The URL can be used to link to this page

9.a) Scoping Decision, Environmental Impact Statement, Tiller Corporation's Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project Meeting Date: 4/21/2009 Agenda Item: %_, � �� L � Planning Commission/ City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209`h St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Adopt a Final Scoping Decision for the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project EIS (Environmental Impact Statement.) Deadline/ Timeline: Minnesota Rules 4410.2100 Subp. 4.B. requires the city to issue a final scoping decision within 15 days of the public scoping meeting (at the April 2l, 2009 City Council meeting.) BaCkground: • On April 7, 2009 the Planning Commission and City Council held a public meeting to receive comments on the scope of the EIS. Written comments were also invited. • The attached memorandum from City Planner Sherri Buss describes tl�e changes that were made to the draft scoping document. Recommendation: The City Council should review the final draft scoping decision document, make any desired changes, and adopt the resolution. After adoption of the final scoping document, the next step will be developing a request for proposals (RFP) for professional services needed to prepare the EIS. The RFP will be brought back to the City Council for approval, tentatively at one of the May meetings (May 5 or 19.) Attachments/ • TKDA Memorandum dated April 16, 2009 Materials provided: . Draft Resolution (No. 04-21-09-03) with Final Scoping Decision Document (Attachment A) • Comments Received on Draft Scoping Decision Document Contact(s): Sherri Buss, TKDA (651) 292-4582 Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (Tiller-Zavoral EIS Final Scoping Decision) Page 1 of 1 04/16/09 T�� 444 Cedar Street,Suite 1500 Saint Paul,MN 55101-2140 ENGINEERS•ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS (651)292-4400 (651)292-0083 Fax www.tkda.com MEMORANDUM To: Cit�Council Reference: Tiller Corporation— Final EIS Anne Hurlburt, City Administrator Scoping Document 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.: 14305.001 Date: _ April 16, 2009 Routing: SUBJECT: Tiller Corporation, Inc. —Final Scoping Document for Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project MEETING DATE: April 21, 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 LEGAL REFERENCE: Minnesota Statutes 116 (particularly 116D.04); Minnesota Rules 4410; and City of Scandia Mining Ordinance No. 103 Attached is the draft of the Final Scoping Decision Document for the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project, and a Resolution approving the Final Scoping Decision Document. The document incorporates many comments from the public meeting held on April 7 to revise the Draft Scoping Decision Document that was reviewed at that meeting. It also incorporates written comments received at and after the meeting. The draft addresses the letter received from Tiller Corporation that identified proposed changes in the scope of the project and timing of reclamation activities within the St. Croix Riverway. Some of the comments received reinforced items that were already included in the draft and therefore did not require changes to the Draft Document. Some of the comments will be better addressed when the City reviews the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Annual Operating Permit (AOP) applications for the site. These include comments regarding hours of operation for the site, and similar comments related management of day-to-day operations. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportuniry Scandia Council a��d Planning Commission f'age 2 April 16, 2008 Tiller Corporation EIS Scoping for Zavoral Mine The Alternatives have been revised to reflect the colmnents i�� the Tiller Gorporation letter of April 7, which allowed reduction of the Alternatives to four, and changing the preferred alternative to specify that reclamation of the area within the St. Croix Riverway boundaries would be reclaimed/restored within the first five years of site operations. We considered the coinments to add another altenlative to look at additional sites for inine operations. Such alternatives are not considered for EIS's that focus on a proposed mining operation, proposed commercial or residential development, or other proposed projects that analyze the potential impacts of activities on a specific site. It is understood that the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning allow mining on other sites in Scandia; the purpose of this EIS is to evaluate the Tiller application to conduct mining and reclamation on this site, and to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed activities at that location. NEXT STEPS Based on Minnesota Rules 4400.2100, the next steps in this process include the following: • Within 1 S days of the public scoping meeting (held April 7), the City shall issue its final decision regarding the scope of the EIS—by April 22. 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. The proposed Final Scoping Decision Document is attached. • Based on the Final Scoping Document, the City will develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify a consultant team to complete the EIS. ACTION REQUESTED: Staff request that the Council review the proposed Final Scoping Decision Document, provide any additional comments, and consider the attached Resolution to approve the Final Scoping Decision Document. CITY OF SCANDIA RESOLUTION NO. 04-21-09-02 RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINAL EIS SCOPING DECISION 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 was 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 l9, Township 32 North, Range 19 West in the City of Scandia; and WHEREAS, the EAW was 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 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 sigiificance 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; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Scandia made a positive declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project on March 3, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City completed a Draft Scoping Decision Document for the EIS, and held a public hearing on the Draft Scoping Decision Document on April 7, 2009 as described in Minnesota Rules 4410.2100; and WHEREAS, the relevant comments from the public hearing and written comments have been incorporated in the Final Scoping Decision Document; Kcsolution 04-21-09-02 Pate 2 of 17 NOW, THEREORE, BE IT RESOLVED diat the City Council of the City of Scandia adopts the Final Scoping Decision Document, included as "Attachment A" to this resolution, as the basis for the work plan for the EIS for the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Scandia this 21 st day of April, 2009. Dennis D. Seefeldt, Mayor ATTEST: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator � Resolution 04-21-09-02 Page 3 of 17 Attachment A, Resolution 04-21-09-02 CITY OF SCANDIA Washington County, Minnesota Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project Final Scoping Decision Document 1. lntroduction and Purpose Tiller Corporation is proposing to operate a gavel inine and processing operation on a dormant, un-reclaiined gravel mine site in the City of Scandia—called the Zavoral Mining and Reclaination Project. The 114-acre site is located along St. Croix Trail North (State Trunk Highway 95 [TH 95]) near its intersection with State Trunk Highway 97 (TH 97). A portion of the site is located in the St. Croix River District Zone. While, the area proposed for sand and gravel mining and related processing activities is located outside the limits of the St. Croix River District zone, the application proposes reclamation activities within the River District Zone. The site was mined by multiple operators before it was taken out of production in the 1980's. No environmental review was required for that operation. The proposed project required completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to comply with Minnesota Rules 4410.4300. The City of Scandia was the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the EAW. On March 3, 2009, the Scandia City Council approved the Findings of Fact and Record of Decisian that concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed to determine the project's potential for significant environinental impacts. The EAW for the Zavoral site was submitted to the City on November 25, 2008. The site is within the General/Rural Agricultural Area on the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan and Land Use map, which was the current plan at the time of the EAW submittal. The proposed use is consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted on March 17, 2009 proposes Mining as a specific land use designation. The Zavoral site is not included in the areas designated for Mining in the 2030 Plan. However, since the EAW was submitted under the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, the EAW must be reviewed under that plan. The Record of Decision noted that the City received a large number of comment letters from agencies and individuals that identified over a dozen issues that were not adequately addressed in the EAW. The City determined that the EAW did not provide the information necessary to allow the City to make a decision about the potential far and significance of potential environmental impacts of the proposed Zavoral Mining Project. Many of the identified issues relate to the project's location and potential impacts to the St. Croix River, National Scenic Riverway, and other unique and sensitive resources. Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subpart 2a indicates that 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 reasonably be Resolution 04-21-09-02 Page 4 of 17 obtained, the RGU �nay make a positive declaration of the need for an EIS, and include within the scope of the E1S appropriate studies to obtain the necessary information. The Notice of Decision for the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on March 23, 2009. The City of Scandia will be the RGU far the EIS for the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.0500 , Subpart 1. The EIS will need to meet the reyuire�nents of Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 to 4410.7800 (Minnesota Environmental Quality Board rules), which govern the Minnesota Environmental Review Program. This Scoping Decision Document (SDD) identifies the issues and alternatives that will be examined in depth in the EIS. The document reflects the comments the City received from agencies and the public at a public hearing on the Draft SDD held on April 7, 2009 The SDD also presents a tentative schedule of the environmental review process, and discusses permits needed for the project in relationship to the EIS. I1. Project Alternatives The MEQB rules require EIS studies to include at least one alternative in each of the following categories, or provide a description of why no alternative is included in the EIS (MN Rule 4410.2300, Item G): • Alternative sites • Alternative technologies • Alternative designs or layouts � • Modified scale or magnitude • Alternatives that incorporate reasonable mitigation measures identified through the scoping process Minnesota Rules part 4410.2300, subpart G also states that an alternative may be excluded from analysis in the EIS under the following conditions: (1) when it does not meet the underlying need for or purpose of the project, (2) it would likely not have any significant environmental benefit compared to the project as