The URL can be used to link to this page

6.a) Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Tiller Corporation's Zavoral Mining ande Reclamation Project Meeting Date: 3/3/2009 Agenda Item: �� Plannin Commission/ � �� r � a � g . City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209`" St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Determine the next step in the review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Tiller Corporation's Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project. Deadline/ Timeline: 30-day comment period on EAW ended February 11, 2009. The City must make a decision on the need for an EIS between 3 and 30 days following the review period, or extend the review period as provided by Minnesota Rules 4410.1700. Background: • The attached memorandum from City Planner Sherri Buss describes the project and the EAW process to date. The City received 49 comments on the EAW. The next step is to respond to the comments and to made a determination on the need for an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) • After reviewing the comments, the proposer, city staff and consultants have concluded that the city does not have sufficient information to address a number of the issues identified in the comments, including noise, rare and endangered species, groundwater, surface water, future reclamation and visual impacts. • The Planner has identified two options for proceeding given the need for additional information: either making a positive declaration for an EIS and include the needed studies in the scope of the EIS; or, postpone a decision on the need for an EIS and allow the proposer to perform the additional studies before making a decision sometime later this year. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review the comments on the EAW and the staff report, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the preferred option. The City Council should consider adopting one of the two draft resolutions provided. Option A would order preparation of an EIS; Option B would delay the decision until the completion of additional analyses (no later than November 30, 2009.) Page 1 of 2 02/27/09 Attachments/ • TKDA Meinorandum dated February 26, 2009 Materials provided: . Zavoral Mine EAW—Proposed Additional Data and Analyses (Tiller Corporation, dated February 24, 2009) • List of Public Comments, EAW for Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project • EAW Comments • Correspondence from Lisa Schlingerman (2/6/09, with letters dated 1971) • Draft Resolutions (A & B) Contact(s): Sherri Buss, TKDA (651) 292-4582 Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (Tiller-Zavoral EAW) Page 2 of 2 02/27/09 T�� 444 Cedar Street,Suite 1500 Saint Paul,MN 55101-2140 ENGINEERS•ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS (651)292-4aoo (651)292-0083 Fax www.tkda.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: February 26, 2009 Routing: SUBJECT: Tiller Corporation, Inc. - EAW and CUP Application for Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project MEETING DATE: March 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, EAW Comments, Outline for Additional Studies 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. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity � Scandia Council and Planning Commission Page 2 February 26, 2008 Tiller Corporation EAW/CUP for Zavoral Mine 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 tlle area 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 wil] 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 TO DATE 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. Therefore, completion of the EAW process is the first step in the Application process for the Zavoral Mine. 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 EAW nrocess to date has included the followin�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 • 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 was 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 February 11 30 day review period ended--49 comment letters received �� Scandia Council and Planning Commission Page 3 February 26, 2008 Tiller Corporation EAW/CUP for Zavoral Mine NEXT STEPS IN THE EAW PROCESS AND CRITERIA FOR DECISION-MAKING The next steps in the EAW process will include the following: • 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 City will detennine the need for an EIS and complete the Record of Decision about the need foran EIS. • 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 2A ). 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 inforrnation to respond to the comments. Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subpart 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 enyironmental 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 envirorunental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EIS's ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ZAVORAL EAW The City received 49 comment letters on the EAW. The comment letters addressed a wide range of issues, that can be summarized in the following categories: • Potential impacts to surface waters, including the St. Croix River, Zavoral/Spring Creek, and wetlands • Potential impacts to the quality and quantity of groundwater resources, including seeps and wells • Erosion control and surface water runoff management • Potential impacts to rare species and wildlife populations • Noise impacts from traffic and mining operations • Dust impacts from traffic and mining operations • Traffic volume and safety issues • Potential impacts of light pollution • Visual impacts to recreation users on the St. Croix and to views from roadways and "gateway" to the City of Scandia � Scandia Council and Planning Coinmission Page 4 February 26, 2008 Tiller Coiporation EA W/CUP for Zavoral Mine • I�npacts of proposed processing activities � Adequacy and potential impacts of the reclamation plan • Economic iinpacts • Cumulative impacts OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THE IDENTIFIED ISSUES AND RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS City staff and consultants have reviewed the comment letters and the infonnation provided in the EAW, and determined that the EAW does not include sufficient data and analyses to address many of the issues raised in the comments adequately. The City has two options available as a next step in the process, as described in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subpart 2a: "If the RGU determines that information necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of, one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking, but could be reasonably obtained, the RGU shall either: A. Make a positive declaration (of the need for an EIS) and include within the scope of the EIS appropriate studies to obtain the lacking information; or B. Postpone the decision on the need for an EIS, for not more than 30 days or such other period of time as agreed upon by the RGU and proposer, in order to obtain the lacking information. If the RGU