Loading...
6.a) Part 1, Public Meeting, Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Tiller Corporation's Zavoral Mining and Reclemation Project Meeting Date: 2/3/2008 Agenda Item: ��� �t ,�' � Planning Commission/ � ,�1 � �, � � City Council Agenda Report ' City of Scandia 14727 209`h 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 O 1/26/09 Attachments/ • TKDA Meinorandum 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 Hurlburt, Administrator (EAW Zavoral Project public meeting) Page 2 of 2 O 1/26/09 TKDA 444 Cedar Street,Suite 1500 Saint Paul,MN 55101-2140 ENGINEERS•ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS (651)292-4400 (651)292-0083 fax www.ikda.com 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 Permit 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 dormant, 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 pern�itted within the Riverway Zone. State Rules 4410.4300 subpart 12 specify that an EAW is required for gravel mining activities tl�at 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 be 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 Plamiing 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 followin�: 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 information 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 Zavaral Mine At the March 3 meeting, the Council will review the cominents received on the EAW, and the responses to the cominents 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 tiine, 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 detennine 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 Coiporation 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 cominent 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. Januarv 30, 2009 • � �. �. ' - � 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 uinnell Avenue N., Scandia 3 Minnesota Departinent of Trans ortation 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 I'abe I of 1 / Anne Hurlburt From: wanda20516@aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 9:00 AM To: a.hurlburt@ci.scandia.mn.us Subject: mining January 22, 2009 A�u1e 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 • L , �-___ _ _ � � .. �, i .. _ _ I i City of Scandia � � Input on the Enviroiunental Assessment Worksheet � ;�; � �� � ;� <-,;•..� �;,,,, � , , .,� ., :, ,., �, ,__ _ __ Zavoi-al 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 tlle public record regarding the proposed projects at t11e Zavoral's gravel pit. First, I do not wish any hann 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 stormwater 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. T'he 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 ���onders just how far south and west this property extends! Given this obvious error, one wonders: Is the text of this EAW just boileiplate - 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 e�7•or of words on a page—presumaUly no hann done. But is there any assurance, any guarantee, that a "small" error by someone at an engineer's drawing table, or on a cate�pillar tractor, will not send more tons of unwanted and hannful 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 hannful result, will never be undone. 3. I am not sure of the �neaning 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 proble�ns 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 coinpany 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 SPM, 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 rivernotes2 6(u�glnai 1.com 651 433-3284 � 3 �O��NNESpTqyo Minnesota Department of Transportation _ — � � Metropolitan District ��, Qo Waters Edge ��FTRP�� 1500 West County Road B-2 ; , ; 4: ; -� 6 ( ' � Roseville, MN 55113-3174 ` ' ' ' �� ! � I January 22, 2009 � � � j � , ,,,; - Anne Hurlburt x__ � ' � ' ',_, ;:;;�.� f.; �,,., _ __--=��- City Administrator � City of Scandia 14727 209`�' St Nortl� Scandia, MN 55073 SUBJECT: Zavoral Mining, Mn/DOT Review#EAW09-001 East of TH 95 at TH 97 Intersection Scandia, Washington County Control Section: 8210 Dear Ms HurlUurt: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Zavoral Mining EAW. Please note that Mn/DOT's review of this EAW does not constitute approval of a regional traffic analysis and is not a specific approval for access or new roadway improvements. As plans are refined, we would like the opportunity to meet with our partners and to review the updated infonnation. Mn/DOT's staff has reviewed the document and has the following comments: A north bound fiill right tun� lane will need to be constructed (300' RTL 180' taper)as part of the proposed use. The entrance into the site needs to be 32 feet wide. Additionally, as indicated in the EAW,the site access will need to be reconfigured to line up with TH 97 on the west side of TH 95. For questions concerning these comments, please contact Wayne Lemaniak, Mn/DOT Traffic Section, at(651)234-7830. To ensure the safety of the intersection, a Mn/DOT Level 3 Geometric Layout will need to be prepared before a permit can be issued for construction of the access and right turn lane. Por further information concerning the criteria for a Level 3 layout,please go to the following , websiie: ntip:iiwww.dot.siate.mn.us/tecsupix�piu/hpdp/t�ook2s�i�geoapp2.i�cmi Refer to the discussion about Level 3 layout and Table 1 at the bottom of the page for tl�e information concerning this layout. Information regarding the alignments, profiles,typicals, soil boring and cross sections are essential in planning for the proposed roadway change. For questions regarding design, please contact Ed Boytim,at(651)234-7646. The City/Developer may choose to pay