Loading...
8.f)2) Eligibility for Community Development Block Grant Program i Meeting Date: 5/19/2009 Agenda Item: ; � � � a� , City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209`h St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Consider continuing participation in the Washington County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Cooperation Agreement. Deadline/ Timeline: "Opt out"notice must be mailed no later than May 22, 2009. Background: • In 2000, Scandia entered into an agreement with Washington County which allows the County to receive federal CDBG and HOME Investment Partnership Program funds on behalf of Scandia. These funds are used for activities primarily benefiting low- and moderate-income residents of the County. • Scandia's participation allows its population to be counted when the allocation of funds is made, and would allow the funds to be used in Scandia for an eligible project. • Every three years, a community may opt out of the program. IF the City would opt out, the City may not have the opportunity to participate in the CDBG program for at least 3 years. Scandia residents would not be able to benefit from County programs receiving the funds. Recommendation: I recommend that the City continue participation in the program. Attachments/ • Letter dated April 16, 2009 from Daniel J. Papin, Washington Materials provided: County Community Services Department • Cooperation Agreement Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (CDBG eligibiliry) Page 1 of 1 OS/04/09 r Washington Community Services Department �COunty ,- -------- _____-�-----� � �������� � April 16, 2009 i � ` ` '' ,,,� Dennis Seefeldt ! - City of Scandia `; � 14727 209t� Street North �;i i�Y C�� 5,�:�NDI�a � Scandia, Minnesota 55073 �"- -" - �"---�"----��-- � SUBJECT: Eligibility for the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program Dear Mayor Seefeldt: In 2000, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determined that Washington County would be eligible to become an entitlement Urban County and receive an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars of approximately one million dollars. This money would be used to undertake housing and community development activities primarily benefiting low- and moderate-income residents of Washington County. Since 1992, the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program has also been a resource for the county. Twenty-eight cities and townships have chosen to participate in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnership (HOME) programs over the past nine years, thus ensuring that a guaranteed annual allocation would be earmarked for Washington County. Recently, HUD has notified Washington County that the county is eligible to continue participation in both the CDBG and HOME programs. The county's eligibility and the actual dollar amount that we will receive are based upon the population accumulated through the number of cities and townships that join with Washington County. Our records show that your community signed a cooperation agreement (see enclosure) with the County to ensure our eligibility for CDBG and HOME funding. Every three years, federal regulations require that we advise you of your opportunity to "opt out" of the County's entitlement and compete directly with other cities in the State's Small Cities program. We, of course, hope that you will not choose this route, as we feel that the County program is your best opportunity of receiving an allocation for an eligible project. If you do choose to "opt ouY', please be advised that you may not have an opportunity to participate in the Community Development Block Grant program with Washington County for the next three years. "Opt out" notification must be mailed to both the county and the local HUD office no later than May 22, 2009: Josh Beck John Swanson Associate Planner Program Manager Washington County Community Services US Dept of HUD -- Mils Field Office 14949 62"d Street North 920 Second Avenues South, Suite 1300 Stillwater, MN 55082 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Inclusion in the County Entitlement does not require that you actively participate in the program. It does provide the County with the needed population to qualify and influences our annual allocation. However, if you choose to "opt out", present and future residents of your municipality will not have the opportunity ❑Service Center Cottage Grove ❑Service Center Forest Lake ❑ Stillwater Government Center ❑ Service Center Woodbury 13000 Ravine Parkway 19955 Forest Road North 14949 62nd Street North P.O. Box 30 2150 Radio Drive Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Forest Lake,MN 55025 Stillwater,MN 55082-0030 Woodbury, MN 55125 Phone: 651-430-4159 Phone: 651-275-7260 Phone: 651-430-6455 Phone: 651-275-8650 Fax: 651-430-4157 Fax: 651-275-7263 Fax: 651-430-6605 Fax: 651-275-8723 TTY: 651-430-4119 TTY: 651-275-7264 TTY: 651-430-6246 TTY: 651-275-8653 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action if you choose to "opt out", present and future residents of your municipality will not have the opportunity to participate in CDBG or HOME funded programs, including the Washington County Owner-Occupied Residential Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program. If you choose to maintain the status quo and remain within the Washington County CDBG Entitlement Community no further action is required. Federal regulations require that we inform you that if you choose to remain with the urban county, your community also participates in the HOME Investment Partnership program. HOME funds may only be received as a formula allocation under the HOME program as part of the urban county, although this does not preclude the urban county or a unit of government within the urban county from applying for HOME funds from the State of MN. N�e are pleased with the active participat�on of many of our municipalities since 2001. Many communities have completed, or are currently implementing, CDBG and HOME projects which will provide community facilities and affordable housing for low- and moderate-income residents. