5.a Staff Report Meeting Date: 2/3/2008
Agenda Item:
Planning Commission/ fi
't ‘(
City Council Agenda Report
City of Scandia
14727 20911' St. North
Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274
Action Requested: Hold a public meeting to receive comments on the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Tiller Corporation's Zavoral
Mining and Reclamation Project.
Deadline/ Timeline: 30-day comment period on the EAW ends February 11, 2009
Background: • Tiller Corporation proposes to operate a gravel mine and
processing facility on a 114-acre site located east of State
Highway 95 (St. Croix Trail) at State Highway 97 (Scandia Trail)
owned by Dr. James Zavoral.
• The Minnesota Environmental Review Program requires
preparation of an EAW to determine whether or not the project has
the potential for significant environmental impacts and requires an
EIS (Environmental Impact Statement.) The city is the RGU
(responsible government unit.)
• City Planner Sherri Buss has prepared a memo (attached) outlining
the process and timeline for the EAW and the criteria for making a
decision on the need for an EIS.
• Tiller's representatives will be present at the February 3 meeting
to give an overview of the proposed project and the EAW.
• Mailed notice of the public meeting was sent to property owners
within one-half mile of the site (the notification area for the
Conditional Use Permit application) in addition to the other
notices required for an EAW.
• Written comments received through 1/29/09 are attached.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission should receive public comments on the
EAW. The Commission may wish to make comments of its own and
provide them to the City Council.
Responses to all comments received will be reviewed at the March 3,
2009 meeting before the City Council makes a decision on the need
for an EIS.
Page 1 of 2
01/26/09
Attachments/ • TKDA Memorandum dated January 26, 2009
Materials provided: • Comments Received through January 29, 2009
• Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Contact(s): Sherri Buss, TKDA (651) 292-4582
Prepared by: Anne Hurlbut, Administrator
(EAW Zavoral Project public meeting)
Page 2 of 2
01/26/09
444 Cedar Street,Suite 1500
Saint Paul,MN 55101-2140
ENGINEERS•ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS (651)292-4400
(651)292-0083 Fax
www tkda corn
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council and Planning Reference: Tiller Corporation - EAW/CUP
Commission
Anne Hurlburt, City Administrator Application for Zavoral Mine
Copies To: Mike Caron, Tiller Corporation City of Scandia, Minnesota
Kirsten Pauly, Sunde Engineering
From: Sherri Buss, R.L.A. Proj. No.: 14059.015
Date: January 26, 2009 Routing:
SUBJECT: Tiller Corporation, Inc. - EAW and CUP Application for Zavoral Mining
and Reclamation Project
MEETING DATE: February 3, 2009
LOCATION: Sections 18 and 19, Township 32 North, Range 19 West
APPLICANT: Tiller Corporation
P.O. Box 1480
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311
120-DAY PERIOD: N/A
ZONING: Agricultural District
ITEMS REVIEWED: CUP Application, Plans, EAW and Related Submittals
LEGAL REFERENCE: Minnesota Statutes 116 (particularly 116D.04); Minnesota Rules 4410
City of Scandia Mining Ordinance No. 103
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST:
Tiller Corporation has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Peilliit and an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project. Tiller is requesting to
operate a gravel mine and processing operation on a donuant, un-reclaimed gravel mine site. The
application does not include mining into the ground water. The site was mined by multiple operators before
it was taken out of production in the 1980's.
The 114-acre site is located along St. Croix Trail North (State TH 95) near its intersection with State TH 97.
A portion of the site is located in the St. Croix River District Zone. The Application indicates that the area
An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity
Scandia Planning Commission Page 2 January 26, 2008
Tiller Corporation EAW/CUP for Zavoral Mine
proposed for sand and gravel mining activity is located outside the limits of the St. Croix River District zone.
The application proposes reclamation activities within the Riverway Zone. Mining is not permitted within
the Riverway Zone.
State Rules 4410.4300 subpart 12 specify that an EAW is required for gravel mining activities that will
excavate 40 or more acres of land to a mean depth of 10 feet or more. The previous mining activities on the
site were not subject to environmental review.
The site is proposed for mining and related processing activities, and is within the General Rural/Agriculture
area in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and Land Use map. It is zoned for Agriculture under the
City's current Zoning Map. Mining is an allowed use within the Agriculture zone. The City's 2030
Comprehensive Plan proposes Mining as a specific land use designation. This site is not included in the
areas designated for Mining in the 2030 Plan. However, since the 2030 Comprehensive Plan has not yet
been adopted by the City, this Application must he reviewed under the current, adopted plan.
EAW PROCESS
The General Provisions of Scandia's Mining Ordinance No. 103 state that "In cases where a mandatory or
discretionary EAW is required, or an EIS is required, those documents shall be prepared and accepted by the
City before application for a CUP." [Section 3.1(3)] The City may not issue the CUP for the proposed
project until the EAW process has been completed.
The City is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the EAW. The City is responsible to verify the
completeness of the EAW if prepared by the Applicant, and comply with the rule timeframes for the EAW
process. The RGU has 30 days from the time that the document is determined to be complete to add
additional material and approve the EAW for distribution to the reviewing agencies.
The EAW was submitted to the City and the Planner on November 25, 2008. The Planner identified some
incomplete items in the EAW, and requested that the EAW be revised on November 26.
