9.a) Request for Proposals for Consulting Services, Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project Meeting Date: 5/19/2009
Agenda Item: ��j� �� '�
�
City Council Agenda Report
City of Scandia
14727 209`h 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
(Zavoral 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 Zavoral 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 T'H1; RFi' PRUCESS AND GENERAL 1NSTRUCTIONS 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. lune 3, 2009(Wednesday)
All Questions/Inquiries Deadline—Due at Noon June 10, 2009 (Wednesday)
RFP Response Deadline—Due at Noon June 19,2009(Friday)
Evaluation &Selection of Short-listed Finalists luly 7, 2009 (Tuesday)
Respondent Presentations(if required) July 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. Proposal5ubmission
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 shall 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
Project Backgr��und and Doctaments
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 multipie 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 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 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 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 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 possibie environmental
impacts is lacking, but could reasonably 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.scandia.mn.us:
• EAW documents—including the Zavoral Mine and Reciamation 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 E15.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
Ap}�endix 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. Project 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. Cover Sheet. 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 EIS.
Task 6. Description 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
detailed in the Final Scoping Decision Document.
Task 7. Environmental, Economic, and Sociological lmpacts. 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. Preparation 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 (EA W) 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 effeets 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;
Resolution 04-2 I-09-02
Page 2 of 17
NOW, THEREORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Scandia
adopts thc Final Scoping Decision Docun�ent, includcd 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 04-2 I-09-02
Page 3 of 17
Attachment A, Resolution 04-21-09-02
CTTY OF SCANDIA
Washington County, Minnesota
Zavoral Mining and Reclamation Project
Final Scoping Decision Document
1. Introduction 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 Zavoral Mining and
Reclamation Project. The 1 14-acre site is located along St. Croix Trail North (State Trunk
Highway 95 [TI� 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 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 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.]700, Subpari 2a indicates that if
the RGU determines that information necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential far, or
significance of, one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking, but could reasonably be
Resolution 04-2 I-09-02
Pagc 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 published 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 44(0.0500 , Subpart I. 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 Scopin� Decision Document (SDD) identifies the issues and alternatives that will be
examined in depth in the EIS. The document reflects the coinments 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, ltem 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 &om
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 E1S 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,
I 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 04-2 I-09-02
Page 5 of 17
mining into the ground water. The site was mined by multiplc operators before it was taken out
of production in the 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 previousiy 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 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 bcen processed and
stockpiled. When the stockpiled aggregatcs 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 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. Goix 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 restaration 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 Ma�nitude 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 lmpacts 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 impacts of the Preferred Alternative that includes the maximum level
of washing that is expected to occur at the site.
I Alternative#4—MininQ and Reclamation Activities—Evaluate Impacts and Seasonal
Scheduling of Processing Activities
This Alternative will focus on the impacts of the proeessing 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 Zavaral 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 Ag�re�ate Resources Inventory of the Seven-Countv 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 prefened 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
the Preferred Alten�ative (Figure 1) may be modified depending upon the results of the analysis
that will be completed for the EIS and the pern�it 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 mitigation measures into
project design and permitting as warranted.
I11. 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. lssues 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 EA W and were found to be not relevant ar
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 resowces (Item 25a)
• Prime or unique farmlands (Item 25b)
• Impact on infrastructure and public services (Item 28)
Topics to be lncluded in the EIS (Item numbers below are those used in the EAW):
Ite�n 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.
• Coardinate 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.
Resolution 04-21-09-02
Page 10 of I 7
The ana(ysis 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 cach of the alternatives.
ltem ll—inclUding Jla—Fish, WiJdlife, and EcologicUlly-Sensitive Resources and
Item I I b-7hreatened and Endangered.S'pecies
The EAW included a list of threatened and endangered plant and animal species based on
published lists from the Minnesota DNR's Natura] 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 (GMSCWD)
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 assessment 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 inelude 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.
ltem 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 inciude the following:
Resolution 04-21-09-02
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, streams, 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 complete the mapping,
assessment and mitigation strategies.
Item 13—Water Use
The EAW indicates that an existing production well on tbe 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, ar 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 far 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 ar 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 ro a discussion of the restoration proposed
within the River District under tbe preferred alternative.
The analysis in the EIS should include the following for each of the alternatives included
in the EIS:
Resolution 04-21-09-02
Page 12 of 17
• Identify potential adverse effects on the natural, cultura] 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 deteriaration of
water quality.
• Consult with the National Park Service (managing agency far the Riverway and
District) regarding the impacts analysis and identification of strategies to avoid,
minimize and mitigate far the impacts
• Identify the measures that will be utilizcd to avoid, minimize 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 impacts of erosion and sedimentation resulting from the preferred alternative.
The EIS analysis should include thc following:
• Identify the area of potential impacts of erosion and sedimentation &om the
proposed project under each of the alternatives.
• Analyze the potential impacts of erosion and sedimentation on eacb of the
resources within the project area and area of potential impact under each of the
alternatives, particularly including impacts high quality and unique resourees,
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 ar
mitigate far 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).
• Identify 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 sedimentation
ponds proposed on the site, including impacts of sediments, nutrients and
temperature to downstream water resources.