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Josh Beck, Associate Planner, at 651-430- 6502 or Joshua.beck@co.washington.mn.us. Sincerely, ��_.._,.� �� ..� �� � ;� Daniel J. Papin �% Director Cc: Jim Schug, County Administrator �. ►o�E�t��,��a� c,c�c#7 Y--- Coniracl �� //y.� __ Dept ��n� S� o,n WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVEL M�A1T BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) COOPERATION AGRE MF�i� 9/�7�00 — THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into under the auspices of MINN.STAT. §471.59 and in furtherance of the requirements of the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and HOME Investment Partnership Program by and between the County of Washington, State of Minnesota(County)and the Town ofNew Scandia, hereinafter referred to as"Cooperating Community," both parties being governmental units of the State of Minnesota. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Title I of the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended provides for a program ofcommunity block grants to urban counties as that term is defined in the Act; and WHEREAS, Washington County, Minnesota meets the criteria of urban county and is eligible to receive CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, part 570, Chapter V of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations(C.F.R.) sets forth the regulations governing the applicability and use of funds under Title I; and WHEREAS,24 C.F.R.§570.1 OS establishes the program qualification ofan urban county as a county having a certain threshold population which is the combination of the population of unincorporated areas, plus the population of participating incorporated areas; and WHEREAS, in order to be considered a participating incorporated area under the above definition, the City must enter into cooperative agreements to undertake or to assist in the undertaking of essential activities pursuant to the CDBG Program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the Town to have its population counted together with other municipalities of Washington County in order to be able to participate in these federal programs. NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. I. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Agreement, the terms defined in this section have the following meaning: A. "The Act"means the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,Title I, of Public Law 93-383,as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301, e1 seq.). B. "Regulation"means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Acts, including but not limited to 24 C.F.R. Part 570. C. "HUD"means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Community"means any city or township in Washington County which has entered into this Agreement or one which is identical. E. "CDBG Program"means federal program instituted under 42 U.S.C. § 5301,et seq. as amended. F. "HOME Investment Partnership Program"means the federal program instituted under Title II of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act,42 U.S.C. § 12701 e�seq.as amended. The definitions contained in 42 U.S.C.§5302 and 24 C.F.R.570.3,as amended are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. II. PURPOSE The Cooperating Community and the County have determined that it is desirable and in the interests ofthe citizens that the County qualify as an urban county within the provisions ofthe Act. This Agreement contemplates that identical agreements will be executed between the County and other cities and townships within the County, thus enabling the County to qualify under the Act. The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize the County to participate with the Cooperating Community in undertaking or to assist in undertaking essential community development and housing I assistance activities pursuant to the CDBG entitlement Program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program. III. TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be in effect upon execution and terminate no sooner than the end of the third program year covered by the application for the basic grant amount and approved after the effective date. This Agreement shall be effective for the Federal Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003. This Agreement shall renew automatically for subsequent three-year program-periods unless written notice of termination to be effective at the end of the current three year program-period is given by the Cooperating Community to the County following the same schedule as the `bpt-out" notification requirements as established by HUD. Since this Agreement has an automatic renewal provision, the County shall, prior to the "opt-out" date, provide written notification to the Cooperating Community of the Community's rights under this"opt-out" provision. The County shall have the right to "opt out" of future renewal of the Agreement. The parties agree that this Agreement will remain in effect until CDBG and HOME lnvestment Partnership Program funds and program income received for activities carried out during the three year qualification period(and any successive periods under the automatic renewal provision)are expended and the funded activities completed, and that the county and Cooperating Community cannot terminate or withdraw from this Agreement during this period. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be terminated at the end of any program year during which HUD withdraws its designation of Washington County as an urban county under the Act. IV. METHOD The Cooperating Community expressly agrees that it wi I I undertake or assist in undertaking community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing. The County shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies,all necessary applications for a basic grant amount under the CDBG requirements. In making the application,the County shall address the goals and needs of County as developed in meetings between the Community, its citizens and the County, and also addressing the Act and other relevant Minnesota and/or federal statutes and regulations. The parties agree to cooperate fully in establishing priorities and in preparation of the application for a basic grant amount. The Cooperating Community and the County agree that the County shall establish a reasonable time schedule for the development of the grant application. It is anticipated by the parties that the party ultimately implementing a project funded by monies received from the grant may be either the Cooperating Community,or the County. The determination of which party will implement the project will be made by the parties after consideration of the nature and scope of the project, and the ability of each party to undertake the project, though it is understood by the Cooperating Community that the County shall have final responsibility for selecting projects and filing annual grant requests. The County is hereby authorized to distribute to the Cooperating Community such fui�ds as are determined appropriate for the Community to use in implementing a project and the County is hereby authorized to undertake projects within the Cooperating Community as are determined appropriate for the County to undertake. Contracts awarded and purchases made pursuant to a project under this Agreement shall conform to Minnesota statute and to the requirements ofthe entity undertaking the project. V. SPECIAL PROVISIONS A. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to prevent or otherwise modify or abrogate the right of the Cooperating Community or the County to submit individual applications for discretionary funds in the event County does not receive designation as an urban county entity under the Act. B. The Cooperating Community and the County mutually agree to indemnify and hold harmless each other from any claims, losses,costs,expenses or damages resulting from the acts or omissions oftheir 2 respective officers, agents and employees relating to activities conducted by either under this Agreement, the Act or the Regulation. C. In the event that there is a revision of the Act and/or Regulation which would make this Agreement out of compliance with the Act or Regulation, both parties will review this Agreement and renegotiate those items necessary to bring the Agreement into compliance. D. Both parties understand and agree that the refusal to renegotiate this Agreement in order to bring it into compliance will result in de facto termination ofthe Agreement as of the date it is no longer in compliance with the Act and/or Regulation. E. All funds received by the County under the Act shall be deposited in the County treasury. F. The Cooperating Community and the County shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulation. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit reports required of the County to be prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. G. The Cooperating Community and the County agree to make available all records and accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the date of completion of any activity funded under the Act or less than three years from the last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementation. The County shall perform all audits of the basic grant amounts and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulation. H. Pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 570.501(6),the parties agree that the municipality is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement of a written agreement described in 24 C.F.R. 570.503. I. The County and Cooperating Community shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the County's certification required by section 104(b) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended, including Title Vl ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,the Fair Housing Act,section 109 of Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,and other applicable laws. The parties also agree that the County shall not fund activities in or in support of, any Cooperating Community that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes the County's actions to comply with the County's fair housing certification. J. The parties agree that the Cooperating Community has adopted and is enforcing: 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions. K. 42U.S.C.& 12701 TheCooperatingCommunityacknowledgesthatbyexecutingthisAgreement it may not apply for grants from appropriations under the Small Cities or State Community Development Block Grant Programs for fiscal years during the period in which it participates in the County's CDBG Program. The Cooperating Community further acknowledges that during the period in which it participates in the County's CDBG Program it may only participate in a HOME Program(42 U.S.C.§ I 2701 et seq. and regulations promulgated thereto)through the County and is precluded from forming a HOME Consortium for participation in the HOME Program, except through the County. 3 t: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed. WASHI TON COUNTY, MINNESOTA �I ly �� �� By: � R. H. Staffor , Chair Board of Washington County Commissioners Date: 9 � 2:cx�c� By: James . Schug Washington Cou ty Administrator Date: _����i� Approv d as to form: � � Assistant C unty Attorney TOWN OF E NDIA By: �.(g� Its: �� Date: � —l�-ou And: �,Q��-.-��� Its: �� ,/�s�c�..;�.�.�s.