The Applicant submitted a revised EAW on December 4, including the requested items. The Planner
reviewed the EAW based on the requirements for information and analysis, and notified the Applicant that it
is complete. "Completeness" for distribution means that the EAW document answers all of the questions
and issues identified on the EAW form, and includes at least the minimum information required by state
rules for each question. Reviewers and the public may request additional information or more detail related
to potential environmental impacts in their comments on the EAW.
The EAW process to date has included the following steps:
November 25, 2008 EAW and CUP Application submitted to the City
December 4 Revised EAW submitted to the City and determined complete for distribution
December 16 Council approved EAW for distribution
January 5, 2009 Notice of EAW availability for comment submitted to the Minnesota EQB for
publication in the EQB Monitor
Scandia Planning Commission Page 3 .January 26, 2008
Tiller Corporation EAW/CUP for Zavoral Mine
• The Planner developed the mailing list for the EAW with the City, including
all of those identified on the EQB's Distribution List (attached), and others
recommended by the City.
• Press release sent to local newspaper (required by EAW Rules)
January 12 Notice published in the EQB Monitor that the EAW for Zavoral Project is available
for review. The 30-day review period started on this date.
February 3 Public Meeting at the Planning Commission meeting to receive comments on the
EAW
The next steps in the process will include the following:
February 11 30 day review period ends
• City staff and Applicant prepare responses to comments and findings of fact.
March 3 City Council reviews responses to comments and findings of fact. Determines need
for an EIS.
March 16 Notice of Decision published in the EQB Monitor
PURPOSE OF THE EAW AND THE CITY'S ROLE IN THE NEXT STEPS IN THE EAW
PROCESS
The EAW is a "brief document, which is designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for a proposed project (Minnesota Rules 4410.0200,
subpart 24). It's primary purpose is to provide the information needed for the RGU to determine whether the
project has the potential for significant environmental effects; it also provides infoiniation on permits the
project will need, informs the public about the project, and helps to identify ways to protect the environment
(by avoiding, minimizing or mitigating for potential effects).
As the RGU, the City's roles in the process include:
1) Determine the need for an EAW
2) Either prepare the EAW or approve the completeness of an EAW prepared by an applicant for review
3) The City may provide an opportunity for public comment during the 30-day review period (a public
hearing or public meeting is optional)
4) The City must respond in writing to all substantive comments received during the comment period. The
City may choose to respond to late comments received after the comment period. The responses are
typically mailed to commenters and the EQB mailing list along with the Record of Decision, but may be
mailed separately if the City wishes to seek additional comments before making the decision concerning
the need for an EIS. The RGU may ask the proposer to help prepare responses if the comments ask for
changes in the project, a commitment to mitigation, or question the purpose or value of the project.
5) The City will determine the need for an EIS and complete the Record of Decision about the need for an
EIS. The decision will be based on the EAW, the comments received, and the responses to comments.
The City has completed steps 1 and 2, and will complete step 3 on February 3.
Scandia Planning Commission Page 4 January 26, 2008
Tiller Corporation EAW/CUP for Zavoral Mine
At the March 3 meeting, the Council will review the comments received on the EAW, and the responses to
the comments prepared by the Applicant and city staff. Minnesota rules require that RGU's that have a
council or board make a decision on the need for an EIS between 3 and 30 days after the comment period
ends. (Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subpart 2). The City may postpone the decision for an additional 30
days, or a longer period of time, as agreed with the proposer, if there is a need to gather additional
information to respond to the comments.
Based on the contents of the EAW, the comments, and responses the Council will determine whether an EIS
is needed for the mining project, and prepare a Findings of Fact and Record of Decision. This will be
distributed to all of the agencies that received the EAW, and everyone else who provided comments on the
EAW. The notice of decision will also be published in the EQB Monitor.
The City's decision to prepare or not prepare an EIS can be appealed in the county district court where the
project would take place. The appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date on which the RGU makes its
decision (the date on which the Council takes action). There is no administrative appeal of an RGU decision;
the Environmental Quality Board has no jurisdiction to review the City's decision. (Minnesota Rules
4410.0400 Subp. 4)
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE NEED FOR AN EIS
Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 state the criteria the City must use to decide whether a project has the
potential for significant environmental effects, and requires completion of an EIS. These criteria include the
following:
A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
B. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects;
C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority; and
D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including
other EIS's
PROCESS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
The Planner has notified Tiller Corporation that the application submitted for the CUP is not complete.
Several items are missing to comply with the requirements of the City's Mining Ordinance.
When an EAW has been ordered, no final governmental decision may be made to grant a permit, approve or
begin a project, or construct a project until the environmental review is completed. Review is completed
when either the RGU determines that no EIS is needed (issuance of a negative declaration), or when the EIS
is completed and found adequate. (Minnesota Rules 4410.3100) Therefore, review of the CUP is currently
suspended, pending City determination that no EIS is needed, or completion of an EIS if that is required.
The 60-day review period for the CUP may start after the last action is completed in the environmental
review process.