proposed; or(3) another alternative, of any type, that will be analyzed in the EIS would likely have similar environmental benefits, but substantially less adverse economic, employment or sociological impacts. The Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project EIS will include up to four alternatives, as described below. Each alternative will include a detailed description of the site operations, including type and quality of material to be extracted, depth of proposed mining activities, potential impacts, and mitigation strategies:, Alternative#1—Applicant's Preferred Alternative The project proposer, Tiller Corporation, is proposing to re-open and expand the dormant aggregate mine and ancillary operations on the Zavoral property. The Zavaral Mine and Reclamation Project Area location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed project does not include ' Resolution 04-21-09-02 Page 5 of 17 mining into the ground water. The site was mined by multiple operators before it was taken out of production in tl�e 1980's. The site proposed for mining and processing is within the Agriculture Zoning District under the City's current Comprehensive Plan. Mining is an allowed use within the Agriculture zone. A portion of the site is located within the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Reclamation activities are proposed within this area. Mining is not allowed within the Riverway Zone. The proposed project area includes 1 14 acres. Mining activity has previously disturbed approximately 56 acres. The site was actively mined in the 1960's through the 1980's. Mining operations included stripping, extraction, crushing, washing, hot mix asphalt production, stockpiling and hauling froin the site. The operation was taken out of production without reclamation in the 1980's. All processing equipment has been removed from the site, but it has not been reclaimed. The site has recently been used as a source of aggregate from stockpiles located throughout the site. Much of the material in the stockpiles has been removed over the last eight to ten years, but there are irregular landforms because the site has not been reclaimed. The proposed project will involve mining and restoration of 64 acres located predominately on the previously disturbed portions of the site. The active mining area will include mining to an additional depth of about 15 feet, and expanding the limits of mining by about 8 acres. In addition, Tiller Corporation is proposing to restore approximately 4 acres of the previously mined area located within the St. Croix Riverway and scenic easement area. Figure 2 illustrates the previously disturbed and undisturbed mining and reclamation area. Tiller Corporation is proposing the following activities at the Zavoral site: • Clearing and grubbing the site of vegetation, as necessary • Removal of overburden from areas to be mined, and stockpiling the material on the site for potential future use in reclamation • Excavation of raw aggregate materials • Crushing, washing, and stock piling of aggregate materials • Transporting finished aggregate materials internally for subsequent processing and to construction sites beyond the Zavoral Mine area � Fuel storage and storage of related materials such as oil, anti-freeze, grease, and hydraulic fluid • Reclamation activities, including grading, placing topsoil and seeding. Mining operations will be conducted on a seasonal basis, typically from April through mid- November. The site is proposed to be worked in phases, with the duration of the project expected to be approximately 10 years. When an area has been stripped of vegetation and overburden, aggegate will be excavated using front-end loaders. The raw material will be transported to a wash plant. At the plant the material is fed through a series of crushers, screens, conveyors, wash decks and classifiers to produce the commercial grade construction aggregates. The finished products are stockpiled adjacent to the plant until they are hauled off-site by trucks to various construction sites, or internally Resolution 04-21-09-02 • Page 6 of 17 transported and stockpiled. Portable processing equipment will be brought to the site as needed, and removed from the site after a sufficient volume of material has been processed and stockpiled. When the stockpiled ag��regates are nearing depletion, the portable equipment will be brought back to the site to replenish the stockpiles. Water is an important tool for the processes that are proposed to occur at the site. Water is used to wash the aggregate, equipment, and suppress dust. Water for these activities will be secured from the existing production well on the site. Surface water collected in the sediment ponds on the project site �nay also be recycled and re-used at the site. The project that was evaluated in the EAW proposed bringing concrete and asphalt materials from other sites to this site for recycling. Recycling involves transporting, crushing, washing and mixing these inaterials with the aggregate materials mined at the site, and transporting the recycled materials to other sites in the region. Tiller Corporation's letter to the City(April 7, 2009) indicates that the proposed recycling activities will be removed from the project. Therefore, these activities and potential impacts will not be evaluated in the EIS. The proposed mining operations will resuit in lowering and a reconfiguration of the surface topography, and the reconfiguration and redirection of the existing surface drainage system. In general, the reclamation is proposed to progress in increments. Reclamation will proceed as areas of mining are completed. The reclamation plan proposes that perimeter areas be sloped and the interior areas backfilled and graded to restoration grades. Topsoil would be applied to these areas and vegetation established to 'reduce erosion. The project analyzed in the EAW proposed that the previously-mined area within the St. Croix Riverway be restored during the final phase of mining operations at the site. Tiller Corporation's letter to the City(April 7, 2009) proposed revising the restoration and phasing plan to include restoration of the area within the St. Croix Riverway and scenic easement areas during the first years of operation. The EIS will therefore evaluate the project that includes restoration of the St.Croix Riverway and scenic easement areas during the first five years of mining operations on the Zavoral site. Mining is proposed to begin when the environmental review process has been completed, and the project proposer has obtained the necessary Conditional Use Permit and Annual Operating Permit from the City of Scandia. Alternative#2--No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative will be described in the EIS. The No-Build Alternative will describe the potential impacts, outcomes, constraints, benefits and disadvantages, and economics if the existing land uses on the Zavoral site were to continue. The description will be based on the existing and allowed use of the site for Agricultural and Rural Residential purposes, and will make projections or forecasts based on this use, to identify the No-Build Alternative effects and impacts. The No-Build Alternative does not include the Reclamation Activities on previouly mined areas that are included in Alternative #1. � Resolution 04-21-09-02 Page 7 of 17 Scale of Magnitude Alternatives Two alternatives will be considered that propose a different scale or project magnitude. The Altei7�atives include the same project area as described for the Preferred Alternative. Each varies from the preferred alternative in the following respects: Alternative #3—Mining and Reclamation Activities--Evaluate of Impacts of Washing This Alternative will focus on the impacts of the washing activities at the site—particularly impacts to groundwater, groundwater-dependent resources, springs and wells. It will identify and compare the impacts and mitigation options for the project with various levels of water use for washing to the iinpacts of the Preferred Alternative that includes the maximum level of washing that is expected to occur at the site. Alternative#4—Mining and Reclamation Activities—Evaluate Impacts and Seasonal Schedulin� of Processin�Activities This Alternative will focus on the impacts of the processing activities that are proposed to be part of the site operations—including screening, sorting, and primary and secondary crushing. It will identify and compare the impacts of each of these activities to the impacts of the Preferred Alternative that includes all of these activities at the site. It will look at options for scheduling the processing activities, to avoid times of impacts to recreational use or other impacts. Noise and dust impacts are expected to be issues of particular focus for potential impacts and mitigation. ' Alternative Sites Off-site alternatives are not being investigated because they do not meet the project purpose and need of making use of significant aggegate resources that are found within the Zavoral Mine site. Site Alternatives are limited to the presence of the natural resource. This resource is located within the Metropolitan Area, and may cost-effectively serve the needs of the region. A regional study by the Metropolitan Council, Department of Natural Resources and the University of Minnesota in 2002, titled Ap�-egate Resources Inventory of the Seven-County Metropolitan Area identified significant aggregate resource areas within the Metro Region, including the general area in which the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project is located, and describes the Region's need for these resources in the future. Technology Alternatives Technology alternatives are not within the scope of the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project and will not be considered in the EIS. Best practicable technologies for the various activities will be utilized as part of the preferred alternative. Resolution 04-21-09-02 Page 8 of 17 Modified Scale Alternatives Modified design or layout alternatives will not considered in the EIS. The area represented as t11e Preferred Alternative (Figure 1) may be modified depending upon the results of the analysis that will be completed for the EIS and the pennit requirements for operations on the site. Project Site with Reasonable Mitigation Measures MEQB rules require consideration of mitigation measures identified through comments on the EAW. The EIS will consider all relevant mitigation measures suggested through public and agency comments and will recommend incorporation of reasonable initigation measures into project design and permitting as warranted. II1. EIS Issues MEQB guidance documents indicate that the purpose of scoping is to streamline the EIS process by identifying only potentially significant and relevant issues, and defining alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS. Issues that were not adequately addressed in the EAW and require additional data gathering and analysis in the EIS were identified in the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision for the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project (March 3, 2009). These issues are discussed in further detail below, including the potential significance of each issue and the extent of analysis needed so that each issue is adequately addressed in the EIS. Mitigation measures, permitting and approvals, public comments, and the results of analyses, existing data, and separate studies will all be addressed in the EIS, to fully disclose the potential impacts from the alternatives. EAW Items Screened and Removed from Further