Mn/DOT for the required improvements so that they can be coordinated and included with the Mn/DOT projects in the area. Mn/DOT will require payment for the work to be conducted by the City/Developer prior to any work by Mn/DOT. For questions concei7�ing agreements please contact Jan Ekern, Partnership Coordinator, Mn/DOT Maintenance Office at(651)366-3548 Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Permit foims are available from MnDOT's utility website at www.dotstate.mn.us/tecsup/utilitv . Please include one t 1 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any An equal opportunity employer questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig(651-234-791 1) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. As a 1-eminder, please address all initial future correspondence for deve(opment 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 be developed for 1 1" x 1 T'printable format with sufficient detail so that all features are legible); 2. Seven (7)sets of fi�ll size plans. If submitting the plans electronically, please use the pdf. fonnat. Mn/DOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews(a�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. lf you have any additional questions regarding this review please call me at(651)234-7792. Sincerely„ ? ; -� ; , �/� � ? '�, � � �C��%l Jon P. olberg Senio%Plaruier r Copy send via Group�vise: Tod Sherman Wayne Lemaniak Jan Ekern Todd Clarkowski Buck Craig Nancy Jacobson Sulmaan Kalln Ann Braden/Metropolitan Council File Copy: Mn/DOT Division File CS 8210 Mn/DOT LGL File Scandia ������;����;n�:F �!,� . I ,; ; COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET OR , HF i G�I�' �{� SC/a(tiC)i/� � ZAVORAL PROPERTY MINING AND RECLAMATION PROJECT—January--�-8,–�6Q�------------ .. 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 and not more than 65 decibels for more than 10 minutes in any l�our. Minnesota rules chapter 7030. There is no data in the EAW demonstrating that these limits will not be exceeded. Some of these homes have been designated historic by the Minnesota Historical Society, per an attachment to the EAW. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS The St. Croix River is classified as an"Outstanding Resource Value Water-Restricted" in Minnesota and as an "Outstanding Resource Water" in Wisconsin. These classifications represent the highest level of protection possible for both states and seek to prevent any degradation in water quality in the Riverway. For Minnesota, the classification requires that all "prudent and feasible alternatives"be tried prior to allowing any new or increased discharge. The proposed reopening of the Zavoral gravel operation will amount to a new or increased discharge and will pose a significant risk to water quality in the St. Croix due to potential erosion from stormwater runoff, and possibly from gravel washing operations. The size and location of the operation on an area that drains to the river significantly enhances the prospects of eroded material (suspended sediments) reaching the river. Sediment's impact on water quality and aquatic life is well documented including impacts to freshwater mussels, fish, and aquatic insects. We believe the EAW does not adequately consider the impacts of the proposed project on water quality, nor adequately consider alternatives. The EAW claims water quality will be improved after reclamation of the site, but it does not address impacts during the life of the proposed operation. RESTORATION The City must not be lured by the mirage of the restoration proposed. The slopes will be made non-erosive, and the pit sides and bottom will be planted with grass. But the pit will not be filled up. It will not be reintegrated into the landscape. It will be a hole. A bigger hole than now, wider and much deeper. Look at the restored pit between Quinnell Ave. and highway 95. For all the care given it, it is still a hole,plain and simple. Rather than permit ten years of mining in order to achieve restoration, it would be smarter to restore it now at its present size. It will still be a hole, and but not so large or deep. ECONOMIC IMPACTS The recent successful Washington County referendum supporting an integrated land and water legacy program was an expression of the broad public desire to carefully identify parcels that should be protected from further environmental harm. The point of the referendum was that if parcels meet stringent public benefit criteria for protection or restoration, they should be protected from further degradation. The Zavoral pit site meets public benefit criteria for protection and restoration. If reopened for mining, Scandia residents will certainly experience negative environmental impacts. And if a permit is issued there will be non- compensatable costs to the Scandia community. These costs cannot properly be evaluated in an EAW and will require an EIS. 3 LOCATION The site is sandwiched between the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway and the Minnesota St. 