Scandia Planning Commission Page 5 January 26, 2008
Tiller Corporation EAW/CUP for Zavoral Mine
ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff request that the Council receive public comment on the EAW at the February 3 meeting. All comments
received by the City during the comment period will be recorded for inclusion in the EAW comments,
responses to comments, and record of decision.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Zavoral Property Mining and Reclamation Project
Scandia, Minnesota
Public Comment Period January 12, 2009 through February 11, 2009
Written Comments Received through 9:00 a.m. January 30, 2009
# Comment from: Date/Date Received
1 Richard and Wanda Nelson 1/22/09 (e-mail)
20416 St. Croix, Trail, Scandia MN
2 Don Mitchell 1/22/09 / 1/26/09 (e-mail)
20233 Quinnell Avenue N., Scandia
3 Minnesota Department of Transportation 1/22/09 / 1/26/09
4. St. Croix River Association and the St. Croix Scenic 1/28/09 / 1/30/09 (e-mail)
Coalition
Hige I ()I
Anne Hurlburt
From: wanda20516@aol.corn
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 9:00 AM
To: a.hurIburt@cjscandia.mn.us
Subject: mining
January 22, 2009
Anne Hurlburt
City Administrator
City of Scandia
Dear Ms. Hurlburt,
My husband Rich and I are in Florida for a couple months, but we try to stay informed of community happenings in
Scandia. I read on the Pioneer Press web site of the interest of the Tiller Corp. in re-opening the mine at the
intersection of Hwys. 95 and 97. We are opposed to any mining operations being allowed in that area.
We believe that allowing the mine to operate for ten years would definitely have a huge negative impact on the city
of Scandia and on the nearby St. Croix River.
The noise of the operation and the run-off into the river are obvious detriments to the natural beauty of the scenic St.
Croix River.
The noise from the mining operation and the increased heavy truck traffic that the mining operation would
generate do not fit with the designation of St. Croix Trail as a scenic byway.
That corner is an area that is thought of as the gateway to the city of Scandia. The mining operation does not fit with
the image of Scandia that the citizens and city administration wish to project.
Mr. Zavoral may tell us that the impact of his mining operation will be minimal to our quality of life, but don't let
him fool us. We are very certain that he would object to having the same operation in his Edina neighborhood.
We are unable to attend the upcoming public hearing on this matter, but we want to go on record as being very much
opposed to this proposed mining operation.
Sincerely,
Richard and Wanda Nelson
20516 St. Croix Trail
Scandia, Minnesota
Get instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games while you browse with the Games Toolbar- Download Now!
1/22/2009
•
City of Scandia
Input on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Zavoral Property Mining and Reclamation Project
From Don Mitchell
1/22/09
As a 32-year resident of Copas and neighbor of the subject property, I would like to enter
the following comments into the public record regarding the proposed projects at the
Zavoral's gravel pit.
First, I do not wish any harm to Dr. Zavoral or his family, who have been good and kind
neighbors for many years. I respect their ownership of the subject property and their
right to use that property as they see fit. My concerns are limited to the protection of the
St. Croix River, a priceless resource that belongs to all citizens and has been designated
for careful protection by all levels of government.
Anyone familiar with the segment of the river between Loghouse Landing and Cedar
Bend is aware of a substantial delta of sand and gravel that was washed into the St. Croix
in the 1970s, from the pit in question, following a breach in ston-nwater control. This
delta has altered the main channel of the river by pushing it eastward, where it has eroded
and continues to erode the northern portion of the "island" property at the confluence of
the Minnesota and Wisconsin channels. The instantaneous deposition of so much sand
and small-particle gravel is exactly the kind of event that greatly increases siltation, to the
detriment of the river and many of its wild inhabitants (not just the mussels).
Specifically, the DNR's requirement that the project "not be allowed to negatively affect
the water quality of the St. Croix River" would be seriously breached by any event
similar to the washout of the 1970s. I see nothing in the present documentation that
would guarantee this would not happen again. In fact, I find several statements that give
serious concern:
1. The restoration of the previously mined area, which is not to be mined in the
present project in part because it lies within the protected St. Croix River District,
is apparently not to be undertaken until the final year of the project, whenever that
might be. This means there would be a substantial (enhanced) risk of another
washout event, at least until that time.
2. There being no buffer between the protected St. Croix River District and the edge
of the site to be mined, there is no margin of error—a single mistake or
miscalculation (or a single unanticipated major rainfall event) could bring yet
another damaging washout. Very few human operations are free of error. For
example, consider the statement on page 5: "The portion of the site that will not
be disturbed as a result of mining includes 50 acres of woods situated
predominantly on the bluff of the MN river and along the very southern portion of
the property." One wonders just how far south and west this property extends!
Given this obvious error, one wonders: Is the text of this EAW just boilerplate
language that could be lifted and copied out of some other document, or has a
serious author considered each word and phrase? Here is a simple error of words
on a page--presumably no harm done. But is there any assurance, any guarantee,
that a "small" error by someone at an engineer's drawing table, or on a caterpillar
tractor, will not send more tons of unwanted and harmful sand and gravel into a
river that is supposed to have the strictest protection we can provide? I do not
find any such assurance in this document. Such an error, and more importantly its
harmful result, will never be undone.
3. I am not sure of the meaning of the statement on page 9: "Washwater will be
managed in an on-site recycling basin where washwater and fines will be
recycled." If"fines" are small particles, as may be the intent, won't they be
separated and recovered? What will be done with them?
4. Several of us who live in the area draw our water from artesian springs, pursuant
to agreements reached and formalized into contracts as far back as the 1930s. If
this project destroys these springs or renders our water sources useless, we face
well-drilling and water access problems that may cost many thousands of dollars.
There is no assurance in this document that we will be compensated or made
whole if such problems are caused by this project, yet the project specifically
discusses operations within three feet of the water table.
5. On page 8, in the last paragraph of section 14, the document states that the
reclamation and restoration aspects of the project are conditional, and will not
happen until after reviews are completed by the National Park Service and
Scandia. Further, the language does not specify who determines, following these
reviews, whether reclamation and restoration will occur. This provision must be
insisted upon—it cannot be conditional and then left to the discretion of the
mining company or property owners.