Review The following items were adequately assessed in the EAW and were found to be not relevant or so minor that they will not be addressed in the EIS: • Water surface use (Item 15) –impacts to boating and recreational use • Water quality: wastewaters (Item 18)—impacts to municipal or on-site sewage treatment systems � Vehicle-related air emissions (Item 22) • Archaeological, historical or architectural resources (Item 25a) • Prime or unique farmlands (Item 25b) • [mpact on infrastructure and public services (Item 28) Topics to be Included in the EIS (Item numbers below are those used in the EAW): Item 9—Land Use/Potential Environmental Hazards/Reclamation Plan The general description of the local government land use plans and policies included in the EAW was adequate. - Resolution 04-21-09-02 Page 9 of 17 The analysis in the EIS should address the following land use issues for this item: Land Use • Assess the impacts of each of the alternatives on the current and future land use in the area that will be impacted by the project primarily the City of Scandia and St. Croix Wild and Scenic Riverway District. Reclamation Plan • Describe the reclamation plans for each alternative in detail. The reclamation plan shall include the detailed plans for grading, plant communities to be established on the site, phasing and timing of reclamation activities, planting schedules, habitat reconstruction and invasive species management, and monitoring and maintenance to ensure the success of reclamation efforts. • Evaluate the compatibility of the alternatives with existing and future land uses, and the potential impacts of the reclamation plans on habitat areas and future land use in the area. • Coordinate and consult with the Minnesota DNR, National Park Service, City of Scandia, and others to develop the reclamation plans. Consideration should be given to reclamation requirements for areas within the St. Croix River District, which may be different from those for site areas outside the District. Economic Impacts • Determine the area(s) and types of potential economic and social impacts of the proposed project • Quantify the social, economic and environmental impacts of each alternative on the local community, including impacts to the following: o local economy; o tourism (including impacts to the St. Croix Riverway and City of Scandia) o property values o public services such as police, fire or other costs to city services • Analyze the potential impacts of each of the alternatives on the local economy, tourism, property values, and public services • Identify strategies that will be implemented to avoid, minimize or mitigate for the potential impacts. • Identify coordination completed with the City of Scandia, National Park Service, Washington County, and others to complete the analysis and identify mitigation strategies Item 10—Cover Types The EAW did not identify existing wetland cover types in the project area and indicate the proposed project's potential impacts to this cover type. Kesolution 04-21-09-02 Page 10 of 17 The analysis in the EIS should indicate the existing area of all cover types in the project area, and the acreages of cover types that would result from each of the alternatives. ltem ll—including lla—Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically-Sensitive Resources and Item I16—Tl�reatened and E�zdangered Species The EAW included a list of threatened and endangered plant and animal species based on published lists from the Minnesota DNR's Natural Heritage Program. The lists noted a number of sensitive resources and threatened species within the project area and the area of potential impact. The Carnelian-Marine St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) noted that 65 occurrences of rare features (plants, animals and habitat areas) have been documented with a 1 mile radius of the proposed project. CMSCWD noted that no known focused field surveys have been conducted for rare elements within or near the project boundaries and that the high concentration of rare elements within one mile of the project site suggests that the likelihood of rare features within the project area is high. The analysis in the EIS should include the following: • Determine the area of potential impacts of the proposed project and the alternatives on natural habitats and protected species. • Complete a biological assess�nent and Protected Species Field Survey of the project area and the area of potential impacts. The survey of plants, animals and land and water habitats should be completed by surveyor pre-qualified by the DNR. The assessment would identify and map the presence of all ecologically sensitive resources (rare, threatened and endangered plant and animal species and habitats) in the project area, along Zavoral's stream and surrounding areas that are potentially impacted by the project. The assessment would assess the quality and characteristics of the resources in relation to the proposed project and potential impacts. The Draft EIS should include exhibits showing the location of the species or habitats. • Analyze the potential impacts of each of the alternatives on the sensitive resources (species and habitats), and the reversibility of the potential impacts. • Identify strategies that will be implemented to avoid, minimize or mitigate for the potential impacts. � Identify coordination completed with the Minnesota DNR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or other agencies to complete the biological assessment and Protected Species Survey, discuss proposed project activities and reclamation plans and address potential impacts by avoiding, minimizing or reducing the project impacts and incorporating appropriate elements in the reclamation plan for the site. Item 12 Physical Impacts on Water Resources The EAW did not adequately identify the wetland resources and other surface waters within the proposed project area and the area of potential impacts. The analysis in the EIS should include the following: Resolution 04-2 I-09-02 Page 1 1 of 17 • Identify and map the presence of all surface water resources in the project area and area of potential impact of each of the alternatives (rivers, strea�ns, wetlands, lakes). The Draft EIS should include exhibits showing the location of these resources. • Analyze the current quality and regulatory status of these resources, potential physical impacts of each of the alternatives on the resources, and the reversibility of the potential impacts. • Identify mitigation strategies that will be implemented to address the potential impacts. � Identify coordination completed with the Washington Conservation District, Carnelian-Marine Watershed District or other agencies to coinplete the mapping, assessinent and mitigation strategies. Item 13—Water Use The EAW indicates that an existing production well on the Zavoral property would be used as the water supply well for the preferred scenario. The EAW does not analyze the potential impacts of the water use on groundwater resources, groundwater-dependent resources, or local wells in the project area or area of potential impact. The analysis in the EIS should include the following: • Identify the quantity and source(s) of water to be used for washing, processing and dust control activities. • Identify existing or proposed production well construction details including locations, well depths, screened intervals, and the geologic logs. • Quantify the potential water use under each of the proposed scenarios, and diurnal or seasonal variation in water use • Identify the potential impacts of water use on groundwater resources, groundwater-dependent resources and local wells in the project area or area of potential impact under each of the proposed scenarios. • Develop a ground water monitoring plan that will be used to identify any potential impact to the groundwater resources as a result of the water use, and proposed mitigation strategies for any potential impacts. • Develop a plan for abandoning the existing well and proposed monitoring wells on the site when no longer needed. Item 14—Water-Related Land Use Management Districts The project area includes a portion of the St. Croix River District. The project has the potential for impacts to the River District and the federally-designated National Scenic Riverway. The EAW analysis was limited to a discussion of the restoration proposed within the River District under the preferred alternative. The analysis in the EIS should include the following for each of the alternatives included in the EIS: Resolution 04-2 I-09-02 Page 12 os 17 • Identify potential adverse effects on the natural, cultural and recreational values of the Riverway. Potential adverse effects may include impacts to the use, purpose, and values of the Riverway District, alteration of the setting, or deterioration of water quality. • Consult with the National Park Service (managing agency for the Riverway and District) regarding the impacts analysis and identification of strategies to avoid, minimize and mitigate for the impacts • Identify the measures that will be utilized to avoid, miniinize or mitigate the identified impacts. Item 16—Erosion and Sedimentation The EAW included a general discussion of erosion and sedimentation, and potential controls and best management practices that could be implemented to avoid or minimize the iinpacts of erosion and sedimentation resulting from the preferred alternative. The EIS analysis should include the following: • Identify the area of potential impacts of erosion and sedimentation from the proposed project under each of the alternatives. • Analyze the potential impacts of erosion and sedimentation on each of the resources within the project area and area of potential impact under each of the alternatives, particularly including impacts high quality and unique resources, such as to the St. Croix River, Zavoral Creek, other streams on the site, seeps, wetlands and aquatic habitats. • Identify specific measures that will be implemented to avoid, minimize or mitigate for the identified impacts. Item 17—Surface Water Quality and Quantity The EAW indicated the direction of stormwater runoff from the site, and indicated that a stormwater pollution prevention plan would be completed to obtain an NPDES permit. The EAW did not identify all of the waters that would receive stormwater runoff from the site, including Zavoral's Creek, other creeks on the site, and areas wetlands. The project site is located in the subwatershed of Zavoral Creek, a trout stream that is a tributary to the St. Croix River. The St. Croix is an Outstanding Resource Value Water in both Minnesota and Wisconsin, has been identified by the MPCA as an impaired water. Lands adjacent to the creek and other portions of the subwatershed area contain unique and high-value resources that have been identified by the Carnelian-Marine Watershed District and other agencies. The EAW did not quantify the runoff or impacts of runoff on the quality of the receiving waters to these resources. The EIS analysis should include the following: • Identify all of the surface waters that will receive runoff from the site, and the quality of those waters. Resolution 04-21-09-02 Page 13 of 17 • Quantify the expected runoff from the site and impacts on the quality of receiving waters under each of the alternatives, including impacts of pollutants such as phosphorus, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's), volatile organic compounds (VOC's) and temperature (temperature is a pollutant for trout streams and other cold water resources). • [dentify potential impacts to waters of Special Concern, including the St. Croix