postpones the decision, it shall provide written notice of its action, including a brief description of the lacking information, within five days to the project proposer, the EQB staff, and any person who submitted substantive comments on the EAW. • The City's staff and consultants believe that the City does not have sufficient information at this point to address a number of the issues identified in the comments. The additional information needs to be gathered and analyzed through either option A or B. Examples of the information needed, include the following: o Example: Noise Issues—in order to determine the significance and potential reversibility or regulation/mitigation for potential noise impacts, the City needs to know the current noise levels at key locations, such as at the mine site, on the St. Croix, and at surrounding residences. The City then needs to know how much noise the proposed mining and processing activities will generate, and how this compares to applicable standards for residential and recreational areas. The City needs to determine whether the levels would exceed permitted standards, and that any mitigation proposed by the applicant would not bring the noise levels below the permitted levels, or avoid any irreversible or significant impacts. o Example: Rare and Endangered Species—the EAW lacks current field data that identifies rare species locations within the site and area that may be impacted by mining and processing activities as the site hampers the City's ability to determine whether there are signficant or irreversible impacts from the proposed activities. Without this information, the City cannot determine whether mitigation could be proposed or required to avoid or minimize these impacts to a level that is not significant. � Scandia Council and Planning Commission Page 5 February 26, 2008 Tiller Corporation EAW/CUP for Zavoral Mine The Applicant has indicated that they prefer to move forward under option B. The outline of Tiller Corporation's proposed additional wark and schedule for the additional studies are attached. The outline for most items is conceptual at this point, and staff believe that additional specificity will be needed if option A or B is selected to adeyuately address the issues raised in the comments. The work plan could be used as the basis for developing a scope for an EIS, under option A above, or for developing a work plan and scope for additional studies for the EAW under option B. NEXT STEPS IF OPTION A IS SELECTED If the Council recommends that Option A is selected, to make a positive declaration and include within the scope of the EIS appropriate studies to obtain the lacking information, the next steps in the process would be: � Adoption of a Finding of Fact and Resolution requiring an EIS (attached) • Determine the scope of the EIS, under the process described in Minnesota Rules 4410.2100 o The Findings of Fact and Resolution will be published in the EQB Monitor. o The project proposer must submit a scoping cost payment to the City o A public scoping meeting will be held by the City. Within 15 days of the public scoping meeting, the City shall issue its final decision regarding the scope of the EIS. The decision must be made at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the body following the scoping meeting, but not more than 45 days after the positive declaration is published in the EQB Monitor. o Government agencies and the public will be notified of the scoping meeting and may submit comments and participate in the scoping meeting and process. • The EIS process is likely to last 1 year or longer. NEXT STEPS IF OPTION B IS SELECTED City staff and consultants recommend the following if the Council selects option B: • Adoption of the resolution extending the EAW process, indicating that the decision on the need for an EIS be postponed until after the additional data and analyses are provided by the Applicant, and reviewed by the staff, consultants and Council. The City can extend the review process with the agreement of the Applicant (Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subpart 2). • Require that the Applicant provide copies of the specific scope and timeline for each of the studies to the City for review and approval, along with the name and qualifications of the firms or individuals that will complete the work. • Review the proposed work plans with the commenting agencies where appropriate, such as reviewing the scope of work for analyses affecting the St. Croix Riverway with the National Park Service, and work plans for surface and ground water analysis with the Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District. • That the City will have up to two months to review the results of the analyses before finalizing the responses to comments and Record of Decision. ,.-- a Scandia Council and Planning Cominission Page 6 February 26, 2008 Tiller Corporation EAW/CUP for Zavoral Mine • The City Council, staff and consultants will review the additional data and analyses. The Council may require further analyses or revised analyses, if the initial work does not provide the infonnation needed to determine whether an EIS is required. The Applicant will also need to respond fully to the issues identified in the comments that are not proposed for additional studies. Staff anticipate that they will need to provide additional infonnation on issues such as traffic volumes and safety and economic impacts in order to address the issues raised in the comments. The Applicant's estimated that the additional analyses could be completed and results available to the City during the summer of 2009. The schedule is based on the need to complete a number of field inventories and analysis that need to be completed during the spring and summer. When the necessary analyses have been completed to determine whether an EIS is needed, the City will complete the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision. If the results of the analyses are available by September 1, 2009, the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision could be completed at the earliest on November 15, 2009. The proposed resolution suggests extending the EAW process to November 30, 2009. The notice of decision will also be published in the EQB Monitor. , POTENTIAL APPEAL OF THE CITY'S DECISION 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 Subpart 4) 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. ACTION REQUESTED: Staff request that the Council review this report, consider options A and B, and adopt the appropriate resolution. � ZAVORAL MINE EAW—SCANDIA, MN—PROPOSED ADDITIONAL DATA AND ANALYSES Provided by Tiller Corporation February 24, 2009 In order to enable an informed response to each of the comments that have been received, more information is needed. The following issues that have been raised during the Environmental Assessment Worksheet comment period, will require more in depth analysis in order to determine whether or not the potential for significant impacts exists. Groundwater Quantity: Determine