6. Finally, as neighbors we will be subjected to the inevitable noise and dust of this
project, no matter how carefully it is managed. The noise will certainly be
audible on the river. I would like to see the hours of operation limited to
weekdays, 7AM to 5PM, so evenings and weekends could at least provide respite
from these constant annoyances.
Thank you for your consideration.
-Don Mitchell
20233 Quinnell Avenue North
Scandia, MN 55073
rivernotes26 a grnail.com
651 433-3284
. ^
�
Minnesota Department cdTransportation
Metropolitan District
Waters Edge /
OF "�- 15O0YVoniCon\ '
rp County Road B 2
Roseville, yWN55113'3174
/
Jaouu?y22` 2U0q !
�
/
&nncUudboM
City Administrator
x
City of Scuodia
|47772U/y» K{ North
Scundio, MN 55073
SUBJECT: Zuvoro| K4inin�, ��o/D[)TRevicvv #E/\�V09-0U|
East o[TU 95u1TB47Intersection
Scundio, Washington County
Control Section: 82\0
Dear M38udbud:
Thank you for the opportunity to vcvimp ihc %uvora| Mining EAW. Please note that Mn/DOT's
review ofthis CAVVdoes not constitute approval ofaregional traffic analysis and is not uxpooi6o
approval for access or new roadway improvements. Au plans are refined, we would like the
Opportunity to meet with ourpamnom and to review the updated information. Mn/DVT`sstuff
has reviewed the document and has the following comments:
A north bound full right tunl lane will need \nho constructed (3O0` &TL |80` taper)xs part o[tile
proposed use. The entrance into the site needs 0ohc32 feet wide. Additionally, as indicated in (ho
EAW, the site access will need k` heroconfignred0n line up with TH97oil tile west side n[TU
95. For questions concern ing these comments, please contact Wayne Lcmoniok` Mn/DDTTmff ic
Section, at (651) 234-7830.
To ensure the safety of the intersection, u Mn/DDT Level 3 Geometric Layout will need to be
prepared before permit call be (xnuod for construction o[the access and right turn |one. For
further infbnnuhon concerning the ch(uio for Level ] layout, p|cumc &ototile [bUo*ixg
°cbsiio: hKp://v,nn,JoLsiuicmxus/ICuyu iu/hoJp/booKlau/'gco/Acoxp - iiun|
Refer(othe discussion about Level 3 layout and Table l at the hottmn of the page for the
in[hnnzkion concerning this layout, lnfhnnatinn regarding tile alignments, pno0es, typicu|s. soil
boring and cross sections are essential in planning for the proposed roadway change. For
questions regarding design, please contact Ed8ny\im, N(65|) 2J4'7646.
ThcCik/Drvo\oper may choose to pay Mn/DOT for the required improvements so that they call
be coordinated and included with the Mn/DOT projects in tile area. K4n/D0TwiU require
payment for the work to be conducted by tile City/Developer prior toany work by Mn/DOT. For
questions concerning ugrcomo/|s p|cuso contact Jan Ekcrn, Partnership Coordinator, Mn/DOT
Maintenance Office u\(65|) 36O-}548
Any use o[orwork within oru[Ediog Mn/DOT right ofway requires u punnit. Pcnmit {onxs are
uvui|ob|ehnm MoUOT`u utility vmhsi\cuK w`nvdct.gatnmnuu/tccaom\/1i|ilI � Please inc|xdc
one I x |7 plan set and one full size plan set with each pcnnitapplication. Please direct Illy
An equal opportunity employer
questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (65I-234-791 I) of MnDOT's Metro
Permits Section.
As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as
plats and site plans to:
Development Review Coordinator
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require either:
1. One(1)electronic pdf. version of the plans (the electronic version of the plan needs to he
developed for 11" x 17" printable format with sufficient detail so that all features are
legible);
2. Seven (7) sets of full size plans.
If submitting the plans electronically, please use the pdf. format. Mn/DOT can accept the plans
via e-mail at metrodevreviews@dot.state.mn.us provided that each separate e-mail is less than 20
megabytes. Otherwise, the plans can be submitted on a compact disk.
If you have any additional questions regarding this review please call me at (651) 234-7792.
Sincerely,
7
f /
/ @� / -
Jon P. olberg
Senior/Planner
Copy send via Groupwise:
Tod Sherman
Wayne Lemaniak
Jan Ekern
Todd Clarkowski
Buck Craig
Nancy Jacobson
Sulmaan Kahn
Ann Braden / Metropolitan Council
File Copy:
Mn/DOT Division File CS 8210
Mn/DOT LGL File Scandia
COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET hOR
ZAVORAL PROPERTY MINING AND RECLAMATION PROJECT—Januar}, 28, 2009
Presented jointly by the St. Croix River Association and the St. Croix Scenic Coalition
INTRODUCTION
The St. Croix River Association and the St. Croix Scenic Coalition share a goal of preserving the
scenery and natural resources of the St. Croix River and its environs. Together they work to
promote understanding of the social and economic value of protecting the St. Croix valley's
outstanding natural character. The Association advocates for resource protection throughout the
entire watershed. The Association has 310 paid members, 14 of whom have zip codes in Scandia
(and others have homes in Scandia). The Coalition has a broad interest in promoting land uses
that respect the protective intent of the United States Congress when it designated the St. Croix
River as one of eight original rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. In its work
with St. Croix valley communities, the Coalition encourages use of careful inventory procedures
to correctly identify locations in a community where it is most appropriate to develop and
locations where it is in the public interest to protect and preserve.