River and Zavoral's Creek. • Identify the location and quantify the potential impacts of the sediinentation ponds proposed on the site, including impacts of sediments, nutrients and teinperature to downstream water resources. • [dentify specific measures that will be used to monitor potential impacts and avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts of stonnwater runoff to the receiving waters. Item 19—Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions This element of the EIS should include analysis of impacts to ground water resources within the project area and area of potential impact. The proposed project area includes groundwater dependent resources (trout stream, seepage wetlands), and residents in the area use shallow goundwater resources for domestic wells. The EAW did not identify these resources or analyze the potential impacts of the project on groundwater-dependent resources and wells in the area. The EIS should include the following; • ldentify and map the groundwater resources and groundwater-dependent resources (springs, wetlands and creeks) within the project area and area(s) of potential impacts-. • Identify existing and proposed wells, quantify proposed water use and aquifer source. • Identify and map the direction of groundwater flow in the unconsolidated and bedrock aquifers within the project area and area of potential impact. • Identify and map local potable water supplies (all residential and/or commercial wells or spring boxes) within the area of potential impact. The inventory should include geologic logs and well or spring construction details for the purpose of identifying the aquifers utilized. • Model potential impacts to groundwater levels and flow directions, and related groundwater-dependent resources under each of the alternatives. • Identify the potential for contamination and impacts to the quantity and quality of groundwater resources, groundwater-dependent resources, and private wells that may result from each of the alternatives--including potential impacts from pollutants such as phosphorus, PAH's,VOC's and heavy metals. • Develop a ground water monitoring plan and strategies to avoid, minimize or mitigate for the potential impacts. Resolution 04-21-09-02 Page 14 of 17 ltem 206 and c—Solid Waste, Hazardous Wasle, Sla�a��e Tanlcs Based on the analysis completed for Item 19, this section should identify: • Identify any potential impacts of toxic waste, hazardous waste or storage tanks at the site on surface water resources, groundwater resources, groundwater- dependent resources or local wells under each of the alternatives. • [dentify strategies that will be implemented to monitor groundwater resources and avoid, minimize or mitigate for the potential impacts. Item 2l—Traffic The EAW included a traffic analysis for the preferred alternative, but did not evaluate impacts to recreation traffic on TH 95 and TH 97, including access to the Riverway and State Parks, pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the project area. The EIS should include the following: • Revise the traffic analysis to include all of the alternatives and address safety issues. Safety issues include sight lines and stopping distances for traffic on TH 95. • Analyze and evaluate traffic conditions under each of the alternatives, and potential conflicts with recreational traffic and_impacts to recreation traffic in the area. • Identify current and anticipated bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project area and area of potential impacts, and analysis of impacts to these facilities under each of the scenarios. • Identify measures to avoid, reduce or mitigate for the potential impacts. • If the preferred alternative would sever an existing major route for non-motorized traffic, the proposed project needs to provide a reasonable alternative route, or demonstrate that such a route exists. Item 23—Stationary Source Air Emissions The EAW included a general discussion of potential types and sources of air emissions under the preferred alternative, but did not quantify the emissions or analyze potential impacts on resources within the project area or area of potential impacts. The EIS should include: • Identify the area that may be impacted by air emissions from the proposed project under each of the alternatives. • Identify and quantify the type, sources and composition of emissions from all sources at the site, including fugitive dust sources, under each of the alternatives. � Quantify the impacts of the air emissions on air quality and water quality, specifically including impacts to the St. Croix Wild and Scenic Riverway. • Identify pollution prevention techniques and strategies that will be used to avoid, minimize and mitigate for the identified impacts. � Resolution 04-21-09-02 Page 15 of 17 Item 24—Odors, Noise and Dust The EAW indicated that the project will operate witliin air emissions and noise li�nits established by the MPCA. It listed soine strategies that will be used to reduce noise and dust impacts under the preferred alternative. It did not quantify the current noise conditions in surrounding areas and the noise and dust that will be created by operations at the site, or the impacts of noise and dust on the surrounding area. The EIS should include the following: Noise • Describe the noise sensitive areas and habitats (both land-based and river- based receptors, such as residences, parks, recreation areas such as the St. Croix River, Wisconsin bluff areas, and sensitive wildlife habitats), including information on the number and types of activities that may be affected. • Quantify the current ambient noise levels near the site in the identified noise- sensitive areas: on the St. Croix River(where use by recreationists is expected); at the National Park Service primitive camp sites along the Riverway; on adjacent residential properties; on the recreational trails paralleling TH 95 and TH 97. • Develop a model that will predict future noise levels and account for site- specific conditions such as topography, equipment placement, truck traffic, and operating hours. • Quantify the extent of the impact (in decibels) in each sensitive area, under each of the alternatives, including noise from mining, processing operations and truck traffic. • Analyze expected noise under each of the alternatives based on noise standards for each land use. � Identify noise mitigation strategies as needed to avoid, minimize or mitigate for identified noise impacts. Dust • Quantify non-stationary dust that will be generated from site operations, such as truck traffic. • Analyze impacts of dust pollution on surrounding areas and resources, including the St. Croix River. • Identify strategies to avoid, reduce or mitigate for identified impacts of dust generated by operations under each of the alternatives. Item 2�—Visual Impacts The EAW stated that the site will not be visible from the St. Croix River, but did not provide an analysis to support this claim. It did not indicate whether equipment or structures on the site would be visible from the St. Croix Riverway, or other recreational and scenic areas. Resolution 04-2 l-09-02 - Page l6 of 17 The EIS should include a viewshed analysis that addresses the following: • Identify location and inaxi��inn potential height of equipment, stockpiles and other site ele�nents that may he visible fi-om adjacent areas • Identify the key view areas, through coordination with the National Park Service, City of Scandia, and others as needed. Key view areas are likely to include neighboring residences, the St. Croix River, nearby bluff areas in Wisconsin, and TH 95 and TH 97. • Develop a model in ArcGIS c�r other software that models site specific conditions such as topography, vegetation, seasonal conditions, proposed lighting and equipment and stockpiles on the site. • Accurately represent the views of the site from key view areas through drawings, photos or other imaging methods that clearly shows the views of the site so that they may be easily understood by reviewing agencies and the public. • Complete a written analysis describing the visual impacts of the site. • Identify the strategies to avoid, minimize or mitigate visual impacts to key viewing areas. Item 27—Compatibility with Plans and Land Use Regulations The EAW focused its analysis on impacts to City of Scandia plans and land use regulations. The EIS should also analyze the relationship of the proposed project to the water resource plans of the Carnelian-Marine Watershed District and St. Croix Riverway Management Plan (2002). , Item 29—Cumulative Impacts This section should identify the potential cumulative impacts of all alternatives analyzed for the EIS. It should address the potential impacts of any related or anticipated future project in the area. IV. Phased or Connected Actions There are no phased elements or connected actions associated with the project. V. EIS Schedule March 23, 2009 Record of Decision and Positive Declaration for EIS for Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project published in EQB Monitor April 7, 2009 Public Scoping Meeting April 21, 2009 Final Scoping Decision May-Oct., 2009 Draft EIS preparation Nov-Dec., 2009 Draft EIS Comment Period and Public Meeting � Resolution 04-21-09-02 Page 17 of 17 The Drafi EIS will be noticed in the EQB Monitor, and mailed to the EQB's distribution list, which includes local, state and federal agencies and others. Copies will be available at the City for review. The City will schedule a Public Meeting to hear comments on the EIS. Jan.-March, 2010 Final EIS Preparation April, 2010 Final EIS Adequacy Determination The City (RGU) will detennine whether the EIS is adequate, based on the coinments received, responses to comments, public meeting co�nments, and criteria prescribed in Minnesota Rules 4410.2800, subpart 4. V1. Special Studies or Research Special studies that will be completed for the EIS are described under each Item discussed in section III above. These will detailed include surface water and ground water analyses; air, noise and dust analyses; and a detailed visual impacts analysis. VII. Governmental Pei•mits or Approvals The EIS will identify all permits and approvals potentially required for this project. The EIS will not necessarily contain all information required for a decision on those permits. No permits have been designated to have all information developed concurrently with the preparation of the EIS. No permits will require the preparation of a record of decision pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.2100, Subpart 6D. Coordination with Carnelian-Marine Watershed District, Washington County, the Minnesota DNR, MPCA, National Park Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other permitting and reviewing agencies was initiated during the EAW process and will occur throughout the EIS process. Site olumbu ��"� Forest Lake Scandia � t� Marine on St. roix �no Lak s Hugo entervil e May Twp. White Bear Twp. Del Iwood Stillwater Twp. Grant White Bear Lake hite Bear Twp. Mahtomedi Stillwater� em;Lake Birchw od,Villa e � '- Washington County Location Map , � Zavoral Property Proposed Mining Project �Mile TKDA ------ , — �__---- — _ . , . ry . � ' . . . ' - . �N' �`t-Z t �. 4 .__�__ � '..-._, . . � '.�1 .. � � . .� ::..� ., l:Hl�:\f,ll f(1 _ : �.__ l�` • �.._". _.u��_�.r-.-..�_"_.___�._ ' _ .-,-_ . . _ _ _ ... __'. _' i ' ' ' � .. , . . ' _ _-. -._ �� . ,-Ac!ilNlilUl. ('.1 �� . W. fij�-' `'��_ , �,� - � .a�.� �s � � . �,,, : � _ „ ��,�r� ,�.,f;> �� : i � � � ��, � ; !: ,.• � . � — , , � � :,� � r,� �. . . ' � ��. s��•.� � ' � �r G <i � � ��' �' � K� `� ' ' Y � i,' , �� ` 1 ,3. '( � � , �x r �� : � �..