Preserving existing residential neighborhoods that contribute to Elk River's identity is an objective o f the Old Town District Land Use These neighborhood-oriented Community Commercial areas provide a convenience shopping alternative for adjacent neighbors. By locating convenience type services closer to neighborhoods, vehicle trips that would otherwise by destined for the intense commercial uses along Highway 169, are reduced and residents benefit by a higher quality of life do to less time coping with traffic. Highway Business The Highway Business land use is the most intensive form of commercial development in Elk River. Businesses in this category may be the largest both in terms of size and traffic generation. Market orientation tends to be regional in nature. Development orientation tends to be toward regional highways. Future Highway Business developments should be located within the Urban Service Boundary and adjacent to regional highways. Examples of Highway Business uses include discount retailers, grocery and general merchandise. The Highway Business land use follows the Highway 169 and Highway 10 corridors. On 169, the majority of land adjacent to the highway between the Highway 10 interchange and 197th Avenue is guided for Highway Business. On Highway 10, the Highway Business area extends from the 169 interchange to 165th Avenue. A small area of Highway Business use exists along Highway 10 at the west and east ends of Elk River. Of these areas, the only substantially undeveloped land lies on the north side of Highway 10 between 165th and 171st Avenues. An important planning issue is providing new areas to accommodate increased demand for retail services. The proposed Land Use Plan provides for future Highway Business commercial growth at the following locations: • New interchange on Highway 169 and Counts- Road 33. • Area around intersection of Highway 10 and 165th Avenue. Commercial Reserve This land use identifies areas held in reserve for future commercial development. The only areas designated for this use lie adajcent to Highway 169 and Highway 10 outside of the Urban Service Area. These locations are well suited to development for highway business uses. Municipal utilities are not available to support immediate development in this area. Also, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to guide development in vacant land already served by utilities before opening new areas for growth. The reser~-e status allows planning to facilitate the desired form of development in the future. Light Industrial The Light Industrial category includes industrial uses that are lower in intensity of activity. These uses limit the potential for adverse impacts on adjacent land uses due to factors such as noise and odor. Examples of Light Industrial uses include offices, enclosed storage and warehousing, research laboratories and light manufacturing. Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River 5~ ~ ~ Coborn's Superstore is an example o f a highway business use that is regionally oriented. Land Use The Land Use Plan designates the following areas for Light Industrial land use: • North of Highway 10 at the eastern edge of Elk River (consistent with current plan). • Both sides of the Highway 10 corridor around the intersection (potential future interchange) with 165th Avenue. The current plan provides a strip of Light Industrial use along the south side of Highway 10 with Medium Density Residential. The Light Industrial use north of Highway 10 is consistent with the current plan. Light industry includes places to • Elk Ri~-er Business Center south of Home Depot (consistent with current Work in a business park type plan) . setting. • Northwest quadrant of the Highway 169/10 interchange. The current plan guides this area for Highwa}= Business. Although the community needs more commercial land, this area is better suited to industrial use. This recommendation is shaped by the future expansion needs of Great Ri~-er Energy and the municipal sewage treatment plant. Great River Energy also prop=ides the ability= to attract supporting industrial uses at this location. Creating adequate street access to this property will be an issue for either industrial or commercial use of this site. South of County Road 1 and west of Proctor Avenue (consistent with current plan). • South of Highway 10 in west Elk Ri~-er (consistent with current plan). • It is assumed that a portion of the current mining area south of County Road 33 would also include some industrial development which will be determined through more detailed engineering and planning. Medium Industrial Medium Industrial land uses are intended for businesses with more intensive uses. The lei-e1 of intensity refers to the amount of land used by the business, the nature of the industrial activity; and the potential for truck traffic. Examples of Medium Industrial uses include contracting yards, grain and feed elevators, lumber yards, concrete products processing, processing of natural resources, and truck terminals. The proposed Land Use Plan creates Medium Industrial uses in the following locations: • `west of Jarvis Avenue and north of the railroad tracks in east Elk River (consistent with current plan). • North of Highway= 10 and west of Proctor Avenue. The land use plan does not contain the Medium Industrial area shown in the 1995 plan within the mining area north of CR 33. Instead, the Plan recognizes that Medium Industrial land uses are appropriate for future reuse in the mining area Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River s~i2 Land Use but places the area under the Mining land use designation. Public -Semi Public This category includes larger tracts of land used for public and institutional purposes. These uses