ISSUE
The question before the City of Scandia is not, yet, the permit applied for, but rather whether the
proposed gravel project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW, and
comments submitted regarding it, form the basis for that determination. The City may decide
either that:
there is no potential for significant environmental effects - a negative declaration, or
— it does have such potential - a positive declaration - in which case the City orders that
an EIS be prepared, or
— the EAW needs more information, and direct that the lacking information be
developed.
See Minnesota Statutes section 116D.04, and Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700
The St. Croix River Association and the St. Croix Scenic Coalition believe that beyond doubt the
proposed mining operation has the potential for significant environmental effects and will require
an EIS. Second, they believe that the potential significant environmental effects conflict with a
majority public perception, see recent Comprehensive Plan, that reopening the inoperative pit
would be inconsistent with City of Scandia environmental protection goals that, when applied,
would better favor restoration of the site from its present condition. Third, they believe that the
City of Scandia and its residents should not be exposed to the significant potential for more
environmental effects based on an argument that the pit should be permitted because it was once
operational.
There are four areas in particular that present a potential for significant environmental effects.
One is location, another traffic, the third noise, and the fourth water quality impacts.
1
LOCATION
The site is sandwiched between the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway and the Minnesota Si.
Croix Scenic Byway. It abuts each. One would be hard pressed to conjure a worse place to put a
gravel operation, which by its nature is one of the unsightliest and noisiest industrial operations
one can imagine. The City has already ruled out the Zavoral site for gravel milling, in its new
Comprehensive Plan, which awaits only Met Council approval for it to go into effect.
Accordingly the City should give the project, being proposed now just under the wire of the new
Plan, its closest scrutiny. The EAW fails to provide the information that would make such
scrutiny possible. An EIS would provide adequate information and a full analysis of alternatives,
and should be ordered.
TRAFFIC
The EAW, in paragraph 22, states that the operation will generate 120 truck trips daily from
April through November. Sixty trucks outbound, 95 % of them going west on Highway 97 right
through the Scandia village. Sixty fully loaded big gravel hauling trucks pulling out onto
highway 95, turning to highway 97, and grinding up the long incline to the village. The EAW
provides zero analysis of the environmental impacts of such an addition to the highway's traffic.
This volume will increase the existing heavy commercial traffic of 360 trucks per day, by one-
third, to 480. It is commonly recognized that the road already suffers a lot of gravel hauling,
including from the Tiller pit on highway 95 abutting the west side of the highway north of the
Osceola turn-off. This sort of activity is utterly out of character for the village center, and for the
rural character of the City which its citizens have said so strongly must be preserved. One-
hundred and twenty times a day these big trucks will stop at the intersection of highway 97 and
County road 3, and work their way up through their gears as they pull away. Half of those will
be loaded, so will gain speed only slowly and laboriously. If Scandia is looking for quietude,
this is no way to achieve it.
NOISE
The EAW provides no information from which one can conclude that noise will not be a
problem. Indisputably gravel operations are very noisy. That noise will project on to the
immediately abutting National Scenic Riverway. The riverway is a national park. The
tranquility of the riverway - the land within its boundaries as well as the water surface itself- is a
major element of the character which caused it be designated one of the first eight wild and
scenic rivers in the entire nation, when the original federal law was passed in 1968. All of the
river which the City abuts, is designated a slow speed zone. This was done to conserve the quiet
pastoral character of the river.
The river is already invaded by the noise of truck traffic on highway 95. It is particularly evident
in McLeod's Slough, the part of the river most immediate to the proposed gravel operation.
Exacerbating that noise would constitute a significant environmental effect.
And there are the homes within noise reach of the proposed operation. PCA rules require that
they not be impacted by more than 60 decibels of noise for more than 30 minutes in any hour,
2
. . ,
and not more than 65 decibels for more than |0 minutes in any hour. Minnesota rules chupbr
7030. lhcrc is no data in (he E8YY demonstrating that these |inoib will not bcoxccodcd. Some
o[(hcochnnocxhavchccndcsignokdhistorichv (bcMinocsobUisk`hcu| 3ocicty, peran
attachment (o the E/\VV,
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
The 8i Croix River is classified as an "Outstanding Resource Value Water-Restricted" in
Minnesota and asall "Outstanding Resource Water" inWisconsin. These classifications
represent the highest level of protection possible for both states and oock to prevent any
degradation in vvu1c,quality in the Kivcrwuy. For Minnesota, the classification requires that all
"prudent and feasible alternatives" betried priorto allowing any new Vrincreased discharge.
Tile proposed reopening o[the Zavoral gravel operation will amount to oucvv or increased
discharge and will pose u significant risk to water quality in the 3<. Croix due to potential erosion
from atoxn/vuatcrruoof[ and possibly from gravel washing operations. The size and location nf
the operation oil auarea that drains in the river significantly enhances the prospects of eroded
nou(criu| (suspended xcdinnoo\o) reaching the river. 8cdiruuot`x impact on water quality and
aquatic life is well documented including impacts to freshwater mussels, fish, and aquatic
insects. VVc believe UzcE&W does not adequately consider the impacts of the proposed project
nn water quality, nor adequately consider alternatives. The E/\Wcluinos water quality will be
improved after reclamation o[the site, but i\ does not address impacts during the life o[the
proposed operation.