� 1 _ ��.�� -P�.,,�„�, I, � �� , � � i�� I'. / �� / ,�� p � f : ( .f� , I. � . I i" �� a �� . ;�. � i �� ;� �} � p:'� �" v ` � '�� t . �{[�� '`. - ��.� r li � : !� � s�.. �" �_i� < � i- '"C l+", i iY� ;' ' , ��J -i�� , . ��.� ar i{•F. ��-.-� .�,� .�� ..: y r�,".:_. � � � ,,'. . � _ .� � - f.�\ ,y . i. .� a ' .L:_' , .` � � �:i , . �l � '(a - �� i �Vi .. ,�\ �1- ?.�� / � 1v� '� L�l „�.,�V9 1. � ,�IL -, T ��.; __rr � .. I T � ar I(; �� . - f r � �.� � V�• ,� � tcy� � f� y �'�� ! .y�� : �� t' . r � , l� ---��' •� 1-� '�5��r,i Flz� lo� , � s � �: '� � � ii, ' I� , �, I .^F - �,� � � �� J �' r�. :: `' ��;�'�� /, "',� . !. � J,c t. �_.' J / } � �, � I . M �?, 2 , �c ;a - � `� '` , �.�.�j, �� ;� �N- r - , '� , �! C�1. (:� � f 1 .. � -w„ � �. � /-' t}�.. �' � - ta� l, �y �, �.�\ y � � t i: 1,' % ; a " ,� ' ' . . - � �� 1a i � �- i� -. �� . �� '� l�. ��% _ `� IO /F ' ',`.�� . �.l � �d�''Ttl�< r �� r3l>•��y � �1�� ;{' =�.,� ,t,'.�%h '„7' ' -: 7.,3Y� I � �. ; >;# -]��i: _ u �5, , , � _ ,. M, . � ' i I .�... '. ' . •� ("� �"1�� ; .�..� s '/ �.^'� � �. . . , . . �� 7 ,�c� _ � av. � , `{�\ .: ...,.- , . . , . � �, � :_�� .,,�. y�k � � �� 1 � � f 7 �y - ` ' ' �'` -,� 1 � � ' �'�, �.' \� .,, . Q� r ` � '��S� � \'} � w �° c � �: n i :4 ' - � - ' �„ a� � r _ � � . ; � • ��,�. � �'. .� -,_ ` �� I;nnarLuk � o- �. � . _� ;� `I' �.. � ,�<--�-i i � -`t ' �` � ,� �� - - -- l— �)ll- — � i — � �j'.,3 � -��--e�� y�`� - e r '� � �." � _ , I.Z` r _ � ! � 'l � �i " � �- � � ��'. .rz. 'c:. i � � I �� .- � +�� _ . � �,_ � �• � � �� l�� b ,.(r� , , .,.� , rg �,� 1 I � � � � ! �.., ,� " I\ ' ./�+ _ .�.. x�� Y' � � \I�� T f� �l � - '4'�i d S � � , �<r I �H� � - � � ' � x._ . � � el.� ' r � c � i t� 9 - P 4� � �' %� � �� i' �� .�r�, { � i. , � i �� ' �, � � � _,,� � � � j}�/� C-., �� • �, � I � '� .�' 1 � a.+�� ' EN:. �� ' �� j.'� ' _ �' :i� ,�� ';I� � - ��r�� 1��`.� � �' -.� ' l,dt ��` � ` .�� :C ?' ' 'k '�:�•� .c%VF� _� ,, �� „� , � �+��` ��Site ��_ ;,� ; , , , ' � � � . . , . � �, „o. , � j. h . .� „ /� ,,�`.: _d,4Y',� _+„ F �..��'''" i; i,?,,,,,-_ ��' i � a a �t'%�r.' , �. � �� -��Li '�"' �'.�.,.' "'_' i `l `�" ...�� - �,� rL i'�;. X�� . � � .�� . .:j� i . � : � , , �l � � s..! �. - � � �. �; ! Q ' � r � �. ' /,, Y i i , � ' :� � �+%ls+01 L'i .. r.'T ,51 wrUnSlla i �I�S % a � ' t i ' � _ �� ;1.�'. X�.- ^� • ..-.7`_' r ��,�-_� �. , � � l -Y { � _ I � .��.. � w, �' _ �, .�� _ � � f��oL�•':f`l� >_ � .��{ � � � w �- \ '— J ; Fp:: i �� i : t � , i ; -1. � � p 1 �V C _''-` -,C.2 �, ' ..z � r , . , � �E .2A-, - �,.,�cr� - ":r r� �'�'� ,:4 C �.f,��... ,�..� �•.�h.�. .�.'�'Lc_ 'Y . r:. � 1T�� '� L r� �- T�S . - � �-^r�- .. ' . t o - � _��1��1 i��I�� y �� ff;. Y ,� � ~. r� .,,1.41 �,��5 7�t J" �.-/`EI N ` `��'�\, � o � '-\ - C4 G1„ � e"• Y�•'' ,�' ..i �r ' '� - r , 7�,�_ � �. �r� t� F , � il, �. `I .' ' � " I _ o�� . � '� _� d-�� t �� R{,r � } ' ,t,- .. (c ._ � 1 �.�� '�� `� --1 - � a ! �� / , i�. } '� � � a�- iF � �� -"� ��C ` \!L �' �-� � / � ��j ��f�if� . � „'V � � w�_;, �,, �r 23 � � � � �.. � ' i i'� t k'& �I �� ,.� / t'1r--�1 L. . 7�`� �..i :� .�` �ji, n�� %y��. � ., . y r ?�i�. 2�, i., ' J . �� \ . ./ .7 S ��1:;� -Y� '� �[C: 4� , v . _ � j ? ti. �VC �.'a. . � '_(/ i��' -� '..�.. � ��. � 15 ,�y�i� �' c � �'' � _ �`�'``` i �.� i/.. i 1 4�� . t� � ,�y��; �, C , �' � 1 � ��,�� `�� , � r .. /�,..c` :��r.�`,�� ,'f J; l.r. y�,.. t .� ,� . �� -..`�i nac .. � ��-^ , .�f t �.� � . � 1 �Z); �' � �i; -- . L� �r7 _ - . � . i` r � ". � �, j ��1 i � �'�, 1� l�' i `�� . . . �� . 1 �'�-� �S � �� a ��, q `i. . � � 1� _ �r\.1 _� � , i � ]� i.� �� 1 �� y ..� ( .��`J-� !�L '-� ' t�,Fc � r�a . � �� I'�m� �' � � �,`� � ,,1' ��IT �V.J�4e�:i .:� � �� . T� . . �g . - . �i. .�� .� '� . - ,! �_ i � �•.�355- � � � "T`1!.,�� y�� 'C", O ' V �' � • � l� `1 ` '� � _ � � <-'h ) � ��"s. )Ih � � , .� � � 'a. ��. � �:� � � 4 `"� � � .� '.� {J 'yk�a��,,�, �y "' F �' �'' �,: � , fing�l.ctke , F � ..J��. � lV` '`` p�� ! _ *FG"`"�� 'I. � ;,�, ��4 S � �. .��T ll I � �^ �i��`=�1 �; ' � �, � ' f ' \ �� { � � ' ' � � � t,`� + �� .y � � v. .�L6 �� ` � �,. � !' y� :�, i .. . �4. � `e \ - r � , - �� -F � �`,�.� 1 i'� C. , � � �� o� � X ��y j � � USGS Location Map o.5 Zavoral Property Proposed Mining Project Mile TxnA Land Use - 2020 Comp Plan � i�� _ �•-"d' A riculture AG � �� 9 � ) , Semi-Rural Residential (SR) �y ��,��.��,.'� � ��•��, J �, r.t�ec� � / Retail Business (RB) ' � ' �� j.�� _ • I :��` $+� `*�r � .�r -!-. Saini Croix River District ti��' , •,.s- � ,,t, Si te `��`� „,��+`�' � '. . i�� „�� I�' � •f� `�'.��` •-� � �'~'r��.� '�'` ,rf¢' /� .,,� � �.. � i '•'+v:'� �:' � ' � � � `�.°.�» ,� ��{ .. . �Lv ..yx ��f�''� � j�� I �� i -#" 'y+��. s• r.�"';� '..�.. •r�;- ,� J � d� �� '"' .. ��v��.%k��'`T%��i yy ".(�{ .iti� .. � � �+�- ""�' •„�`'`"" ��€S�'C."nt- Y1rrr-�1:'�':�'� I�" , t�s v�A,o,, � � � �c �� r'_ � � .r r�.r:�} * '' , ,- {'/ `J fi rt � a,,�, .�� .,�,� r t ' ... � � � i- '}'. .:A k; .L" � ,I /� "i�� >� �� +�k'�. �'M``� �_.,�}y� �` � " ' � ,/� _. � �'�• a'�, --�'� _ �'` y i � �� , t . � �ayL'.�� '.� «�� r: � "p'�� ' ' � ' � !� � � '� l- ,,,:7� , � r k. �, F'. � :' � � � ,�"�:C ,�r ��,, � � .��t£;��, ,' , <.r ,.„ ,.� � � . z_ . , � �; e ; f� . , . ,'+ }+ . . . �.: � � . :� _ _ .: � � �a� . �,:,�. ' . .>�'�. ,,,, , ♦ ��,.y ,,� i'� ' �r� �`' s /!� �_� r' ) •.�; +�'�` / ,j � 2..;..�. �.> `}�y t _ �- � \',] - � eF,l P�'�tn'�' � 1 1. i��r Y T��A �f"" � � _ �I,✓�� , �-%(k �.hl� �3a :�' � , x "'� ��p, . k� °t >,r 4 � . . .,,, � °`� 1 > _"° ��; �I' �py� k`�, r,r,�" {.i.r'�.,�'�� .� � a ;��`.�. .�^� , .. �� -+ q ..� '��'4jw t r„yr.'��'�;,,:.� ' .. � � . ,,, `�,M r :� �� ,� y* � ��}+ 4� ''�� '7F^4 � �"'., X.. Y ' .. . 4d�`J.'. � #�t.'�,. .y,,_.�, .�-'�,�Z,y'� .r'•. �� . way+�d+�:. ��£;;*� 1 �$� { ." �/� `�{h �ts`. �-�,r + ¢," � ,v. , . � �� Y )'�-��l'yv�+�-�y"� -i� `� � ' "+� � � t� �,�',F��'�� :,;� . � �� ' '�,�'"F�� 4,"�,�� 4 . £ '� tiw � � � �"y�� ` . ?'^•. � � ,�`��, �•� � . � � �� ... c�,j,� �N?�*i . '�.�� ' � �'f��; �D � p�;� �t:. !"°'t� �� ~�`"'��r � ""�`� *6(�� . � '��5., � s �" �� ?�' �n,v._�,:�o. r� ' ,p� � '��.,,�� ,�,"1 ��,� � .� . . . ` � r� �z�� , . . �/� � ��gy. r '�4. �° "'1 � , '� 9 � y,r� '�� , . t �v�. �1 ��Lt. �x, -� ,�;`� ` '`.; '�,.� �, J/ �r� _, . � . . . r, , ��,�, , n,, : _ � fi �,�= "�'�;r "- , " -X, � 2 s r �� '� � w+�t - � tf��'+ �" ��qr.` ��' , I, ' � J , . .. ; � t' / . Ak��{'�� S �A ; f`.�T �- "'� �. . 2�� . � �� a� �� r "�g hf . . ' � ��C�$ . .. �a��i �, . / ..> � �. Mt �. 'S '�-�5��`L. s:' . � ,y''�;�Fy y�i� ^s �''� � �� . . �;, ��- ��l:;x. � `��,,,��a�+i�,�'��: � a4w�a,� ;�°`.A`�"� �� `:�� ,_; c/ � Planned Land Use 500 `'', Zavoral Property Proposed Mining Project '�Feet TKDA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Scoping Process Zavoral Property Mining and Reclamation Project Scandia, Minnesota Written Comments Received through 1:00 p.m., Friday April 17 2009 � � 1 . • � . - ' - -� 1. Gregory Page ' 4/OS/09 (e-mail) a e riverfrontco oration.com 2. St. Croix River Association and the St. Croix Scenic 2/6/09 — 2/7/09 (e-mail) Coalition 3. Georgiana Anderson 4/7/09 (e-mail) 20453 Quinnell Ave. N., Scandia 4. Pamela Arnold & Ann Bancroft 4/7/09 (e-mail) 16560 220`h St. N., Scandia 5. Chauncey Anderson 4/7/09 (fax) Portland, Ore on 6. Suzanne Lundgren 4/7/09 (e-mail) Suzanne.lund en m is.kl2.mn.us 7. Dan Seemon 4/8/09 (e-mail) U.S. Arm Co s of En ineers 8. Corinne Moncur 4/8/09 (e-mail) 209780 uadrant Ave. N. 9. Christopher E. Stein, Superintendent 4/3/09 /4/8/09 National Park Service, St. Croix National Scenic Riverwa 10. Louie DiBerardini 4/9/09 (e-mail) 20680 St. Croix Trail l 1. St. Croix River Association and the St. Croix Scenic 4/9/09 (e-mail) Coalition 12. Judy Herbert 4/9/09 (e-mail) 15125 220`h St. N., Scandia l Page 1 o"f 1 Anne Hurlburt ,� From: Gregory Page [page@rive�frontcorporation.com] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:12 PM To: Anne Hurlburt Cc: azconley@comcast.net Subject: Zavoral &Tiller Mining and Reclamation Proposal EIS Attachments: EIS concerns.doc Date: April 6, 2009 To: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator City of Scandia Froin: Gregory Page Re: ZavoraUTiller Mining and Reclamation Project EIS I have voiced two main concerns about the Zavoral/Tiller Mining and Reclamation Project: sound impacts and potential water quality and/or water quantity impacts. As the process moves into EIS, I want to clarify my concerns on those two points. Sound Gravel mining, cleaning, and transport- as well as the proposed concrete and asphalt crushing, are very noisy(and dusty) activities. I know. I own the property immediately north of the gravel pit and was there when Barton was still operating the pit. Priar to the February 3 City Council/Planning Commission Meeting, Mr. Zavaral recognized my concern and agreed to foresting the northern 4 acres of the site in a manner suitable to reducing the sound(and dust) from mining operations as much as possible, as a precondition to beginning mining- so that the plants and trees would grow in and up as mining moved more towards my property(homestead) over the next decade or so. I would like to have this stipulated in the Alternative#1�—Applicant's Preferred Alternative section, as well as in Alternative technologies, Alternative designs or layouts, and Modified scale or magnitude sections, in appropriate language, such as: "Tiller Corporation will pla»t appropriate native trees and shrubs on the northern four acres of the site(which are not p/anned for mining), marked on figure 2, during the initial phase of mining operations, suitable to mitigating mining operation noise and dust to the greatest extent possib/e. Tiller Corporation shall coordinate and consult with the Min�aesota DNR, National Park Service, City of Scandia, and others to develop the plan. Water Quality and Water QuantitX The trout stream,noted as "Zavorals' Stream"in documents(I call the stream Minniboha, an Ojibwa word for gully or ravine caused by water), actually has its beginnings on my property. Two springs on my property, about 100 or so feet from the proposed mining site's northern property line are the source of the stream's year `round flow, flowing through the coldest winter and driest summer. I am deeply concerned over the potential of something happening to the springs and steam -either water quality degradation from chemicals or sedimentation seeping through the soil, and/or loss of year `round flow from the water table being disturbed. The water from the spring is now good enough to drink (tested 4 years ago) My historical research finds the spring/stream was called Crystal Spring by early settlers and it was a drinking water source for early residents in the area. I would like to make sure that hydrologists thoroughly investigate any and all potential issues relating to proposed mining operations and these springs and trout stream. They can contact me for a site visit. Thank you, the Planning Commission and City Council for your consideration. Copy: Jim Zavoral azconley@comcast.net 4/6/2009 . � COMMENTS ON THC DRAFT SCOPING AND DECISION DOCUMENT FOR THE TILLER/ZAVORAL PROPERTY MINING AND RECLAMATION PROJECT— APRIL 6, 2009 Presented jointly by the St. Croix River Association and the St. Croix Scenic Coalition. The St. Croix River Association and the St. Croix Scenic Coalition submit the following recommendations for the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement that the City of Scandia has ordered be prepared for the Tiller/Zavoral mining proposal. This builds on the issues we raised in our January 28, 2009 letter to the City addressing the EAW. Statutory guidance for the EIS is found within Minnesota Statutes section 116D.04, subdivision 2a: The environmental