� Date: C� —l�i - c_%c3 4 RESOLL7TI�N NC►> NEW S�'ANDIA T(�Wl°�1SH1P RESOLUTION APPROVING WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) COOPERATION AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the New Scandia Township that the C�mmunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) Cooperation Agreement between Washington County and the New Scandia Township be approved, and that the Chair and Clerk are authorized to sign said Agreement. Adopted this�day of September, 2000. � ��Chair � ��� � Clerk COUNT�' ATTORNEY'S OFINION It is hereby the opinion of the Washington County Attorney's Office that the term and provisions of this Agreement are fully authorized under state and local law and that Washington County has the full legal authority under state law and this Agreement to act in furtherance of the program. While the County itself may not have specific authority to undertake essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing,although it does have authority to assist in such undertakings,the Cooperating Community does have this authority;and under state law,the County derives authority from this Agreement to act in furtherance of the program. DOUG JOHNSON, COUNTY ATTORNEY WASH GTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA � � George uprian Assistart County Attorney CO-00-0046 Meeting Date: 5/19/2009 Agenda Item: �=j� ' , G^' j� City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Review the Request for Proposals (RFP) for consulting services for preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Tiller Corporation's Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project. Deadline/ Timeline: RFP timeline anticipates selection of consultant at the July 21 or August 4 Council meeting. Background: • On March 3, 2009 the City Council ordered preparation of an EIS for this project. A public meeting on the EIS scope was held on April 7, and on April 21, 2009 the City Council approved the final scoping decision document for the EIS. The next step in the process is to select a consultant to prepare the EIS. � City Planner Sherri Buss, TKDA, has drafted the attached RFP with input from the Administrator and City Attorney. It has been made available to the proposer and to the public on the city's website. Recommendation: I recommend that the Council approve issuance of the RFP for consulting services for preparation of the EIS. Attachments/ • RFP, with Attachments Materials provided: Contact(s): Sherri Buss, TKDA (651) 292-4582 Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (Zavora]Project EIS RFP) Page 1 of 1 OS/08/09 , . City of Scandia Request for Proposals For Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) SUMMARY The City of Scandia is seeking proposals from qualified professional firms to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)for the Zavora) Mine and Reclamation Project. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)was completed for the project in 2008. The City determined that the project has the potential for significant environmental impacts, and has determined that an EIS is needed for this proposed project. REQUIRED PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING The Pre-Proposal Meeting is mandatory. Proposals from firms or teams not represented at the meeting will not be considered. The City will not conduct individual pre-proposal meetings with potential respondents. Location: Scandia City Hall 14727—209`h Street North Scandia, MN Date: Wednesday,June 3, 2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS: Anne Hurlburt, City Administrator Phone: (651)433-5762 Fax: (651)433-5112 E-mail: a.hurlburt@ ci.scandia.mn.us The City Administrator will be the only contact for all inquiries regarding any aspect of this RFP and its requirements. Do not contact any other City employee or official regarding this RFP. The City Administrator will attend the pre-proposal meeting, but will not conduct individual pre- proposal meetings with potential respondents. Questions regarding the RFP may be sent to the Administrator through June 10. E-mail questions are preferred,so that questions and responses may be provided to all potential respondents. 1 OVERVIEW OF THI� RFY PROCESS ANU GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS 1. Questions and Inquiries Firms/teams that have questions about the RFP should fax or e-mail their questions to the City Administrator by June 10. Respondents may also bring questions to the scheduled pre-proposal meeting. The City encourages potential respondents to submit questions in advance of the pre-proposal meeting in order to facilitate complete responses at the meeting. Reponses to written questions which involve an interpretation or change to this RFP will be issued in writing by addendum and mailed or e-mailed to all parties that attend the pre-proposal meeting. All such addenda issued by the City prior to the time that proposals are received shall be considered part of the RFP. Only changes or additional information provided by formal written addenda shall be binding. 2. Tentative Schedule of Events The City's intended schedule for selection of the Firm/team to complete the project is set forth below; however,the City reserves the right to modify this schedule by issuing an addendum to this RFP. League of Minnesota Cities RFP Advertisement May 21, 2009(Thursday) RFP Document Available on City website May 21, 2009(Thursday) Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting @ 10:00 a.m. June 3, 2009 (Wednesday) All Questions/Inquiries Deadline—Due at Noon lune 10, 2009 (Wednesday) RFP Response Deadline—Due at Noon June 19, 2009(Friday) Evaluation &Selection of Short-listed Finalists July 7, 2009 (Tuesday) Respondent Presentations(if required) luly 21, 2009 (Tuesday) Anticipated Contract Award (City Council Meeting) July 21 or August 4, 2009 (Tuesday) 3. Evaluation Criteria The City will evaluate all responses received by the deadline. An interview/presentation may be part of the evaluation process.The City will evaluate the submitted RFP's in four areas: Project understanding, qualifications/experience of personnel and the team working on the project; proposed work plan; and proposed schedule and cost. The City will select a Firm/team that best understands the EIS project, has qualified and experienced personnel that have demonstrated expertise and success in completing similar projects in recent years, and can deliver the project that fully addresses the environmental issues and meets the requirements of State environmental review rules in a timely manner. 