RESTORATION
The City must not bo lured bv the mirage nf the restoration proposed. The slopes will bemade
oon'cromivo, and the pit sides and bottom will be planted with grass. But the pit will not bcfilled
up. It will not be reintegrated into the landscape. lt will hcu hole. A bigger hole than now,
wider and much deeper. Look at the restored pitbetwcco [)uinoc|| Ave. and highway 95. For all
the care given i kio still o hole, plain and simple.
Rather than pen-nit ten years of mining io order b/ achieve restoration, it would bc smarter (o
restore k now atits present size. h will still beu hole, and but not so large mdeep. .
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The recent successful Washington County referendum supporting uo integrated land and water
legacy program was un expression n[the broad public desire tocarefully idcuhFv parcels that
obnu|d be protected from further environmental harm. The point of the referendum was that if
parcels nucc1 stringent public benefit criteria for protection or restoration, they should be
protected from further degradation. TbcZuvnro| pit site meets public benefit criteria for
protection and restoration.
If reopened for mining, 8candio residents will certainly experience negative environmental
irnpudu. And if a permit 'Is issued there will be non- compensatable costs to the Scandia
community. These costs cannot properly hc evaluated inouE&W and will require ooEIS.
3
~ . .
Pocketbook impacts will be felt by |ucu| businesses that rely on visitors for xigniOcan| part of
their income. The E&VV provides oo information from which one can conclude local ccononuic
impacts would not be xobx\un|iu\ if the potential for significant cuvivonnncntu| ofkzh is realized
by opening the mining operation in this location.
The role n[uoEAVV is to ucrcco u project for u potential for significant environmental effects,
When the EAW demonstrates such potential, as it has done, it calls for a positive declaration by
the City and order that an EIS be prepared. Only ufully prepared EIS can provide athorough
study of the environmental impacts ofuproject; comparative environmental, economic, and
sociological impacts; rcuxnoublc alternatives; and mitigation measures. With this iu/brnoohnn
the City will have the information i{ needs k` make u proper decision. The role n[the
City h) balance the projectagainst all environmental, economic and sociological impacts, to
evaluate alternatives and mitigation measures is only possible with ufully prepared 8S. The
City needs to know v/bicb economic impacts muhsbt occur as n result n[which environmental
effects.
When given a choice of where to go and where to spend their money, visitors will not return to
places that have permitted significant erosion of community character or significant damage to
the environment. It would be far better N capture the tourism potential in3candiuby making the
Zuvorolpuroc| into apub|ic park rather than to erode tourism income by permitting m gravel pit
that will help to move tourists to enter the St. Croix valley oo Highway 8 instead nf Highway 97.
The St. Croix Scenic Byway, which follows along Highway 95 through 8caodim, vvun designated
hv the State of Minnesota iu2004. The purpose o[the scenic byway designation iotoafford
scenic protection to the highway route and to promote local economic benefits by promoting
byway communities un important destinations for the traveling public. The Zavnra| proposal
conflicts with the purpose o[the scenic byway and may cause irreparable cconnrnicirnpmcWio
the local economy.
Protecting the Highway 95 scenic byway corridor from unnecessary expansion of gravel mining
and truck traffic serves a number of important environmental and economic purposes. /\ gravel ~
pit in this location would conflict with Scuodiu`o environmental protection goals. l\ could not
escape notice nf residents and tourists that the City io the only entity that could buvcpcnmittcd
such an environmental blunder if Highway 97 is pen-nitted to run headlong into an unscreened
driveway leading to ngravo\ piL peoni\dng this proposed industrial use with its visual eyesore
and increased truck traffic in immediate proximity \nu State-designated scenic byway and
National Scenic }livcrvvay would bc seen hy tourists and residents as o real |non| failure to
correctly assess the high potential for significant environmental impacts.
CONCLUSION
The proposed mining operation, bccwoac of its nature and its location, has the po|cuhu| for
significant environmental effects. This isao inescapable conclusion. The City should sndeclare.
Then a full-scale EIS can flesh out whether the potential is likely and significant.
4
At the same time, the City should work with landowner Zavoral to find another way to
accomplish what he hopes to achieve, The St. Croix River Association and the St. Croix Scenic
Coalition would be happy to volunteer their services to this end.
Respectfully submitted,
Randy Ferrin,president, St. Croix River Association
Citua*A.Q6 •Yle ,
Bill Neuman, president, St. Croix Scenic Coalition
51.CRQI
a
iv
qt. •', z
5
January 30, 2009
I ON
To: Ann HudhuU
Zuvoxu| Gruvc| Mining Proposal
| have lived in ()doviUc for 2hyears, on land that has been in n0' family for three
generations. This property is situated below ihCZ8v0nCl gravel mine oil the Si Croix
Qivcr. \ havc enjoyedwalking H� hand abandoned | � i/h [on�i| dhi d [o
� on]o� m oy n gravel mine with family friends r
25 years; for this } urn grateful to Dr. Zuvnro|.
The |uod where the abandoned mine is located has been nuiunu||y roduiuoCd for 35 years
with white pines, ntuudo of aspen, oak and many other trees and p|un<o |ixicd in the E/\YV,
ltiu the home of bobcat, fox, deer and possibly cougars,just \o name u few. The "buffer
zone" referred to in the EAW is actually Scenic Easement consisting of woods, deep
ravines and streams that run directly into the St Croix }liver.
lumn very concerned about the destruction of this land and the repercussions o[ rcounning
mining operations. The EAVV fails to address issues that will affect thcScundiu
community, the St Croix Watershed, the wild life of the Valley and visitors to the St
Croix Valley and the S\ Croix River. This proposal ix not acceptable 0omncand here are
the main reasons.
|.Noiye pollution.