impact statement shall be an analytical rather than an encyclopedic document which describes the proposed action in detail, analyzes its significant environmental impacts, discusses appropriate alternatives to the proposed action and their impacts, and explores methods by which adverse environmental impacts of an action could be mitigated. The environmental impact statement shall atso analyze those economic, employment and sociological effects that cannot be avoided should the action be implemented. We have reviewed the Draft Scoping and Decision Document put forward by the city on its web site. We find it thorough and responsive to the above statutory guidelines, with regard to the EIS Issues put forward in section III of the draft. We have nothing to add in those areas. We do see opportunities for improvement in the Alternatives discussion in section II of the scoping draft. The EAW pictured an operation running from April through November, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, for perhaps ten years. At the hearing on the EAW, Tiller described a periodic operation, with the processing equipment running for a time, then being taken away for a time, then coming back. The EIS needs to pin all this down. What quantity of material does Tiller envisage removing from the pit over its operational lifetime? How many days of excavating and processing does it take to generate that much material? How many days does it take to haul that much material away? Does Tiller expect to operate the facility until the target amount of material has been excavated, processed, and hauled away, however many years that may take? How did Tiller come up with the ten year lifetime projection? What about an alternative that gets Tiller in and out of there in five years, processing in April/May and October/November only�, Tuesdays through Thursdays, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. In short, Alternative #5 should explore all the options for limitations on when the mine would (1) excavate, (2) process, and (3) ship out. The scoping document's Alternative #3 re reprocessing trucked-in materials, is not an independent alternative. Not allowing such activity, can go with any other alternative operating scenarios discussed. The discussion of the no-build alternative should be expanded beyond the do nothing scenario. What would it cost to restore the existing pit? What if it is not restored, but just left alone? Would the city like to have it as a park? Will the county buy a conservation easement on the area as it presently exists, and if yes would the county require the owner to undertake restoration. Would removal of only the present stockpiled material provide sufficient funds for restoration of the area? The description of the project as proposed, is weak on restoration. What slopes will the sides of the pit be graded to? How much dirt will be trucked in to provide what thickness of base for vegetative planting? Where will that dirt come from and what will be the impact on the source(s) from which it is removed? What grasses will be used? What continuing oversight will be provided to assure that the revegetation takes proper hold? The owner talks of placing a conservation easement on the restored area. What would be the terms of the easement? Does the owner intend to donate the easement , or does he expect fair market value, or what? The statute cited at the beginning of these comments asks for analysis in the EIS of the "economic, employment and sociological effects that cannot be avoided should the action be imptemented". 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 irreparabie 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. Thank you for inviting comments on the draft scoping document. Randy Ferrin, president St. Croix River Association Bill Neuman, president St. Croix Scenic Coalition � � Page 1 of 1 Anne Hurlburt � From: georgiana anderson [simba@backpack.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:59 AM To: Anne Hurlburt Subject: Re: EIS Scoping Meeting for Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project The recent,very recent,infonnation in the Startribune about the deteriorating state of the St. Croix below Stillwater,should be a heads up. We need to be sure we do not follow the threat, from the area South of Stillwater, into degradation. We need to be sure our river stays clear of run off from any source. The gravel pit plan is going to require over sight systems not yet divulged. I ain not confident that Tiller's ,or anybody's for that matter,ability to protect the river absolutely does not exist. This is too iinportant to experiment with. Georgiana Anderson 20453 Quinnell Ave Scandia,Mn On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Anne Hurlburt wrote: You are receiving this message because you either submitted comments on the EAW(Environmental Assessment Worksheet)for the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project or requested to be notified of meetings and/or city actions regarding this proposed project. The Scandia Planning Commission and City Council will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. at the Scandia Community Center, 14727 209th St. N, Scandia, MN 55073. The purpose of the meeting is to receive comments on the proposed scope of the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)for the project. Materials related to this�roject including a draft scoping decision document, are available for review at the City of Scandia Office, 14727 209th St. N., during office hours (9:00 a.m. to Noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) and on the City's website (www.ci.scandia.mn.us) . The public is invited to attend the meeting to offer comment on the scope of the EIS. Written comments will also be accepted. After the public scoping meeting, a final scoping decision document will be prepared. The City Council is expected to approve the final scoping decision at its April 21, 2009 meeting. Written comments should be directed to my attention. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Anne Hurlburt, Administrator City of Scandia 14727 209th Street North Scandia, Minnesota 55073 651 433-2274 Fax: 651 433-5112 Cel I: 651 746-4080 a.hurlburt@ci.scandia.mn.us http://ci.scandia.mn.us 4/7/2009 � . 7 April, 200� Anne Hurlburt, Administrator City of Scandia 14727 209th Street North Scandia, Minnesota 55073 651433-2274 Fax: 651433-5112 Cell: 651 746-4080 a.hurlburt(c�ci.scandia.mn.us http://ci.scandia.mn.us To Scandia Council, and Administrators: Thank you for another opportunity to contribute to the Zavoral Mine planning process. The Scandia Strategic Plan, in our view, is a thoughtful and balanced vision for Scandia... we are very prideful to be represented by a thoughtful and hardworking group of staff and volunteer commissioners. The decision to require an EIS as part of the planning of the Zavoral Quarry Mine is another indication of both the conservation-oriented value that Scandia brings to all discussions regarding development, but also reveals a consciousness that we do represent larger interests. The impact of the Zavoral Mine on the St. Croix River is at the center of the EIS, as it should be. We predict that the outcomes of the EIS will be comprehensive, and systemic, and it may inform all property owners along the river about our role in the larger life of the river's social and ecological communities. Among the many issues that concern us, most have been included in the Scoping outline, is the issue of economic impact of the mine located at a juncture that we now call The Gateway to Scandia (referring the Strategic Plan). Hwys 97 and 95 are main arteries for north and southerly traffic, as well as connections to 35W/35E at Forest Lake; the impact of the proposed mine should be considered as potentially beneficial to, or harmful to, many economic interests within a 22 mile radius. The bridges to Wisconsin along 95 (Stillwater, Osceola, Taylors/St Croix Falls) might provide geographic references that show traffic intersections effecting commercial, tourist, as well as residential traffic. As we propose to envision Scandia as a rural and agricultural community mixed with low impact residential development, imagine that vision in the context of a working mine, producing 120 truckloads (to and from) per day. If one considers the future development of the Scandia vision, the attraction of businesses and families to the rural/agricultural landscape, and in proximity to a rare Natural and Scenic River, how does a mine —that both greets visitors to Scandia at its geographic entrance, as welt as frustrates visitors as they try to travel to other destinations along the river—signify our commitment? Among the consequences that a Scoping plan could consider are the economic interests of existing and future endeavors among the many surrounding communities. Many of these are small scale and integrated with the purpose and value of rural/agricultural/scenic river. Many employ local people, including high school kids. Many support families and individuals who are part of a potentially thriving Scandia, and consistent with the Scandia Brand Identity that the Strategic Plan proposes. Among these are cafes and shops that attract visitors and sustain local residents; canoe and bike rental; retreat and residency programs (Scientific Research Station, Dunroven, Wilder Forest, Warner Nature Center, WII O'Brien Park, Wild Mt; CSAs here and in Wisconsin; Prairie Restoration, Landscape Alternatives...), hiking and camping trails/areas, bed & breakfasts, small scale commercial businesses, including landscaping, farm/ag sales, school programs, ski slopes, schools and school programs. Would a mine at the intersection of 95/97 present an economically beneficial addition to the economies of local businesses? How will traffic congestion encourage residential development in concord with the Strategic Plan? How will we as a community present ourselves as the Scandia of our vision? How will the future economic interests of others be impacted by the mine?That is a question to be considered. We live just a stone's throw north of the proposed mine. We have been developing our plan for a sustainable life style here for the last 20 years. The thought of hours of mining noise, and the night sky littered with security lights, is almost surreal to contemplate. How will a gravel pit effect property values in the vicinity?Our fear is that the waters of Zavoral creek will be polluted with sediment, and toxins... that the zoning rules by which residences along the river abide might be waved for a mining operation that offers a lucrative future for a few, and an unknown future for the land it excavates. Our well water shares its source with the quarry, we all share our water with the River. It is hard to fathom that our ability to dream a healthy, sustainable future—in harmony with the river, and with the Scandia community—might be curtailed by a gravel mine. The Scoping Plan should include a model for local economic viability with and without a mine at the Zavoral location, including future plans, consistent with the strategic comprehensive plan. Once again, thank you. Pamela Arnold, Ann Bancroft 16560 220�h Street North Scandia 04/07/`L009 2`L:09 FAX 5032562193 FedEx_UfTice__51t�.5 �� . � I il IIIIi�I� f II Il l I III �; I��I�il[�IEI[111�I1 � 00711 7 7 903d3 00720 37 90363 �Ki n ko`s_ F a x C o v e r S h e e t Fax-IMemafional Send Fax•Lo�al Send Cffice and P�int Certter �I��I,(�'}„'I��I�+ll,I�II 7 40363 40714 2 Fax•Domestic Send FedEx Kinko' of Mall 205• Portland, OR' Telephone: 503.256.0236 Fax:503.256.2193 DBte _ � ? U � ^_ _ Number of pages 3 {includ+ng cover page� To: �. K� {��-� f �� From: �4 � � ��-y �� _ ` N a m e C� �J�Q-r-�c� �)N N a m e Y dlil '1�--�4^1'��c51� ----�--- -�--- — --T— Company _ _ Company ____ Telephone __ __ _ Telephone _� 3 ��_�� Z� � Fax � �� - �f33 ' �� Z Comments , � � `�� °- � � �� --- � �� ,� ►� F � � S � o� , � ��--� �,,..