whether use of water in dust control and processing has the potential for significant environmental effects related to the amount of groundwater available. A groundwater study will be completed which will indentify the quantity of water to be used for both washing and dust control activities. The study will include an evaluation of the water source for the proposed activities, identification of adjacent potable water supplies (residential wells or spring boxes) and groundwater dependent natural resources such as the springs,wetlands and creeks located in the vicinity of the site. The study will include modeling to predict potential impact to these features, evaluate improvements, and provide a proposed mitigation and monitoring plan. Groundwater Quality: Determine whether the operations as proposed and as regulated through City, local government and state permitting programs have the potential for significant effects to quality of groundwater resources. A report on the potential impacts to groundwater quality will be prepared. The report will identify the possible sources of impacts related to aggregate production and evaluate the potential for groundwater impacts from the Project as proposed and regulated. This evaluation will address any potential for effects to potable water supplies, The St. Croix River and related groundwater dependent natural resources. The report will include an evaluation of improvements such as BMP's and provide a proposed mitigation and monitoring plan. Noise: Determine whether the Project as proposed could generate noise levels at nearby receptors in excess of applicable standards and evaluate rhe ability of mitigation to avoid the potential for significant noise effects. Also determine whether there are anticipated noise effects to the St Croix Riverway interests. An inventory of ambient sound levels will be obtained. An evaluation of predicted sound levels will be prepared for sound associated with operation of the site and truck traffic generated from the site. The evaluation will include the consideration of current and projected background noise levels, as well as noise levels generated from operating equipment. A model will be developed which will take into account site specific conditions, including topography, equipment placement,truck traffic and operating hours. Potential receptor locations will be identified which will include receptors using the St.Croix River for recreational purposes. The report will evaluate project modifications which can provide effective mitigation measures. � Biological Survey: Determine whether the project has the potential to permanently adversely affect the viability of rare plant and animal species and their habitat. A biological survey will be conducted to identify any presence of rare plant and animal species as well as native plant communities and other sensitive ecological resources located within the proposed mining area itself. In addition a survey of similar occurrences in the surrounding area will be completed. The biological survey of the plant and animal species will include an analysis of the project's potential impacts on these resources and the reversibility of such impacts. In addition Project modifications that could lessen identified impacts will be evaluated. Reclamation Plan: Present a more detailed description of plans for redaiming the site and previously mined areas. Determine whether there are potential environmental effects which can be avoided by revisions to the Reclamation Plan. A detailed reclamation plan will be prepared for the site. The reclamation plan will include the phasing and timing of reclamation activities, planting schedules, habitat reconstruction and invasive species removal as may be necessary. The reclamation plan will include the input of the Mn Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Department of Interior for certain portion of the project that is located within the Wild and Scenic District and/or scenic easement area. An evaluation of whether there may be potential for environmental effects from reclamation will be presented as well as a plan for evatuating and monitoring the success of the ceclamation. Surface water resources: Determine whether there is a potential for significant environmental effects to identified resources resulting from management of surface water in conducting the Project. The inventory of identified surface water features will be evaluated to determine any connection with the Project and its surface water management. Possible impacts to wetlands, Zavoral's Creek and the others relating to the presence of phosphorous,TSS, heavy metals, PAH's and temperature in run off waters from aggregate production and asphalt recycling will be inventoried and the potential for such impacts to occur in the course of this Project will be evaluated. In addition the potential for impacts from ambient dust to surface waters and the need for surface water monitoring will be evaluated. Viewshed Analysis: Determine whether there are potential significant environmental effects to viewsheds as a result of the Project. An evaluation of visual impacts will be prepared for the site. The evaluation will include a viewshed analysis completed in ArcGIS. A model will be developed which will take into account site specific conditions, including topography, vegetation and equipment and stockpile placement. Potential viewshed locations will be identified which will include neighboring residences, the St. Croix River, the bluff areas to the east in Wisconsin and State Highways 95 and 97. The report will evaluate alternatives and provide proposed mitigation measures. G Time Frame for In Depth Analysis and Response to Comments Issues have been raised during the Environmental Assessment Worksheet comment period that will require more in depth analysis in order to determine whether or not the potential for significant impacts exists. The proposed studies include a groundwater quantity study, a groundwater quality report, a noise evaluation, a biological survey, review of a detailed reclamation plan, an evaluation of surface water resources and a viewshed analysis. Work on all of the proposed analyses start immediately. The noise evaluation and viewshed analysis may be extended into the growing season in order to compare such things as leaf off conditions to leaf on conditions. The scope of the more in depth surface water resources evaluation and biological survey will require that some of the investigations and evaluations,which could last from two to three weeks, be conducted during the active growing season. Depending on the particular growing season,these investigations and evaluations will not be able to be completed until late May or possibly mid to late 1une. Compiling the information and completing the various reports and analyses and developing informed responses to the comments received will likely take up to four weeks from the time the investigations and evaluations are completed. • � Planning Commission and City Council— You received EAW Comments # 1 through #47 in your packets 2/13/09. The list has been updated and copies have been provided of only the two new comment letters (#48 & #49) received after that mailing. � If you need additional copies of the EAW or of any of the comment letters, please let staff know and we'll have them for you at the meeting on March 3. Thanks! /v 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 10:00 a.m. Februar,v 17, 2009 � � � . - � . - � . .