The valley is like an echo chamber. 3cundiucdizcna within a rni|o radius, including
me, will hear the constant noise of trucks and machinery coming from this site. The
3t Croix iou federally designated Wild and Scenic River. People come to the River
for recreation and for peace and solitude. They will not find it on this a\nctoh of River
because they will hear gravel mining all day Monday through Friday, spring, summer
and fall.
2.Visual pollution.
The EAm/ states that the mining operation will not hc seen from the River, but it will
be seen and heard frorn the land. The intersection of highway g7 and g5, udesignated
Scenic Byway, is u n)y\n entrance k) the St Croix \/n||cy and to Soundia. The view
from g7io spectacular, especially in the early spring and fall when the Wisconsin hills
change colour. Visitors coming into the Valley from the west will see the gravel '
mining, uo well ua oil the Scenic Byway. 11 will definitely destroy one o{the prime
vistas oo the Scenic Byway and in the Valley, plus alter 3candia`uidentity
lTraffic congestion.
Cars are often hacked upon 07 for blocks during the summer months attempting u
left turn onto the Scenic Byway. Since there iu only one stop sign on highway 97 the
intersection is perilous. |f the gravel mine is open, there will be gravel trucks, 120
trips a day, coming and going through this substandard crossing. U will be ail
intersection people will avoid and in doing uowill hvpoms Scundiu.
Will this be good [nrSCundiu business? More gravel trucks stopping and aiudin# it)
the center of town doesn't make for u rural feeling. Do the residents living, on
highway 97 need more gravel trucks goinghv their houses destroying the road and
spewing upgravel?
•
4.Environmental impacts.
Number 30 of the EAW states "There are no other known potential environmental
impacts" besides noise, smell, dust and slight air pollution. But there are other known
environmental impacts. In 1971, my mother, Barbara Schlingerman wrote letters to
the head of the EPA, Grant Merritt and Howard R. Albertson, State Representative
for Washington County, about "the considerable damage done to the streams and the
river" by the Barton Construction Company, which mined the property before Tiller.
She was concerned about the tons of sand washing down a stream below the gravel
mine into the river. The sand became a giant sand bar in the River and remains to this
day. This environmental disaster destroyed a trout stream and impacted the flow of
the river. Barton Company did nothing. What will Tiller Compnay do if something
like this happens again?
Also the EAW states "Measures will be taken to reduce the potential for ground
water contamination..."The EAW mentions very small quantities of hazardous
waste, diesel fuel, and anti-freeze. I live below the gravel mine and use a spring box,
as many people do on Quint Av. What will Tiller Company do if our spring boxes
become contaminated?
5.The Reclamation Plan.
The EAW states the site will be left in a condition consistent with current local land
use rules regulating gravel mining reclamation. According to the EAW, reclamation
consists of smoothing out the edges of the 60 foot hole, and throwing grass seed on
the earth. How can this kind of restoration "improve the character of the property and
increase the stability of the soils"? The character and stability of the property cannot
be improved by mining compared to what it is now; 35 year old white pines, stands of
aspen and oak and a variety of plant and animals life.
Just because this land has been mined before does not mean it is OK now. It is
evident by looking at the trees and land that there has been no active mining here
since the 1970's. An Environmental Impact Study is prudent at this time before
any consideration is given to re-opening the Zavorel gravel mine.
The best decision is to abandon the gravel mining operation entirely and look for
ways to acquire the land from Dr Zavorel. I know this land. It is beautiful as a
naturally reclaimed gravel mine. The location is valuable for Scandia and its citizens
as well as for all the visitors who come up to this Valley to enjoy beautiful open
spaces. Re-opening the gravel mine should not be allowed. Aren't we more
enlightened than to destroy precious land for money?
Sincerely,
, ,i/
Lisa Schlingerman
20661 Quint Av N, Scandia
lisaschlingerman@gmail.com
'
City ofSoundin
Input on the Environmental Aomnmomncot VVorkohcc\
ZavOm} Property Mining and Reclamation Project
From Craig Christensen
pehnmrv3, 2OO9
| would like 0o enter the following comments into the public record in regards to this
proposed project.
The Highway 97 approach and dcocot into the 8L Croix River valley is one of the most
scenic and beautiful approaches k` the Lower St. Croix River from Taylors Falls to
3dUvvutcr. Less than one mile east of Highway g7 and (}|iuda Trail intersection the
Zuvnra| (]ruvc| pit comes into view. 0aoiouUy this in one mile from 8cuodiu`oci|y
ccotcr. Community surveys conducted prior to incorporation, overwhelmingly supported
Scaudia retaining its` rural obunxctor. This is also reflected in the cnnmpnoh000ivc plan. It
is a stretch to infer u gnuvc1 pit so close to the center of the city and visible to all who pass
through on this road, including ooutbbound traffic on Highway 95, iswhat the citizens
define oo "rural chomucte/`
The Environmental Assessment lacks specificity and in many instances iainaccurate.
l have attempted to list be|um/ some of the flaws contained in it.
EAW, p 13. #24
The B/\W statement fails to specify in any detail the amount ofnoise and disruption,
extraction, crushing loading, hauling, and washing of gravel will ouuec. The EAW only
refers to ruuFDoro on individual pieces of equipment, not an uucucnu|ubon of more than
one piece operating simultaneously.
Adjacent property owners, property owners within 1/2nmi\c, property owners within
l mile, recreational users of the St. Croix River, and the Standing Cedars Land Trust
adjacent to the site on the YYiuu000io side of the river will all be affected by noise levels
generated from this operation.