include. schools, City and County governmental buildings, and religious institutions. Open Space The Open Space category contains the public and private park and recreation system. Land will be added to this category- as new public parks are developed pursuant to the Parks element of the Comprehensive Plan. Land fill This area represents land operated in conjunction with the sanitary landfill. The Landfill use is consistent with the current land use plan. Mining ~~~~ In many respects, the Mining land use designation functions similar to the Urban ~~ Reserve. The primary objective of this land use category is to allow the current r,~. mining use of the land and address future land use when development becomes imminent. Based on current information, the majority of the resources in the Mining area will be extracted over the next 20 years. An alternative use of this property is Mining activities near Hwy 169 and needed when the mineral resources are removed. It is anticipated the southern CSAH 21 portions of the Mining area (south of CR 33) will be available for development in the next five years. The ability to provide this area with municipal services is an essential factor in planning for land use. Understanding this issue involves several questions: • How much development can be supported through an extension of the existing sanitary sewer collection system? • If this capacity is inadequate, are there other feasible alternatives for sanitary sewer service to this area? • Does the cost of these sewer improvements influence the form of development? • How would the extension of sewer service to this area affect overall planning for sewer plant capacity? • How does the current and future street system affect land use decisions? It is important to note that the discussions at the Comprehensive Plan Task Force meetings as v~ell as at other public meetings has been to guide the future development of this area toward a combination of Commercial and Industrial uses close to existing, and toward new roadway infrastructure and Residential Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River 513 uses adjacent to the park areas and the trail corridor. Agricultural Research The purpose of the Agricultural Research land use is to coincide with the agreement between the City and Cargill. This land use allows for the continued use of the property for animal nutrition and agricultural research and other related activities pursuant to the agreement, while protecting the City's ability to guide other development. Other land uses not consistent with agricultural research require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Open Water Consistent with the 1995 Plan, this category seeks to identif~~ bodies of water in the community. Analysis of Land Use The distribution of uses in the Land Use Plan is illustrated by the chart in Figure 5-~. This chart is based on the estimated number of acres in each of the land use categories. These totals consist of both current and future development. Ag Research-877-3% Landfill-132-I%--~ ~ OpenSpace-2,007-8% Mining-1,844-T Medium Industry-176- I% Light Industry-804-3~ Commercial Reserve- 977-4% Old Town-627-2% Community _ Commercial-54-0% Highway Business-528 2% Mixed Use-41 High Density Urban Residential- Residential-233-I% 3,727-15% Rural Residential- 12,745-5 I °~ Figure 5-5 Distribution o f Use in Land Use Plan Building the Future -A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River Public/Semi-Public-597• 2% Land Use 514 .ver MEMORANDUM TO: Lori Johnson, City Administrator FROM: Catherine Mehelich, Director of Economic Development DATE: June 4, 2009 SUBJECT: Impact of Elk River Landfill Proposed Expansion on City's Image and Marketing Efforts This memo is in response to your request for comments on the Elk River Landfill proposed expansion's impact on the City's ongoing marketing efforts. In Apri12009, the City Council, Economic Development Authority (EDA) and Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) discussed and identified the priority economic development issues fox its 2009-2012 Economic Development Strategic Plan. The proposed landfill expansion impacts two of the four priority issues identified in the Plan: Industrial Development and Community Image & Marketing. The City has identified strategies within the Plan to diversify the commercial/industrial tax base to strive for higher quality developments including professional services, corporate campuses, energy-related and technology businesses. Preserving high priority commercial areas for development, which is foreseen as a desired amenity among these uses, is among the strategies to achieve this objective. Staff's discussion in the past year with Target officials has indicated the store's desire to locate a site in the northern area of the city along Highway 169. The expansion of the landfill could have a negative impact on Target's decision to locate a store in this area as compared to other cities without a landfill. Second, a basic community development principle is that the image of a city reflects its economic viability and community health. Under its Economic Development Strategic Plan, the City has an opportunity to confirm and/or reinvent the framework that defines the future image. The city has indicated its desire to identify a higher image and vision that enables the city to successfully recruit and retain the desired commercial/industrial development identified above -professional services, high technology businesses and corporate campuses which bring significant tax base and high quality employment opportunities. The proposed landfill expansion impacts the city's ability to achieve its goal to market the community under this higher image and vision. S:~EDA~ER Landfill Expansion memo 6.4.09.doc