� 1 Richard and Wa�Ida 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., Scanciia 3 Minnesota Department 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 5. Lisa Schlingerman 1/30/09 20661 Quint Ave. N., Scandia 6. Craig Christenson 2/3/09 20661 Quint Ave. N., Scandia 7. Sue and Peter Schwarz 2/3/09 20969 Quadrant Ave. N., Scandia 8. Carol and Rudy Sundberg 2/3/09 (e-mail) 21715 Quarry Ave. N., Scandia 2/9/09 (US mail 9. Christopher E. Stein, Superintendent 2/2/09 - 2/3/09 National Park Service, St. Croix National Scenic Riverwa 10. David Addis and Mary Zink 2/3/09—2/4/09 21670 Oland Ave., Scandia 11. Grant Wheaton 2/4/09 (e-mail) 21399 Pomro Ave. N., Scandia 12. Phletus and Sally Williams 2/3/09—2/5/09 (e-mail) Skwms2767 aol.com 13. Metro olitan Council 2/4/09—2/5/09 14. Tom W. Boesel 2/4/09—2/5/09 21060 St. Croix Trail N., Scandia 15. Walter& Lois Srock 2/5/09 (e-mail) 20965 St. Croix Trail N., Scandia 16. Walter& Lois Srock 2/5/09 (e-mail) 20965 St. Croix Trail N., Scandia 17. Bruce W. Hutchinson 2/8/09 —2/9/09 (e-mail) PO Box 2707, Olympica Valley, CA 96146 18. Karen Sogge 2/9/09 (e-mail) 21350 Pomroy Ave. N., Scandia 19. Richard J. Leider 2/9/09 (e-mail) 23229 St. Croix Trail N., Scandia 1 �� • � . - R . - � -� 20. Dirk Peterson, Acting Regional Director 2/9/09 (e-mail) De artment of Natural Resources 21. Ron Johnson 2/7/09 — 2/9/09 28787A SOth Ave., Osceola WI 54020 22. Roger Harvieux 2/9/09 (e-mail) 20258 St. Croix Trail. N, Scandia 23. Louie DiBerardini 2/9/09 (e-mail) 20680 St. Croix Trail N., Scandia 24. Mary Vogel 2/9/09 (e-mail) 725 Pine Cone Trail, PO Box 204, Marine on St. Croix 25. Georgiana Anderson 2/9/09 (e-mail) 20453 Quinnell Ave. S., Scandia 26. Edmund & Judith Summersby 2/9/09 — 2/10/09 (e-mail)— 15 Vassal Lane, Cambrid e, MA 02138 2/11/09 (ori inal b mail) 27. Chauncey Anderson 2/10/09 (e-mail) Portland, Ore on andr ant hevanet.com 28. Terry N. Saario 2/9/09 —2/10/09 34 Park Lane, Minnea olis, MN 55416 29. Jessica Ebertz 2/10/09 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 30. Scott T. Westphal 2/10/09 20685 Quinnell Ave., Scandia 31. Jim Shaver, Administrator 2/9/09—2/10/09 Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District 32. Cornelia Eberhart 2/10/09 (e-mail) 20455 Quinnell Ave., Scandia 33. Kathleen Lewis 2/10/09 (e-mail) 657 Fairmount Ave., St. Paul MN 55105 34. Gingy and Robert Molacek 2/10/09 (e-mail) 35123 Hanson Mesa Road, Hotchkiss, CO 81419 35. Deidre Pope and Robyn Dochterman 2/8/09—2/11/09 16277 Quality Trail N., Scandia 36. Mark and Dawn McGinley 2/10/09—2/11/09 14600 Ostrum Trail N., Marine on St. Croix 37. James Wilcox Dimmers 2/10/09—2/11/09 PO Box 366, Osceola WI 54020-0366 38. Christine Maefsky 2/11/09 12521 Ma berr Trail N., Scandia 39. Ann Bancroft and Pamela Arnold 2/11/09 16560 220th St N., Scandia 40. Jyneen Thatcher and Pete Young 2/11/09 Washington Conservation District 41. David and Carla Buck 2/10/09 —2/11/09 16101 Scandia Trail N., Scandia t�_... 2 { • • � . � . ' -� 42. Nancy Etzwiler 2/11/09 2323 Northrid e Ave. Circle, Stillwater MN 55082 43. Georgeanna Lewis 2/11/09 (e-mail) eor eanna.lewis nail.com 44: Harriet Lerdal and Suzanne Lundgren 2/11/09 (e-mail) 2215 Xe�es Ave. N., Golden Valley MN 55422 45. Piers Lewis 2/11/09 (e-mail) 657 Fairmount Ave., St. Paul MM 55105 46. Sally Leider 2/11/09 (e-mail) 23229 St. Croix Trail N., Scandia MN 55073 47. Judy and Larry Kavanagh 2/12/09 (e-mail) 17600 St. Croix Trail, Marine on St. Croix 48. Thomas P. Rumreich & Ruth Ronning 2/10/09 - 2/17/09 23225 St. Croix Trail N., Scandia MN 55073 49. Gregory Page 2/16/09—2/17/09 (e-mail) a e riverfrontco oration.com 3 /-� �� • . =-��--- ,t.. ,. ;y.! t . ;�•. `lt> i,V ! p y.� � � �t� F,,�`�' h`f �.�'� � �:K � � � � � Md ,�� j _�� THOMAS P. RUMREICH, DDS, MA � RUTH A. RONNING i'I"T�r C�F ., �,^.^��_'�(ia, � � _.___--___ . __ 23225 SAINT CROIX TRAIL NORTH � SCANDIA, MN 55073 651.433.2098 Scandia City Council 14727 209`h St. North Scandia, MN 55073 February 10, 2009 Dear City Council: It is my fervent request for you to reconsider the Zovoral project. This proposed operation is counterintuitive to the goals and objectives of the Scenic Riverway and the Minnesota Scenic Byway. There is no question that the quality of this pristine environment will be adversely affected by development of this nature. The project is between two areas dedicated to preserve the waterway and its abutting properties and is destructive to both. In addition to the deleterious impact of this proposed development, consider that the Hy. 95/97 intersection is already a dangerous situation and to further complicate it with hauling trucks imposes more safety hazards. At the very least, require an Environmental Impact Study of this proposal before the project moves ahead any further. You owe it to the citizens of this beautiful, scenic, and environmentally important waterway/byway to consider the potential impact. Sincerely, � �a�Rxmrei C,( , , uth A. Ronning / � �� . � �. :�� i'{ � r From: Gregory Page [mailto:page@riverfrontcorporation.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 12:52 PM To: a.huriburt@ci.scandia.mn.us � �:` (, � ! Subject: Tiller Zavoral Proposal , i February 16, 2009 ' I � Anne Hurlburt �� ;'� -.,,�,r:�!-;�;�� . City Administrator 14717 209`'' St North Scandia, MN 55073 Re: Tiller Corporation's Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project Dear Anne, Though I spoke at the February 3 Planning Commission public hearing, I wanted to put in writing my views on the proposal. First let me reiterate how glad I am that the Zavorals are planning to reclaim the gravel pit site. We have been good neighbors for about 30 years and the gravel pit has been open all that time. I share with many neighbors and passersby the great pleasure in knowing that the site will be restored as prairie/meadow and woodland as the site is remediated. In the public hearing I stated two concerns, both of which I understand the Zavorals and Tiller Corporation are addressing. �, The first concern is over ground water quality and private wells in the nearby area. I understand that the water table will not be penetrated by the mining activities; that on site water settling ponds will allow significant reuse of water, rather than continually drawing from the aquifer to manage the gravel washing; and that appropriate agencies will monitor ongoing operations to make sure no ground water problems are caused—or that immediate and appropriate action is taken if a problem occurs. These assurances are comforting. The second concern is that the mining operations will be very noisy and visually disturbing. I hope to begin living year `round on my property(immediately adjacent to the northern edge of the gravel pit) in 2010 or 2011. I have discussed my concerns with Mr. Zavoral and he has said he will plant trees on the four acres of land on the northern edge of the gavel pit that will not be mined, if the mining permit is granted. This will at least provide some vegetative buffer to grow in as the mining operations move from the southern end of the pit towards the north (my property) over the next 8 to 10 years. If the four acres are planted with a mix of hardwoods and pines, indigenous to the area, I trust that will provide the best natural buffer possible as the Zavorals begin the reforestation of the area to the benefit of all (other near neighbors, wildlife, those who use Highways 95 and 97, etc) as their reclamation plans state. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely Gregory Page i , d � c�� ¢ � ��:,. E 6 r a" 6..y _ _ . �� ... . E�: ._. ' t ; r i/ � r-: ! � �''` '� l�I �`( f ( �:I I 1' l;f- `, � r. . , , �,,�,r'� :� --________--_ t�_;;< � � L� ` (��.�,��,�C�,��' C �, �� ,.° �•�,,�( C.�! __.. ; . �� `� � ( `�c`� .� , � �'L�t,��.i%� C��i:' C�,�; �.��:-� � `�c'�� . ��y��t,�,� �� ,��=( ��.:�'� ��"'� �.:�C-� i�-� ��-f � �y� �;',�,�r� �,,� � � , � � � ��,,��' ��;�,�,}�,, ',�{..r'i 1 �� , ��`��' �f��.�.�'��c':�-� �i��t�� , � ._�___- ___-- �.�11�1,� �.;��C.�:�".��,�-�1�"�`i �C��„�t:�.� . ,�-; � r. , " �' � % �� '� �'��%I:�._ ..,) �. � L.. �� / � �.,k%�.�� ..'l, f�� , . �.� �� - ! � April 10, 1971 Mr. Grant J. Merritt Executive Director State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 717 Delaware St S.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Dear Mr. Merritt Thank you for your reply to my letter of March 10th concerning the manner in which the Barton Construction Company is operating their gravel pit to the considerable damage to the environment of much of New Scandia Township. I, of course, am very pleased to hear the gravel pit will in the future be operating in such a manner as to limit their dust omissions. However, this is only part of the damaging effects resulting from the way it has been operated. Additionally, there is noise, also recognized as a pollutant, as well as the considerable damage done to the streams and rivers. I do hope that something can be done about this also so that the area will really be worthy of its inclusion in the Federal Wild River program as at present visualized. Thank you for whatever help you can give. Sincerely, (Mrs.R.P. ) Schlingerman Scandia, Minnesota 55073 � 7 March 18 Board of Commissioners Washington County Office Buildin� Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a copy of a letter which I received from Mrs. R.P. Schlingerman of Scandia, which is self explanatory. By mailing to you a copy of this letter 1 wish to reiterate my great concern with the problem of the Barton Company gravel pit in Scandia Township. Thank you for your courtesies and cooperation in this mater. Yours truly, /s/ Howard R. Albertson Howard R. Albertson State Representative Washington County HRA/p 1 Enc. cc: Mrs. R. P. Schlingerman Same letter sent to the Pollution Control Agency and New Scandia Town Board lg HOINARD R. ALBER i SOi�! 8TH DISTRICT . _ "' .. � COIdIdITTEES: WASHINGTON COUNTY .r - - - JUDIGRRY, CHAIR�dAN �"is -� - — Ef�VIRONRSENihL FRESERVATIO;.' 205 \N, CHES7NU7 5T. ,�,SI` GOVERIJM1SENTaL OPERp710N5 STILLYJA7ER, }.71NNESOTA SSCE2 " f�1ETROPOLITAN AND UReAh:qFFFIFs ��3°4� . _ �_.L . �J�i� - � _,.,::.��f+-� -_ _. REGULATED INDUSTRIES -- - -_ .,-" - � ` _ _—_— RULES AND LEGISLATIVE ADAiINISTRATIOh � i�ie oi,��tiri�eso�a HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES P.UBREY�'L DIRIAhq. S?ea!•.er Nlarch 18, 1971 Mrs. R.P. Schlengerman Scandia Minnesota 55073 Dear Mrs. Schlengerman: Thank you for your letter with regard to the Barton Company and the St. Croix River and Scandia Township, I have written letters to the Scandia Town �oard and to the Wash3.ngton Count,y Board of Commissioners and to the Pollution Contro,l Agency with regard to the problem about which you write. In addition, I am mailing to all of the aforesaid governmental agencies a copy of your letter, reitera- tin� my great concern. Yours truly, �, :� .� , .' � � � � . i��_�r �' / � � i j ,. . :� . �i � ` ( l. � , , Howard R. Albertson State Representative Washington County i�iRA/pl ;/��`:\, �E / ! _`,~-�' / ! OPTION A CITY OF SCANDIA RESOLUTION NO. 03-03-09-02 DECLARING A POSITIVE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ZAVORAL MINING AND RECLAMATION PROJECT, LOCATED IN SECTIONS 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 32 NORTH, RANGE 19 WEST IN THE CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City of Scandia is the Responsible Governmental Unit in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project, located in Sections 18 and 19, Township 32 North, Range 19 West in the City of Scandia; and WHEREAS, the EAW is based on operation of a gravel mine and processing operation on a dormant,un-reclaimed gravel mine site of 114 acres located along St. Croix Trail North (State TH 96) near its intersection with State TH 97, and a portion of the site is located in the St. Croix River District Zone; and WHEREAS, the city of Scandia has submitted a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on the EAW distribution list,publishing EAW availability in the EQB Monitor on January 12, 2009, all of which were done in accordance with applicable State laws, rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, the City of Scandia acknowledges the comments received from forty-six (46) agencies or individuals during the official comment period, and seven (7) of the comment letters were received from regulatory agencies, including the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the National Park Service—St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District and the Washington Conservation District; and WHEREAS, the comments received indicated that the proposed Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project is lacking sufficient information to determine the potential for, or significance of, the possible environmental effects of the proposed project, and that additional appropriate studies could be reasonably obtained; and WHEREAS, the City concurs with the comments received that the EAW does not contain the information necessary to make a reasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of, possible environmental impacts, and that such information is necessary to allow the City to decide whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects as described in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subpart 7; NOW, THEREORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Scandia does make a positive declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project located in Sections 18 and 19, Township 32 North, � v Resolution 03-03-09-02 Page 2 of 7 Range 19 West in the City of Scandia, and adopts the Record of Decision, Findings of Fact and Conclusions included as "Attaclunent A" to this resolution. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Scandia this 3`d day of March, 2009. Dennis D. Seefeldt, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk/ Administrator �� Resolution 03-03-09-02 Page 3 of 7 Attachment A, Resolution 03-03-09-02 CITY OF SCANDIA Washington County, Minnesota RECORD OF DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS DATE: March 3, 2009 RE: Determination of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) PROJECT: Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project EAW LOCATION: Sections 18 and 19, Township 32 North, Range l 9 West FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1000-4410.1700, the City of Scandia, Washington County, Minnesota, acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) approved the EAW prepare by Tiller Corporation for the Zavoral Mine and Relclamation Project EAW for distribution to reviewers and the public. 2. The EAW is incorporated by reference in this Record of Decision. 3. As indicated in the EAW, the proposed Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project includes operation of a gravel mine and processing operation on a dormant, un-reclaimed gravel mine site. The site was mined by multiple operators before it was taken out of production in the 1980's. The previous mining activity was not subject to environmental review. The 114-acre site is located along St. Croix Trail North (State TH 96) near its intersection with State TH 97. A portion of the site is located in the St. Croix River District Zone. The application proposes reclamation activities within the Riverway Zone, and mining and processing activities near the Riverway Zone. 4. The City Council authorized EAW submittal to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) on December 16, 2008. 5. A press release announcing the availability of the EAW for public review and comment, including a brief description of the project, was sent to the Country Messenger, Forest Lake Times, St. Paul Pioneer Press and Star Tribune on December 30, 2008. 6. The EAW was filed with the MEQB and notice of its availability for public review and comment was published in the EQB Monitor on January 12, 2009. A copy of the EAW was sent to all persons on the MEQB Distribution List and to persons who requested a copy. The EAW was also made available at the City of Scandia offices. o�� Resolution 03-03-09-02 Page 4 of 7 7. The 30-day public review and convnent period for the EAW began on January 12, 2009 and ended on February 11, 2009. 8. During the 30-day public reivew and comment period, the City of Scandia received forty- six (46) written comments on the EAW from agencies or individuals. Three additional comments were received after the close of the comment period. Seven (7)•of the comment letters were received from regulatory agencies. The other comments were from organizations and individuals. Comments were received from the following agencies: a) Minnesota Department of Transportation b) National Park Service—St. Croix National Scenic Riverway c) Metropolitan Council d) Department of Natural Resources e) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency fl Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District g) Washington Conservation District The written comments received addressed a wide range of issues, and identified potentia] environmental impacts to the following: • Potential impacts to surface waters, including the St. Croix River(an Outstanding Resource Value Water), Zavoral Creek (a trout stream), and wetlands, including unique and sensitive wetland types • Potential impacts to the quality and quantity of groundwater resources, including seeps and active wells • Potential impacts of erosion; sediment and surface water from mining operations on surface and ground waters • Potential impacts to rare species and wildlife populations that have been identified in the project area and areas of potential impact • Noise impacts from traffic and mining operations on recreational activities within the National Scenic Riverway and on nearby residences • Dust impacts from traffic and mining operations on the quality of the St. Croix River and nearby residences and resources • Traffic volume and safety issues • Potential impacts of light pollution • Visual impacts to recreation users on the St. Croix and to views from roadways and "gateway"to the City of Scandia • Impacts of proposed processing activities on ground and surface waters and other resources • Adequacy and potential impacts of the reclamation plan • Economic impacts • Cumulative impacts 9. The City has carefully reviewed the comment letters and the information provided in the EAW, and determined that information necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of possible environmental impacts is lacking, for example, the agency comment letters note the following issues, along with others listed above: a�� Resolution 03-03-09-02 Page 5 of 7 • The Carneliai� Marine St. Croix Watersl�ed District(CMSCWD) comment letter notes the following: o "The parcel boundaries contain very sensitive resources including the epheineral and perennial reaches of Zavoral's stream which is a highly sensitive trout stream flowing through the property and then entering the St. Croix River just downstream from the property. No mention of this stream is made in the EAW: o "Many high quality natural communities were identified as existing along Zavoral's stream, some within the parcel boundaries, and more just adjacent to the property. There are very sensitive seepage wetlands along Zavoral's stream that begin within the property and extend beyond the property downstream. The EAW does not address the specifics of the very high quality and highly sensitive natural resources associated with Zavoral's stream. o "The EAW includes a printout from the Request for Natural Heritage information from the MN DNR. Over 65 occurrences of rare features have been documented within a 1 mile radius of the proposed project. There is little or no evidence to suggest that focused surveys were ever conducted by the MN DNR or other qualified scientists for rare elements within the property boundaries... This high concentration of rare elements within one mile of the project site suggests that the presence likelihood of rare features within the subject property is high. Furthermore, the presence/absence of potential rare elements within the subject property is unknown...The data included in the printout from the Natural heritage Information System contains records that are mostly over 10 years old. Furthermore, this list is not an all-inclusive list of rare elements that could potentially occur within and/or adjacent to the proposed project. o "The EAW contains information that states that NO WETLANDS are located on the property. Furthermore the wetland investigation took place on November 1 l, 2003, which is outside of the growing season. Data from the MN DNR Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) along with data from the 2003 Lower St. Croix River