BAW, p2, #0-b
The E/\Wioc0rreur|y states that this site was actively mined through the eighties
Loading, hauling, crushing and washing of gravel in this site ocoxed in the 1970`s and
was never actively mined in the 0O`u. Loading and hauling of stockpiled inventory has
taken place since. Living within | mile of the site then and now | can attest that the noise
from simply removing this inventory was ongoing and relentless. It should also henoted.
that many more hOrDeu have been built within a rni|o radius of the site since and all will
EAS, P. 5 # 11
EAS, p9, # 17
The possibility of environmental damage occurring at the site due to gravel mining
operations is not without precedent.
In April of 1971 Grant J Merrit, Executive Director, State of Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and Howard R Albertson, 6`h District, Washington County State
Representative were alerted to an ongoing environmental disaster occurring at the site,
then known as the Barton Gravel Pit. Referred to as a"blow out" sand, gravel and water
rushed easterly down through a trout stream and into the St. Croix River. The sediment
destroyed the stream, which has never recovered. The sediment also significantly and
permanently altered the eastern shoreline of the St. Croix River. The trout stream and the
shoreline was never restored or reclaimed. The EAS statement outlines procedures to
control storm water run off and plans to reclaim and restore the site. Has the proposed
mining operation studied the site adequately and do the operators have in place a
prevention plan if another such accident occurs? Do they have adequate insurance
coverage if it does?
The EAS states that the quality of surface and storm water run off and sedimentation will
improve upon completion of mining operations. It provides no measurable statistics to
back up this claim. For example, what is the present day quality of the water run off and
sedimentation and what will the future goal for improvement be? Exactly what were the
original drainage patterns? After completion of mining operations, digging a 64-acre, 60-
foot pit, exactly how will these original drainage patterns be restored and improved?
Since the cessation of full-scale mining operations, approximately 30 years, nature has
been in the process of reclaiming and restoring this site. The Blandings Turtles have
been identified in the site as well as other threatened plant and animal species near and/or
surrounding it. As I read the EAS, reclamation and restoration is defined as spreading and
seeding a layer of topsoil on a specified slope into a 64-acre, sixty-foot deep pit.
Restoration and reclamation of a landscape is a matter of perspective. What is the best
fit for Scandia's "rural character" needs to be considered seriously?
EAW, p 13, #25
There has been no comprehensive archeological/historical/cultural review of the site or
surrounding area. EAW, attachment 3, State Historic Preservation Office Letter, makes
this understood.
For example, the submitted History/Architecture Inventory lists incorrect addresses for
eight of nine properties. Our properties as well as many others that are omitted are in
some instances historically older and geographically closer to the site. Another glaring
^
omission is the site of an Indian hohu| onnuod located on the `^ochon|" property. The St.
Croix River Valley is a significant historical area for the Native Americans and tile
impact of more mining should be thoroughly examined before proceeding
In conclusion, if the city of Scandia continues to entertain the possibility of a issuing a
mining permit, at the very least it must demand an Environmental Impact Study be
completed. /\ comprehensive EIS would help to illuminate many nf the above issues and
those of other concerned Suundiuresidents.
Respectfully submitted,
Craig Christensen
20861 Quint Avenue North
Sonodio, MN
February 3, 2009 ,
Ann Hurlburt
City Administrator
Scandia
Re: Zavoral Gravel Mining
As residents in the area affected by the proposed mining at the Zavoral pit, and after a
detailed review of the EAW, we are left with several concerns.
1) There is no final date by which the project must be completed. While this may depend on
when the mined aggregate is needed, it seems all the mining, crushing, etc. could be
accomplished in a specified period and materials to be stockpiled for use as required.
2) Mining is planned right up to the precipitous drop of the designated Federal Scenic River
area. A reasonable buffer zone, as safeguard to catch silt and other matter during heavy
downpours seems reasonable.
3) Importing concrete, asphalt or anything else to this sensitive site should be prohibited.
4) Washing aggregate will require substantial quantities of water which may impact artesian
wells and possibly the water level of aquifer serving residential wells. The property owner and/or
the mining company should deposit a letter of credit or similar financial instrument to
compensate residents who must install new wells. An appropriate film, selected by the city, is to
determine in a timely manner if the mining operation caused the problem, and the cost for this
service is also to be paid by Zavoral and/or the mining company.
5) Finally, who will monitor this mining operation on a continual schedule throughout the
entire mining period for all the potential problems such as dust, noise, pollution, silt run-off, etc.
6) A fully executed EIS should precede any decision the city makes with respect to this
proposed mining operation on the Zavoral property.
Sincerely
Sue and Peter Schwarz
20969 Quadrant Av. N.
Scandia, MN 55073
Anne Hurlburt
From: Carol Sundberg [carolrudysun@gmail.corn]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:14 AM
To: a hurIburt@ci.scandia.mn us
Cc: Ann Bancroft; Bill Clapp
Subject: Gravel Pit Hearing 2/3/09
Dear Anne Hurlburt,
Please put my husband and me on record as opposing operation of a gravel pit on the
Zavoral property until all environmental studies are complete. As neighbors in close
proximity to the proposed pit , we are particularly concerned about noise, truck traffic,
and runoff into the river. As far as we're concerned, there is no up-side for our
community in granting Zavorals permission to open a gravel mining operation on their
property.
Sincerely,
Carol and Rudy Sundberg
21715 Quarry Ave N
Scandia MN 55073
1