2 4. Issuance of RFP and Award Process Issuance of this RFP does not compel the City to award this project. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, wholly or in part; and to waive any technicalities, informalities or irregularities in any proposal at its sole option and discretion. The City reserves the right to award a contract in whole or in part, to re-solicit for proposals, or to temporarily or permanently abandon the procurement. If the proposed project is modified so that an EIS is no longer mandatory, or the reasons for ordering an EIS no longer apply,the City may terminate the EIS process, as described in Minn. Rules 4410.2100. 5. Proposal Submission Number and Description of Ori�inal Copies: Mail or deliver one(1)original, twelve (12) copies, and one electronic copy of proposal sets to the City. All documents should be 8-1/2" x 11". Do not place the original in a ring binder. The copies should be bound in a manner that facilitates easy handling and reading by the evaluators. The original and the copies must be exactly the same. Include with the proposal a table of contents that includes page number references. The table of contents should be in sufficient detail to facilitate easy reference to the sections of the proposal as well as separate supplemental information. Late Submission: Proposals received by the City after the Submittal Date and Time indicated will not be considered. The Firm/team assumes the risk of the method of dispatch chosen. Proposals will not be accepted via transmittal by telephone,facsimile,or electronic communication equipment. The City assumes no responsibility for delays caused by the U.S. Postal Services, package delivery systems, mail delivery systems or weather. Postmarking by the due date shall not substitute for actual proposal receipt. Firm's Offer--Si�nature and Certification Form: The proposal shall include a cover letter signed by an authorized representative of the lead Firm. Include the signed document with the original proposal and a copy of it with each copy of the proposal. 6. Release of Claims,Liability and Preparation Expenses Under no circumstances shalf the City be responsible for any proposal preparation expenses, submission costs,or any other expenses, costs or damages, of whatever nature incurred as a result of the Firm/team's participation in this RFP process. Respondent understands and agrees that it submits its proposal at its own risk and expense and releases the City from any claim for damages or other liability arising out of the RFP and award process. 7. Duration of Respondent's Offer The proposal constitutes an offer by the Firm/team that shall remain open and irrevocable until a contract is signed with the selected consultant, up to a maximum of 6 months from the proposal due date. 3 8. Errors or Modifications The City shall not be liable for any errors in the Firm/team's proposal. Except during negotiations initiated by the City, no modifications to the proposal shall be accepted from the Respondent after the Submittal Date. Respondents are liable for all errors or omissions contained in their proposals 9. Oral Presentations Finalist(s) may be required to provide an oral presentation, if requested by the City. 10. Reponses Subject to Public Disclosure The City considers all information, documentation, and other materials submitted in response to this solicitation to be of a non-confidential and/or non-proprietary nature and therefore shall be subject to public disclosure under the Minnesota Government Data practices Act (Minnesota Statute Chapter 13) after a contract is awarded. By submitting a proposal,the Firm/team agrees to release the City from any liability resulting from the City's disclosure of such information. 11. Notification of Award If the City awards a contract as a result of this RFP process,the City will deliver a notice of award to the selected Firm/team. The resulting contract shall consist of: • The terms, conditions, specifications and requirements of this RFP and its attachments • Any addenda issued by the City pursuant to this RFP • All representations (including but not limited to, representations as to price, specifications, performance and financial terms) made by the Respondent in its proposal and during any presentations at the City • Any mutually agreed upon written modifications to the terms,conditions, specifications,and requirements to this RFP or to the proposal After a notification of award has been sent to the selected Respondent, letters will be sent to all other Firms/teams notifying them of the outcome of the RFP process and that the selected proposal is public and available for review at the City, subject to the City's information management policies and procedures. 12. Subcontracting Unless otherwise specified,the selected Consultant shall be responsible for the performance of any subcontractors or sub-consultants. The awarded Firm/team must ensure that any subcontractors and sub-consultants abide by all terms and conditions of the contract. 4 ProjF�ct Backgr��iand and Duclaments 1. Background Tiller Corporation is proposing to operate a gravel mine and processing operation on a dormant, un- reclaimed gravel mine site in the City of Scandia—called the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project. The 114-acre site is located along St. Croix Trail North (State Trunk Highway 95 [TH 95J) 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 or completed 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 Responsib►e Governmental Unit (RGU)for the EAW. On March 3, 2009, the Scandia City Council approved the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision that concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is needed to determine the project's potential for significant environmental 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 P►an 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 identifies 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 for