Spring Creek Stewardship Plan have documented more than one wetland located on the property...The area(s) identified as wetland in the MLCCS data and the Spring Creek Stewardship Plan should be investigated, and delineated (if necessary) during the growing season." • The Washington Conservation District comment letter notes many of the same issues as those identified by the CMSCWD, and also notes the following: o "The submittal identified no wetlands on the site, based on the delineation report submitted as an attachment. This delineation report was prepared in 2003, and has not been reviewed and/or approved by the WCD (as is the usual practice for wetland delineations in Scandia)...In particular attention should be given to the areas identified by the MLCCS inventory as being riparian corridors or black ash swamp. If seepage wetland are identified on or near the site, that finding could signficantly alter the allowed activities. ca�7 Resolution 03-03-09-02 Page 6 of 7 o "The MnDNR Natural Heritage database report indicates the presence of species and plan communities of concern near the site. Many of the same communities are present on this site (maple-basswood farest; oak forest; black ash seepage swamp), but not identified during the DNR's earlier inventories. We recommend that the intact natural areas be surveyed for the presence of significant species by a qualified ecologist, to ensure compliance with regulations pertaining to species of concern." • The United States Department of the Interior—National Park Service notes the following in its comment letter: o "The active portion of the gravel mine would be located approximately 1250 feet (or '/ mile) west of the St. Croix River. Noise from gravel mine operation could easily be heard from the river. A 2002 river management plan, developed with extensive public involvement, provides guidance that this section of the river is to be managed to provide a "quiet waters" experience and "consistently low" noise levels. The NPS established primitive campsites along this stretch last year so that visitors could enjoy it in the intended manner. The EAW provides no information on projected noise levels or its impact to visitor enjoyment of the Riverway. o "The EAW states that gravel processing equipment will reach 25 feet in height, with stockpiles up to 50 feet in height, and both will be placed in lower areas of the mining operation. The document goes on to state that they are not expected to be visible from the St. Croix River,but little information is given as to how this was determined. We recommend that a viewshed analysis be performed using GIS technology to determine the extent of visibility. o "The discussion of cumulative impacts in the EAW is cursory. o "In summary the NPS does not believe that the EAW provides sufficient information for the City of Scandia, as the Responsible Government Unit, to reach an environmentally-informed decision." • The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comment letter notes that: o "A cumulative potential effects analysis must consider other projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project that might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resource(s) as the proposed Project, including future projects already planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid. This does not appear to have been done in this EAW, which focuses solely on the proposed mining and reclamation activities at the site." • Other comment letters also identify the potential impacts identified by these agencies and in the list above, and note that the EAW does not provide the information needed to determine the potential for, or significance of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. o The commenters and City have identified several additional studies that are needed to gather and analyze the information needed to identify the potential effects of the proposed Zavoral project, and determine"whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects", based on the criteria specified in Mn Rules Part 4410.1700, Subpart 7: ■ The type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects; as Resolution 03-03-09-02 Page 7 of 7 ■ The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future proj ects; ■ The extent to which the environinental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; ■ 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 EISs. CONCLUSIONS o The City of Scandia has fulfilled all applicable procedural requirements of law and rule regarding the determination of need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project. o Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, Subparts 2a, 6 and 7,the proposed project has been evaluated by the public and the City of Scandia (RGU) to determine potential environmental effects. Based on the findings and record in this matter, the City of Scandia has determined that the proposed Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project is lacking sufficient infonnation to make a reasoned determination about the potential for, or significance of, one or more possible environmental impacts, and that this determination could be made within the scope of an EIS including appropriate studies to obtain the lacking information. o Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, Subpart 5, a copy of this RGU Record of Decision is being provided, within 5 days, to all persons on the MEQB Distribution List, to persons commenting and to persons who requested a copy. This Record of Decision will also be made available on the City of Scandia's website. Name and Title of Signer: Anne Hurlburt City Administrator City of Scandia, Minnesota March 3, 2009 �6 OPTION B CITY OF SCANDIA RESOLUTION NO. 03-03-09-02 RESOLUTION POSTPONING THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN EIS FOR THE ZAVORAL MINING AND RECLAMATION PROJECT, LOCATED IN SECTIONS 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 32 NORTH, RANGE 19 WEST IN THE CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City of Scandia is the Responsible Governmental Unit in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project, located in Sections 18 and 19, Township 32 North, Range 19 West in the City of Scandia; and WHEREAS, the EAW is based on operation of a gravel mine and processing operation on a dormant, un-reclaimed gravel mine site of 114 acres located along St. Croix Trail North (State TH 96) near its intersection with State TH 97, and a portion of the site is located in the St. Croix River District Zone; and WHEREAS, the city of Scandia has submitted a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on the EAW distribution list, publishing EAW availability in the EQB Monitor on January 12, 2009, all of which were done in accordan�e with applicable State laws, rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, the City of Scandia acknowledges the comments received from forty-six (46) agencies or individuals during the official comment period, and seven (7) of the comment letters were received from