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 mining, 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 � Pocketbook impacts will be fclt by local businesses that rely on visitors for a significant part of their income. The EAW provides no information from which one can conclude local economic impacts would not be substantial if the potential for significant environmental effects is realized by opening the mining operation in this location. The role of an EAW is to scrcen a project for a potential for significant environmental effects. When the EAW demovstrates such potential, as it has done, it calls for a positive declaration by the City and order that an EIS be prepared. Only a fully prepared EIS can provide a thorough study of the environmenta] impacts of a project; comparative environmental, economic, and sociological impacts; reasonable alternatives; and mitigation measures. With this information the City(RGU) will have the information it needs to make a proper decision. The role of the City to balance the project against all environmental, economic and sociological impacts, to evaluate alternatives and mitigation measures is only possible with a fully prepared EIS. The City needs to know which economic impacts might occur as a result of 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 to capture the tourism potential in Scandia by making the Zavoral parcel into a public park rather than to erode tourism income by permitting a gravel pit that will help to move tourists to enter the St. Croix valley on Highway 8 instead of Highway 97. The St. Croix Scenic Byway, which follows along Highway 95 through Scandia, was designated by the State of Minnesota in 2004. The purpose of the scenic byway designation is to afford scenic protection to the highway route and to promote local economic benefits by promoting byway communities as important destinations for the traveling public. The Zavoral proposal conflicts with the purpose of the scenic byway and may cause irreparable economic impacts to 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. A gravel pit in this location would conflict with Scandia's environmental protection goals. It could not escape notice of residents and tourists that the City is the only entity that could have permitted such an environmental blunder if Highway 97 is permitted to run headlong into an unscreened driveway leading to a gravel pit. Permitting this proposed industrial use with its visual eyesore and increased truck traffic in immediate proximity to a State-designated scenic byway and National Scenic Riverway would be seen by tourists and residents as a real local failure to correctly assess the high potential for significant environmental impacts. CONCLUSION The proposed mining operation, because of its nature and its location, has the potential for significant environmental effects. This is an inescapable conclusion. The City should so declare. Then a full-scale EIS can flesh out whether the potential is likely and significant. 4 V At the san�e time, tl�e City should wark with landowner Zavoral to find a�iotl�er way to accomplisl� what l�e 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, �,,,� �_JL - ` � ,� �c�..�,,-Ut-�., Randy Ferrin, president, St. Croix River Association �j�—�. ,- ��: -�_ . �.,�.Q.��,� Bill Neuman, president, St. Croix Scenic Coalition S-�.CRO/� sc� ^` �`02 . ti� � P�� 5 - �. C . � �� ����; ���� �;;��,�� 3 ,� Z��;c� January 30, 2009 �; �� ��,� CITY C�f= SCANDIA To: Ann Huriburt ���------ — Zavoral Gravel Mining Proposal I have lived in Otisville for 26 years, on land that has been in my family for three generations. This property is situated below the Zavorel gravel mine on the St Croix River. I have enjoyed walking in this abandoned gravel mine with family and friends for 25 years;for this I am grateful to Dr. Zavorel. The land where the abandoned mine is located has been naturally reclaimed for 35 years with white pines, stands of aspen, oak and many other trees and plants listed in the EAW. It is the home of bobcat,fox, deer and possibly cougars,just to name a 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 River. I am very concerned about the destruction of this land and the repercussions of resuming mining operations. The EAW fails to address issues that will affect the Scandia community, the St Croix Watershed, the wild life of the Valley and visitors to the St Croix Valley and the St Croix River. This proposal is not acceptable to me and here are the main reasons. 1.Noise pollution. The valley is like an echo chamber. Scandia citizens within a mile radius, including me, will hear the constant noise of trucks and machinery coming from this site. The St Croix is a 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 stretch of River because they will hear gravel mining all day Monday through Friday, spring, summer and fall. 2.Visual pollution. The EAW states that the mining operation will not be seen from the River, but it will be seen and heard from the land. The intersection of highway 97 and 95, a designated Scenic Byway, is a main entrance to the St Croix Valley and to Scandia. The view from 97 is 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, as well as on the Scenic Byway. It will definitely destroy one of the prime vistas on the Scenic Byway and in the Valley, plus alter Scandia's identity 3.Traffic congestion. Cars are often backed up on 97 for blocks during the summer months attempting a left turn onto the Scenic Byway. Since there is only one stop sign on highway 97 the intersection is perilous. If the gravel mine is open, there will be gravel trucks, 120 trips a day, coming and going through this substandard crossing. It will be an intersection people will avoid and in doing so will bypass Scandia. Will this be good for Scandia business? More gravel trucks stopping and starting in the center of town doesn't make for a rural feeling. Do the residents living on highway 97 need more gravel trucks going by their houses destroying the road and spewing up gravel? 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? S.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; 3S 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, Lisa Schlingerman 20661 Quint Av N, Scandia lisaschlingerman@gmail.com