�.._�, � � ✓ � � t� Q � �� t � r� � �� -�--�---� �� More than 1,200 locations worldwide. For the location nearest you, call 1.800.2.KINKOS. Visit our website at fedexkinkos.com. • ��i0//'LUVy Z"L:Uy rHA JVJL'JUG1�J .�u�. • ��- -�� - WS/- y33-si�z Comments c�n Zavoral ROD and supporting documents. Chauncey Anderson, Portland, Oregon Comment�r submitted April 7, 2009 Dear Ms. Hurlburt, Thank you for acce:pting my brief comments regarding the E1S scoping process for the Zavoral mine propusal. My family owns a seaxwnal prc�perty acijacent to (downstream) the Log House Landing on the Minnesota side of the St. Croix River, and we have several concerns about ihe proposed mine. I submitted a letter to the City of Scandia via email on February 9, 2009,�u�d I am pleased to see that mvst of my comznents are addressed by the proposed Scope of the EIS,as outlined in the Record of Decision (ROD)on the Drafi Scoping Decision llocument for lhe EIS proc;ess associated with the Zavoral Mine. Listed below aze a few comments on some aspects of the ROD. 1. The Mod� ified��cale Alternative should be included, specifically with modifications to exclude any are�as that fall within the catchment boundaries far the strcam on the North side of tk�e properiy(i.e. Zavoral Creek). Also evaluate exclusion of any areas that may drain directly to the St. Croix River. . 2. Alternative 3 –Need to include discussion of the type of asphalt that will be crushed or recycled. So�ne asphalts can contain PAHs and other compounds that could become a mobi le contaminant in a recycling process, and should be specificaily excluded from,�ny such pzocess at this location. In particul�r, asphalts made with Coal Tar, or thc►se with Sealcoat applications,can be significant sources of PAHs. These types of;�sphalt should be excluded from the recycling process at the Zavoral mine. 3. Alternative 4 is good–water use needs to be better defined and potentiai impacts on groundwater detailed 4. Irem 13 – Wate�- Use. Need to evaluate not just quantity of water used but timing of use and differer�t quantities used at different tirnes. Times evaivated should include both times of d�iy and seasonal aspects(e.g. late summer low-flow, fall rains, and spring melt}. Please conduct a pump-test to determine connections, if any,with other local wells. The:request for a pump test could apply to Item 19 too. 5. Item 16—Erosiun a�d Sedimentation- What are tiie monitoring plans to detect any effects of erosic�n and sedimentation from the Zavoral mine,and what are the applicable standazds or mitigation measures that may be required if erosion and sedimentation occur, especially in the St. Croix River. 6. Item 17--�urfa�•e Water Qualiry and Quantity-- Identify specific monitoring processes that �vill provide notification if there are impacts 7. Item 19 --Groundwater monitoring-- See comment# 3. Need to include the types of asphalt that will be recycled in the evaluation of potential threats to groundwater resources_ 09/07/2009 22:09 I�AR 503G5tizly:s rcuca vi � ��.�: �,�� -. . 8. Item 26—Visual lmpacts–Include seasonal considcrations (e.g. after leaf fall) Thank you for your consideration. Chauncey Anderson 430 SE 69�' Ave Portland, OR 97215 503-256-3271 andrgant@hevanet.com ;,��,% Anne Hurlburt From: Suzanne Lundgren [Suzanne.Lundgren@mpls.k12.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:56 PM To: Anne Hurlburt Subject: Comments on the EIS for the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project Anne, I attended the meeting this evening but did not comment due to lack of information on my part. I have been traveling and was not able to read the EIS thoroughly. Many of my concerns were voiced this evening i .e. economic impact. What will be the impact on property values ? My property lies very close to the Zavoral property ( 31565 St Croix Trail N. ) which is the second property north of the 97/95 intersectiion. My major concern, however, is the effect any mining will have on water quality. If you walk the railroad tracks from Log House Landing north to the Swing Bridge you will see literally hundreds of streams, creeks, and seepages flowing from the bluffs and toward the St. Croix. It would seem to me that all of this is interconnected in some way and whatever occurs at the Zavoral mining pit will ultimately show up somewhere else. Up until a few years ago we were drinking water directly from a spring box. We discontinued, not because of contamination from above, but from the river during high water in the spring. Ultimately all water drains into the river. As was noted this evening the St. Croix is on a list of ten endangered rivers in the U.S. There are many environmental concerns regarding this project. I believe that over time some of these concerns can be reversed. Not in my lifetime but in the next couple of generations. Some issues cannot be reversed and i feel water quality is one of those. For that reason I urge the council and all responsible parties to do everything possible to avoid contamination/depletion of waters that may be affected. I urge you to include every study possible to make sure that this project, if it moves forward will not degrade the water quality from what it is presently. I also want to commend the council and board for moving ahead with an EIS and addressing some very difficult issues. Sincerely, Sue Lundgren 1 i . �,:.._..� 'a ) Anne Hurlburt From: Seemon, Daniel J MVP [daniel.j.seemon@usace.army.mil] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:16 AM To: Anne Huriburt Subject: EAW/Zavoral Property Mining and Reclamation, Tiller Corporation The Corps of Engineers offers the following comments regarding the EAW: The EAW page 7, item 12 indicates that the site has no jurisdictional wetlands. The wetland delineation took place on November 11, 2003 . This determination is outside the normal boundaries of the growing season. Wetland delineations are valid for the Corps' for five years. We strongly suggest that a new wetland delineation be done within the growing season, using the new supplemental criteria for the Corps of Engineers 1987 Delineation Manual. Furthermore, the delineation will need to be approved in the field by the Corps' and the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) . It would appear from comments by other agencies, that "all" wetlands, groundwater seeps, and Zavoral Creek are all within the jurisdiction of the Corps' under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) . Compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts begins at a ratio of 1.5:1 and can increase substantially based on the type of wetland. The Corps ' uses a criteria of on-site and in-kind for mitigation of wetland impacts. The EAW page 14, item 29 Cumulative Impacts is not fully addressed with substantial data. This should include areas such as threatened/endangered species, impacts to the trout stream, groundwater and to the St. Croix River. The Corps of Engineers appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EAW and to fully participate in the EIS process with the City, other agencies and the applicant. Sincerely, Dan Seemon Ecologist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 190 5th Street East St. Paul, MN 55101 (Office) (651)290-5380 (Cell) (612)770-6445 e-mail daniel.j .seemon@usace.army.mil Customer Survey http: //per2 .nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html 1 Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project Page 1 of 1 � �. ''k�' Anne Hurlburt � From: Moncur, Corinne [Corinne.Moncur@ecolab.com) Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:02 PM To: a.huriburt@ci.scandia.mn.us Subject: Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project We are against the proposed mining pit, for any reason. This is a very busy intersection and we have serious safety concerns with the additional truck traffic. Scandia would be asking for trouble allowing this proposed operation. There are so many objections I'll voice a few only; the environmental run off, airborne dirt & noise pollution, unsightliness to our beautiful river valley, and further reduction in our property values for Scandia homes in the vicinity of this pit. We hear traffic on both Hwy 97 and 95 very clearly and the current Jake braking of the trucks especially in the summer is more than enough! The council should listen to the residents on this issue. Corinne and Scott Moncur 20970 Quadrant Ave. North Scandia Minnesota CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain proprietary and privileged inform, Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destro� 4/8/2009 `"� / ��EN7 OF r �' "��`��" "� United States Department of the Interior QP „ , i a Zm y p � � NATIONAL PARK SFRVICE SL Croix National Scenic Rivenvay - � � �y �.,-�'ae d01 Hamilton Strcet ` � ' � ARCH � `$ SL Croir t=alls.W'isconsin>d024-070R �'�' .�`�" �" � �F �-"'''� ! I!V RLPI.1�REFER 1 O ! April 3, 2009 ,� �- :_ _ L7615(SACN) City of Scandia Attention: Anne Hurlburi, City Administrator 14717 209`�' St. N. Scandia, Minnesota 55073 Dear Ms. Hurlburt: This is in response to the ``Notice of Scoping Meeting�� to review the scope of the Environmental [mpact Statement (EIS) that will be prepared for the proposed Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project. The purpose of the EIS is to provide sufficient information for the City of Scandia, the Responsible Governmental Unit, to make a reasoned decision about the proposed project. As stated in our February 2 comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed project, the National Park Service (NPS) is very concerned about the potential impacts of the proposed gravel mine on the St Croix National Scenic Riverway (Riverway). The Riverway was established in 1972 under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) (Public Law 90-542) to protect its scenic, recreational and geologic values for enjoyment by this and future generations. Our concerns fall into five main areas; 1) noise; 2) traffic conflicts; 3) water quality impacts; 4) visual impacts, and 5) cumulative impacts. Therefore, the NPS recommends that the EIS include a thorough analysis of the proposed gravel mine on these impact topics. A noise st�uuy should be conducted to modei projected noise leveis for both land-�aszd and river based receptors within the Riverway boundary. A traffic study should be done to determine the potential level of conflict between mine and recreational traffic. The EIS should take a hard-look at the potential for run-off of soil and pollutants from the mine and the potential impacts to the water quality and aquatic resources of the St. Croix River and its tributaries. To determine the potential extent of visibility of the mine, a viewshed analysis using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology should be conducted. Visual simulations from key viewpoints should also be included in the visual impact analysis. The discussion of cumulative iinpacts should include the potential impacts of any related or anticipated future project in the area, regardless of the project sponsor. �l�hank you for the opportunity to provide comment. We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Scandia to protect the Riverway. If you have any questions, please call our Resource Management Specialist, Jill Medland at 715-483-2284. Sincerely, �\..