regulatory agencies, including the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the National Park Service—St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District and the Washington Conservation District; and WHEREAS,the comments received indicated that the proposed Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project is lacking sufficient information to determine the potential for, or significance of, the possible environmental effects of the proposed project, and that additional appropriate studies could be reasonably obtained; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 indicate that if the City determines that information necessary to make a reasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking,but could reasonably be obtained, the City may postpone the decision on the need for an EIS for not more than 30 days or such other period of time as agreed upon by the RGU and the proposer, in order to obtain the lacking information; and a7 Resolution 03-03-09-02 Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, the City and Tiller Corporation, the proposer for the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project, have agreed to postpone the decision on the need for an EIS to November 30, 2009 to allow for the completion of additional studies to provide the lacking infonnation; and that the City has detennined that the Proposer shall provide copies of the specific scope and timeline for each of the studies to the City for review and approval, along with the name and qualifications of the firms or individuals that will complete the work; and that the City and commenting agencies will have up to two months to review the results of the analyses before finalizing the responses to comments and record of decision; NOW, THEREORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Scandia hereby postpones the decision on the need for an Enviromnental Impact Statement for the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project located in Sections 18 and 19, Township 32 North, Range 19 West in the City of Scandia to November 30, 2009. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Scandia this 3rd day of March, 2009. Dennis D. Seefeldt, Mayor ATTEST: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator �� TILLER Tiller Corporation nnd its opernting diaisions �cor�oru�-rioN Barton Sand&Gravel Co. Co�runercial Asphalt Co. Corporate Office: Barton Enterprises,Inc. PO Box 1480 general:(763)425-4191 . 7200 Hemlock[.ane,Suite 200 facsimile:(763)425-7153 Maple Grove,Minnesota 55311 web: www.tillercorp.com February 27,2009 Anne Hurlbert,Administrator Ciiy of Scandia 14727 209�St. North Scandia,MN 55073 Re: Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project EAW Decision-Making Process Postponement Dear Anne: After reviewing comments pertaining to the above referenced EAW,Tiller Corporation understands and agrees with City of Scandia staff that information necessary to make a reasoned decision about the potenti�l for environmental impacts is lacking. However,we believe the lacking inforrnation needed to make a reasoned decision can be reasonably obtained. Therefore,Tiller Corporation respectfully requests the City of Scandia postpone the decision making process on the EAW until such time that the lacking informaHon has been obtained, analyzed and reviewed. Tiller Corporation concurs with City Staff that the postponement should be to November 30,2009. Please contact me if you have any questions. I may be reached at(763)425-4191. Respectfully, Tiller Corporation �� - Mich �e'� 1 Caron Director of Land Use Affairs This Company is an Equal Opportunity Employer Page 1 of Anne Huriburt From: prlarson3m@mmm.com Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:52 AM To: a.hurlburt@ci.scandia.mn.us Subject: Zavorai Mine Proposal Ann Hurlburt City Administrator City of Scandia Dear Ann, It is my understanding that any comments regarding this proposal should go through you, I hope this is an appropriate way to send my comments in , if not please advise. Best regards. Phil March 2, 2009 Dear Scandia Town Board, This letter is submitted to support Jim and Kathy Zavoral & Tiller Corporation's proposed plan to reopen the gravel mine that is on their property. I live in close proximity to this site and personally feel that the benefits out weigh the negatives. I support this proposal due to the following reasons. 1. During the current economic downturn, this will keep people employed with jobs in our area. 2. We all need good roads to get to work, shop etc and keep our vehicles in good running condition; the gravel has to come from somewhere. It makes more sense to me to reopen an existing site, than to create a new mine. This current site has already lost all its top soil and trees. 3. They have agreed to do reclamation of the property when the mining has been completed with high standards set for restoring the site. Respectively submitted, Phil Larson & Family 16050 Quality Trail Scandia, Minnesota, 55073 Phil R. Larson Bldg. 250-1-01 Automotive Aftermarket Division Advanced Specialist New Products Group Tel: 651-737-4966 Cell: 612-860-9847 Fax: 651-733-2491 3/2/2009 Comparison of EIS and EAW March 3, 2009 City Role and Responsibilities: EIS City Role and Responsibilities: EAW ■ The City would determine the Scope of the EIS ■ The City would negotiate the scope of the through a formal,prescribed process additional studies needed for the EAW with the Applicant,and would need to reach agreement ■ The City must determine the cost of the scoping with the applicant on the scope,workplan and process 8 the proposer pays this cost timeline for the additional work ■ The City would hire the consultant for the EIS ■ The Applicant would select the consultant(s)to complete the additional EAW work and pay for ■ The proposer would pay for the full cost of the work directly. City review costs would be completing the EIS on a reimbursement basis charged to the applicant on a reimbursement basis EIS Scope is not "worksheeY' Alternatives format as for EAW ■ General contents and requirements of the EIS ■An EIS must consider and compare the are described in environmental regulations,and impacts of the"reasonable alternativeS", could be used to assist the City in defining the scope for either the EIS or additional work to be including the preferred alternative and the completed for the EAW "no build° ■ The EQB's guidance for EIS documents � ■An EAW looks only at the potential emphasizes that the RGU must manage a impacts of the proposed project careful scoping process to assure the quality and credibility of the EIS EIS vs. EAW EIS vs. EAW ■ The EIS process is likely to be much ■ Selecting EIS(Option A)can be legally longer challenged by the Applicant ■The EIS is likely to be more costly, given ■ Selecting EAW(Option B)requires the full the longer process and the need to cooperation of the Applicant in negotiating ' analyze the impacts of multiple the content, scope, timeline and other alternatives specifics of the proposed additional studies with the City 1