and significance of 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 reasonabiy be obtained,the RGU may make a positive declaration of the need for an EIS, and include within the scope of the EIS 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 for the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project EIS pursuant to Minnesota Rules 5 4410.0500, Subpart 1. The EIS will need to meet the requirements of Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 to 4410.7800(Minnesota Environmental Quality Board rules),which govern the Minnesota Environmental Review Program. The City of Scandia has completed the Scoping Process for the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation EIS. The City prepared a Draft Scoping Decision Document, and presented the document at a public meeting on April 7, 2009. Based on comments from the City's Planning Commission, Council, agencies and the public, the City prepared a Final Scoping Decision Document,which was adopted by the City Council on April 21, 2009. This document details the issues that will be analyzed in the EIS. 2. Documents Available for Review The following documents are available for review at www.ci.scanciia.mn.us: • EAW documents—including the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation EAW, Figures 1-12, and Attachments 1-3 • Comments on EAW—including the Comment Log and Comments 1-49 • Staff and Consultant Reports for the March 3, 2009 Planning Commission and Council meetings and related Correspondence • Draft Resolutions for March 3, 2009—Options A and B • EIS Scoping Process Documents o Resolution 3-03-09-02 Findings of Fact and Record of Decision o Notice of April 7, 2005 Scoping Public Meeting o Staff Report for April 7, 2005 Scoping Public Meeting,TKDA o Draft Scoping Decision Document and Powerpoint Presentation o Staff Report for the April 21 City Council Meeting,TKDA o Final Scoping Document,April 21, 2009, including Map Attachments o Comments on EIS Scoping Document through April 17, 2009 Proposal Scope and Contents 1. General Project Scope The City,serving as the Responsible Governmental Unit(RGU)with respect to the gravel mining and reclamation,will complete an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)of the proposed mining and reclamation project. The City will contract with an environmental consultant to complete the EIS. The EIS shall comply with the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), Minn. State. 116D.01 et seq.,the rules promulgated under MEPA, Minn. Rules Chapter 4410,and guidance documents issued by the EQB. The purpose of the EIS is to provide decision-makers and the public with an impartial discussion of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed mining and reclamation project,and to develop appropriate mitigation measures that would avoid, minimize or mitigate for potential adverse impacts, or enhance environmental quality. The EIS is to be prepared using an interdisciplinary approach, integrating natural resource, engineering, and social science expertise and analyses. 6 The EIS preparation will entail collection of the data relevant to the issues identified in the Scoping Decision Document, completion of analyses and modeling needed to identify the potential impacts of the proposed project and mitigation needs, preparation of draft and final EIS, responding to comments relative to the draft, and preparation of the Final EIS. The selected Respondent will be required to work closely with the City, its staff and consultants, and with public agencies, including the National Park Service, Minnesota DNR, Carnelian-Marine St. Croix Watershed District,and others as directed by the City, as described in the Final Scoping Decision Document (April 21, 2009). 2. General Description of Roles and Responsibilities The selected Respondent's roles and responsibilities will include the following: • Collect the necessary data, complete modeling, mapping and other analyses and coordination with identified agencies to address the issues identified for the EIS in the Final Scoping Document • Prepare and assist with distributing the draft and final EIS documents • Provide technical assistance to the City in conducting one or more public meetings • Review and respond to public comments • Assist the city in issuing the final EIS • Provide technical support to the City in its interaction with natural resource agencies, other stakeholders and the general public 3. Specific Proposal Contents The proposal shall be limited to not more than 20 pages, not including the cover letter, resumes, examples of work, and graphic materials. The proposal should contain the following items: 1. Cover letter--the proposal shall include a cover letter signed by an authorized representative of the lead Firm, Include the signed document with the original proposal and a copy of it with each copy of the proposal. 2. Statement of the Respondent's Understanding of the Project and its goals and objectives 3. Description of the Respondent's Approach to the Project and Work Plan based on the Scope of Work (Appendix I). The work plan should include a proposed project schedule in graphic format. The Work Plan may include any proposed additional or optional tasks. 3. Description of the Deliverables to be provided by the Firm. 4. An outline of the firm's background and experience with similar environmental review projects. The firm should specifically address its experience with EIS's and environmental reviews for aggregate mining projects. Staff that worked on the example experiences should also be documented. The experience section should identify at least three references for similar projects. 7 5. An organizational chart indicating the staff, project manager and subconsultants proposed to work on the Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project EIS. Any changes in key personnel assigned to the project will need written permission of the City Administrator. 6. The level of City participation in the project. 