� k,�l, �� "�- � ` _ -- -` s y� � � <- �l Christopher E. Stein Superintendent , ��J Anne Hurlburt From: Louie DiBerardini [Isd25350@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 8:04 AM To: a.hurlburt@ci.scandia.mn.us Subject: EIS After attending the meeting on the EIS on April, 7, 09, I was impressed again to here all the comments of concern on the Tiller Corp. mining project and hope the city council was listening. Al1 the topics ( 1 thur 29 ) should be admitted in the final scop of the decision. At the end of all this I hope there will be no mining allowed at this site. It all boils down to money for Tiller Corp and they have very deep pockets. Thank You Louie DiBerardini 20680 St. Croix Trl N 1 /� ; / �� . ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SCOPING AND DECISION DOCUMENT FOR THE TILLER/ZAVORAL PROPERTY MINING AND RECLAMATION PROJECT—APRIL 9, 2009 Presented jointly by the St. Croix River Association and the St. Croix Scenic Coalition. The public meeting on Tuesday April 7 to discuss the scoping document, stimulated some additional thoughts. 1 . As was alluded to by one of the Planning Commission members, a needed additional alternative is to not expand the mining area by 8 acres into places which have not previously been mined. 2. In order to analyze alternatives re times of operation, in terms of hours of the day, days of the week, weeks of the year, and number of years, it would help greatly to know the number of processing hours needed to generate the amount of material Tiller expects to ship from the mine. Then alternatives for allocating those hours over time can be presented. 3. The analysis for times of operation should include alternative specific end dates for the mine, at which time all restoration has been completed and after which there will be no more mining. 3. The discussion at the meeting on alternative sites drifted a bit off the mark. Just because Tiller has found a willing landowner in Mr. Zavoral, does not mean that the applicant's desire to mine there has to be satisfied. There are doubtless other sites for gravel mining, outside of Scandia. The EIS should analyze this. 4. Regarding the discussion at the meeting of historic sites, Mlnnesota's SHPO identification of historic places in the vicinity of the mine is attachment three to the EAW. 5. We agree with the comment at the meeting that the economic analysis of the impact of implementing the project should include the impacts to neighboring property values and the economic impact to the city, including tourism losses to local businesses and to entities such as Gammelgarden. Thank you. Randy Ferrin, president St. Croix River Association Bill Neuman, president St. Croix Scenic coalition I _ , ` r\ Ms. Anne Hurlburt, City Administrator 14727 209`h St. N. Scandia, MN 55073 April 9, 2009 Dear Anne, I am writing to request that the following items be included in the EIS for the Tiller Corporation proposal to operate a gravel mine and processing facility at State Hwy 95 8� State Hwy 97. I also have other concerns that you may duplicate to the EIS as seems fitting. I raised a number of these items at the April 7, 2009 City Council/Planning Commission meeting (some are new), and wanted to formalize them in writing. Items for Inclusion in EIS 1. Statement of what the review process will be on the completed EIS and who (experts, agencies, etc.) will be asked to evaluate the completeness and probable accuracy of the EIS results. [Quality check on the work of the 3`d party EIS vendor.] 2. What exactly will be extracted from the site, in what quantity and what the impact will be to the surrounding area. 3. Maximum height proposed for the stockpiles of material on the site. [Elevation will potentially impact airborne material, visual impact of the site and potential dangers for children /dirt bikers and others who get onto the site.] 4. Potential impact of all local wells that could experience negative consequences as a result of the site. This should include a comprehensive, current inventory and map of all business and private wells in the area that could potentially be impacted, showing location, well / property owner, well depth and which aquifer the well taps. [When the site was operated formerly, local wells went dry. Homeowners had to have their wells re-dug at much deeper depths, were without water until they had remedied the situation, and had to pay for the work themselves. ] 5. Depth and width of all wells that are existing or will be added to the gravel site, the maximum number of gallons that each well will draw in a given day, as well as which aquifer each well will tap. [Contamination issues, reducing water and water pressure available to local businesses and homeowners.] 6. List of all chemicals and tools that will be used for washing extracted material, imported material and equipment, and how oil, gas and chemical contamination will be prevented. [Ground water, aquifer, river and soil contamination.J 7. Quantify possible emissions from the site that would cause or add to any air pollutants in the area. [Plant, hauling trucks, etc. Baseline samples should be taken and analyzed.) 8. Definition of load and impact on local roads. Maximum number of truck trips per day, per type of truck. Weight of trucks when full. Mitigation measures to ensure that road quality and safety do not diminish further as a result of operations. 9. Which roads will be used to bring material for the site into Scandia and to remove material from Scandia. 10. Quantify maximum amount of time after ending operations in each site area, reclamation or restoration would begin and the maximum duration to complete the reclamation or restoration of each area. Define how it would be determined that work had in fact, ended in an area. [Current draft EIS only states that it would begin after operations were complete in an area.] 11. How any topsoil, vegetation or other materials brought in as part of reclamation or restoration of the site, as well as the portion of the old site to be reclaimed or restored, would be determined to be free of contaminants, pests and disease not already native to or found in the area, and the potential impacts if they were brought in. [Samples should be taken and analyzed to establish the baseline.] 12. The maximum depth, in proximity to ground water, that mining will come. Report on the effect of the ground water table dropping as a result of site operations. Include site plans if the ground water table were to drop due to causes other than site operations, threatening the water supply of residents. 13. The allowable hours of operation for all 7 days of the week, to include seasonal variances and holidays. 14. As a 3�d party will be contracted to conduct and document the EIS, the Request for Proposal that will be sent to prospective vendors should be made available to the public for comment, prior to being sent out to potential vendors. For further process transparency, documentation regarding the criterion that the City Council will use to evaluate and rank all vendor RFP responses, as well as in the selection of the vendor of choice, should be made available to the public for comment, prior to RFPs being issued for response. 15. The EIS should contain detail on who executed the work in each item included in the EIS, and who defined each item in the EIS (Tiller or Tiller agent, City of Scandia, etc.). It should also include the tests and testing /assessment methods that were used to reach each conclusion or statement of risk, as well as the quality controls that were used. Other Items for Citv Council to Weiqh in Tiller Proqosal Decision 16. Impact on local property values as a result of an operating gravel mine and processing operation. Existing studies are available on the negative impact of similar mines in the U.S., on the value of property and homes as far away as 5+ miles from the mine sites. In fairness to the residents of Scandia whose tax dollars support our city, a study needs to be completed on the impact to property and home values and future sales and made available for public comment prior to any decision being made by the City Council that wouid allow the mine to operate. Many local homeowners have seen dramatic (1/3 or larger) reductions in the value of their homes and property as a result of the economic and mortgage crises over the past 2+ years. Many homeowners are now living in Scandia properties that are valued below the price they paid for them. Approval of the Tiller project will negatively impact the value and salability of properties in the area. Residents have lost enough of their net worth as a result of poor government oversight of other industries. We don't need to lose more as the result of this project. 17. What will be done to secure the site, and prevent the same rise in police calls, dirt bike noise, etc. that have been experienced as a result of the gravel pit near State Hwy 97 and Manning, in Scandia? 18. The extent of liability of Tiller, their agents and the site landowner(s) in the event that negative risks noted in the completed EIS and local property value study, come to pass if the city approves the project, and what recourse those effected would need to use to receive compensation. What recourse the City of Scandia or local residents will have should Tiller or any of its agents in the site operations go out of business prior to coKnpleting site reclamation or restoration. 19. What the implications would be should Dr. James Zavoral or other owners of the site, sell the site prior to the site closing down with complete reclamation or restoration of the site having been performed. Thank you for all of the work you are putting in to getting the documentation ready, Anne. Best Wishes, Judy Herbert 15125 220th St. N. Scandia, MN 55073 Page 1 of 1 Anne Huriburt ` � From: Dupre, Victoria [tori.dupre@metc.state.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:38 PM To: 'Anne Hurlburt' Cc: Larsen, Jim Subject: RE: Final EIS Scoping Document for Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project Hello Anne The Metropolitan Council reviewed the Zavoral Mining project scoping EIS and finds that it addresses the concerns raised in the EAW. Thank you, Victoria Dupre Senior Planner, Sector Rep Districts 2 & 10 Local Planning Assistance to ri.d u p re�m etc.state__.m n..u s 651 602-1621 From: Anne Hurlburt [mailto:a.hurlburt@ci.scandia.mn.us] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 11:56 AM To: Anne Hurlburt Subject: Final EIS Scoping Document for Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project You are receiving this message because you either submitted comments on the EAW or Draft EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) Scoping Document for the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project, or requested to be notified of ineetings and/or city actions regarding this proposed project. The Scandia City Council will review the final EIS scopingdecision document at their meeting on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Scandia Community Center, 14727 209th St. N, Scandia, MN 55073. Materials related to this project, including the scoping decision document, are available for review at the City of Scandia Office, 14727 209th St. N., during office hours (9:00 a.m. to Noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday)and on the City's website (www.ci.scandia.mn.us) . Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Anne Hurlburt, Administrator City of Scandia 14727 209th Street North Scandia, Minnesota 55073 651 433-2274 Fax: 651 433-5112 Cel I: 651 746-4080 a.hurlburt(c�ci.scandia.mn.us http://ci_scandia.mn.us 4/21/2009