7. A detailed cost breakdown of the tasks to be performed with a breakout of the hours for each employee category(e.g., project manager, senior engineer, technician, etc.) per work task identified. All tasks listed and described in item#2 shall be included in the detailed cost breakdown. The Firm/team should show the hourly rate for each employee category and break out any direct expenses. The consultant will indicate any assumptions made(e.g., number of ineetings, number of drafts, etc.) and include this information with the cost proposal. Total dollar amounts for each work task and deliverable shall be shown. Total dollar cost for the entire project should be included. Any optional work tasks suggested by the consultant should be indicated as such and should include the information identified above. The consultant is expected to make an educated guess about the number of ineetings to include in the work plan and cost breakdown. The consultant should also include a typical per meeting cost for the meeting types included, such as agency meetings, public meetings, etc. The consultant should submit the cost proposal in a document that is separate from the primary proposal. 8. Statement of conflict of interest The consultant should provide a statement indicating any conflict of interest for this project, including current or past work for Tiller Corporation or work for or on behalf of aggregate mining companies. The City will provide existing project-related information to the selected Respondent, including the EAW, comments and responses, and all City reports and documents related to the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project EAW and EIS. 8 Appe���iix I. Scope of Work Respondents should include the following tasks in the Scope of Work and Cost Estimate detailed in the proposal submitted to the City. The City will serve as the RGU for the project. Proiect Mana�ement Task 1. Projeci management. Project management includes schedule and budget coordination with the City,timely and accurate reports and billing. Task 2. Internal and External Communications. Significant coordination will be required for this Project between the selected Respondent and the City and public agencies. The selected Respondent will also provide technical support to the City in meetings and other interaction with agencies,other organizations and the public. Hours and costs estimated for this task may be detailed separately or identified under each of the EIS Preparation Tasks. EIS Preparation Tasks The Firm/team will complete the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation EIS to comply with the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), Minn. Stat. 116D.01 et seq.,the rules promulgated under MEPA, Minn. Rules Chapter 4410, and guidance documents issued by the EQB, including the following tasks and deliverables: Task 3. CoverSheet. The Cover Sheet shall include all of the information items described in Minnesota Rules 4410.2300. Task 4. Project Summary, Table of Contents, List of Preparers and Project Description. The consultant will complete these items as required. Task 5. Permits and Approvals. This section will list all known governmental permits and approvals required, identify the governmental unit, and indicate permits for which all necessary data has been gathered and presented in the E15. Task 6. Descripiion of the Proposed Alternatives. Based on information provided by the City,the consultant will prepare a concise description of the four alternatives for mining and reclamation,as detai�ed in the Final Scoping Decision Document. Task 7. Environmental, Economic, and Sociological Impacts. The consultant will collect and assess the data,and complete the modeling and analyses required to address the issues as specified in the Final Scoping Decision Document, including: 1. Land Use 9 2. Environmental Hazards 3. Reclamation Plan 4. Economic Impacts 5. CoverTypes 6. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically-Sensitive Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species 7. Physical Impacts on Water Resources 8. Water Use 9. Water-Related land Use Management Districts 10. Erosion and Sedimentation 11. Surface Water Quality and Quantity 12. Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions 13. Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste, Storage Tanks 14. Traffic 15. Stationary Source Air Emissions 16. Odors, Noise and Dust 17. Visual Impacts 18. Compatibility with Plans and Land Use Regulations 19. Cumulative Impacts Task 8. Mitigation Measures. The consultant will identify the measures that could eliminate or mitigate for the adverse impacts of the project,as identified in the analyses completed for Task 8. Task 9. Preporation of a Draft EIS. The consultant will prepare a draft EIS for the City's review and approval. The draft EIS will be completed to satisfy MEPA requirements and shall be written in a concise, accurate and thorough manner and shall use language understandable by the public. The draft EIS will analyze the environmental impacts for the proposed mining and reclamation project alternatives and the no-action alternative. The draft EIS will also address mitigation measures that may be taken as a result of sand and gravel mining. The consultant will submit draft chapters of the draft EIS as they are completed for the City's review. Draft chapters will be submitted in electronic formats. Any technical data used to support the discussion in any chapter must be attached as an appendix or referenced. The consultant will distribute the draft EIS as required by Minn. Rules 4100.2600,submit the required notice to the EQB for publication in the EQB Monitor,and complete a press release for distribution to local newspapers. The consultant will provide twelve (12) paper copies and 1 electronic copy of the Draft EIS to the City of Scandia. Task 10. Public Meeting, Draft EIS. The consultant will provide information and a presentation at a public meeting,to be organized by the City,to discuss and receive public comment on the draft EIS. The public meeting will be held not less than 15 days after publication of notice of availability of the draft EIS. The consultant's staff and any subcontracted consultants who are knowledgeable about the contents and preparation of the draft EIS shall be made available to attend and answer questions at the meeting. The City shall be responsible for recording or hiring a court reporter to transcribe the meeting. 10 Task 11. Response to Public Comments, Drafi EIS. The consultant, in cooperation with the City, will compile, catalogue, review and prepare draft responses to timely oral and written public and agency comments on the draft EIS. Task 12. Final EIS. Based upon comments received during the public comment period, the consultant will prepare and submit to the City for review a Final EIS that complies with the requirements of MEPA, and Minn. Rules 4410, particularly part 4410.2700. Task 13. EIS Adequacy Hearing. The consultant will and attend and participate in the Final EIS adequacy determination hearing before the Scandia City Council. If the EIS is determined to be inadequate,the consultant will work with the City to prepare an adequate EIS during the 60 days allowed under Minn. Rules to complete an adequate EIS. Task 14. Other Tasks. The selected Respondent may propose additional tasks or activities if they will substantially improve the results of the project. Attachments: Final Scoping Decision Document and Maps 11 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 19, 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 significance of, possible environmental impacts, and that such information is necessary to allow the City to decide whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects as described in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subpart 7; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Scandia made a positive declaration on the need far an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Zavaral 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; Resolutiun 04-21-09-02 Page 2 of 17 NOW, THEREORE, BE IT RESOLVED that 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 I. lr�troc�uclion and Purpose Tiller Corporation is proposing to operate a gravel mine and processing operation on a dormant, un-reclaimed gravel mine site in the City of Scandia--called the Zavaral Mining and Reclamation Project. The 1 14-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 far 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 Decision that concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed to determine the project's potential far significant environmental 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 for 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 may make a positive declaration of�the need for an EIS, and include within the scope of the EIS appropriate studies to obtain the necessary inforn�ation. The Notice of Decision for the EAW was �ublished in the EQB Monitor on March 23, 2009. The City of Scandia will be the RGU for the EIS for the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.0500 , Subpart l. The EIS will need to meet the requirements 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 documcnt 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 environmentai review process, and discusses permits needed for the project in relationship to the EIS. 11. Project Alternatives The MEQB rules require EIS studies to include at least one alternative in each of the following categories, ar provide a description of why no alternative is included in the EIS (MN Rule 4410.2300, Item G): • Alternative sites • Alternative technologies • Alternative designs ar 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 ar 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 Zavoral 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 thc ground water. The site was mined by multiple operators before it was taken out of production in thc 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 I 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 from 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, aggregate will be excavated using front-end loaders. The raw material will be transported to a wash piant. 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 04-2J-09-02 Page 6 of 17 transported and stockpiled. Portable proccssing equipment will be brought to the site as needed, and removed from the site after a sufficicnt volume of material has been processed and stockpiled. When the stockpiled aggregates 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 far these activities will be secured from the existing production well on the site. Surface water collected in the sediment ponds on the project site may 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 materials 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 result 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 Corparation's letter to the City(April 7, 2009) proposed revising the restoration and phasing plan to include restoration of the area within the St. Goix 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#l. 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 Alternatives include the same project area as described for the Preferred Alternative. Each varies from the preferred alternative in the following respects: Alternative#3—Minin�and Reclamation Activities--Evaluate of Impacts of Washin� 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 impacts of the Preferred Alternative that includes the maximum level of washing that is expected to occur at the site. I Alternative #4—Minin� and Reclamation Activities—Evaluate Impacts and Seasonal Scheduling of Processing 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 aggregate 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 A��re�ate Resources Inventory of the Seven-Count 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. Technologv 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 I will be utilized as part of the preferred alternative.