• Identify specific measures that will be used to monitor potential impacts and
avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts of stormwater 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 groundwater 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;
• Identify 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 ar 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
Item 20b and c—Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste, Storage Tanks
Based on the analysis completed for Item 19, this section should identify:
• Identify any potential impacts of toxic waste, hazardous waste or starage tanks at
the site on surface water resources, groundwater resources, groundwater-
dependent resources ar local wells under each of the alternatives.
• Identify strategies that will be implemented to monitor groundwater resources and
avoid, miniroize or mitigate for the potential impacts.
Item 21--Traffic
The EAW included a traffic analysis far 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 ar 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.
I • 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 04-2 I-09-02
Page 15 of 17
Iten� 24—Odo�•s, Noise and Dust
The EAW indicated that the project will operate within air emissions and noise limits
established by the MPCA. It listed some 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 sunounding 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 26—Vzsual 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 04-21-09-02
Page I 6 of 17
The EIS should include a viewshed analysis that addresses the following:
• Identify location and maximum potential height of equipment, stockpiles and
other site elements that may be visible from 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 or 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 E1S 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
I 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-0ct., 2009 Draft EIS preparation
Nov-Dec., 2009 Draft EIS Comment Period and Public Meeting
Resolution 04-21-09-02
Page 17 of 17
The Draft 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 determine whether the EIS is adequate, based on the
comments received, responses to comments, public meeting comments,
and criteria prescribed in Minnesota Rules 4410.2800, subpart 4.
Vl. 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.
VI1. Governmental Permits or Approvals
The EIS will identify all permits and approvals potentially required for this project. Tbe 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. Arrny Corps of Engineers
and other permitting and reviewing agencies was initiated during the EAW process and will
occur throughout the EIS process.
Site
olumbu �11,
Forest Lake Scandia �„ (
U�
Marine on St. roix
ino Lak s Hugo
entervil e May Twp.
�i
White Bear Twp.
Del lwood
Stillwater Twp.
Grant
White Bear Lake
hite Bear Twp. Mahtomedi
� .
Stil lwater�
em,Lake Birchw od Villa e -
Washington County Location Map , �
Zavoral Property Proposed Mining Project �Mile
TKDA
� . � N . . ' . � � I . ��' � �.. �.��. - .
: �. J
�
� � ` I."� .. �: � _" '._= 'f -�- �^Y~1 I
_r' ._.� — ___� ..�:.�:�_ .. �.T-'_`___. �.. __�--. -.-. ._...1_ ti:, �'t.HtY:1f:p fU
n �: a
-�_ u
r.� --u,n�tiiur,run r� ' 1. ,- -- - - - -
I s , � ' � . �5.� _.' . � . ^�� ;,.F 1.�'�.r��;y+, ' .
� . .. � - �' � i ' � - . .. ��,�° t_, . ,�,/�j.�''"��.
.. - '� I i � �V •
.
. ,..., _ `'. . C_ '. f '. " ! L*.' '',,
� l .
�I - . . . , � - !s �� �?' `� �� � I '� ��
� � \ - -'�� � . � i .1 � � ri�� o =� ��' �1 bi' /� j
. . , g .oy' , r ,,.j i � � � � � �:6, y.. ,(�, �.. r. � . - �iq'��• � :��
. r � . '�`�. ._ ',. I . - yY. � 1 � l, \` � �'_ l`4'�4, � t'eJar Ben�f �.r
C
'�� ;�� - ,;I ;� � { �-� �_� �, ;��,� � -, �L, � , ,,
� �
�1` I /`1.'= t �Il,� \.� ��' . ,I f � �J11',���. � ��� _ 1,1��� r k'��t i ,���''�
�� � L� u , �''� �� �: �:� � pr' � �u'-.
i� � L�} � � �/y #
� ,� � (� U ��`'� �• ��� � �, K �"��S .(j� �� � ''^� �( rl��� y-
,5� �1• � ���. � �1 Y - , `� °� � � :
.tr 3c� .. � ' n �. N i
�1�i� �f
r I
-� -� -� -_ ���'.J'`' ,. � ' �- a r _ <e,�e(-�1�... __.�, � ,q �i .i�;j�1 S- -
� f. � /-
�,�� -J' J 1' / i �l � _.. �. . �U" p�_{..i '!.
, � c . � ' � � �• �� � °� "� � �. ��.�'.�`� l�F�'
II. �- , '�.I , ' .>�.. .;j` � "�- . . � vl•,�_ a''. �
� ,. �c; ��� �> _ '�� t �- �°;�} �� �,l� � � ti
Y�, � � ' � _ �... I� � . tii �-' }'.7�{ � I �, ��.��� F`� i t�"i- � �'.' ��� • ..�,y��
L� � a '� � ' �� � �' � i
� � I . �° � � i t - 1 � `, � ..� �R � a t i 7.
. u:;.� ' 'IQ r .... `�...�,I � tl ��- C� � Z�r'l� f: '12( "•r ;� �`LS `� /�� ' . s-��{4
�� .. � . / _ L � -, TF- '1��2 t'� ��' . � �
� ���r C/t f � . .;� a � , . � ��i"
� � � �Y �-�� �' � � `�� .,- %
; � ,�'. i'� •`�
� �� ���� ����� ,�.- � _� �:� � � - ` �, �
, , _, � -- � ,� ���� : a�- - 1 �` `�-� .;��<�1 i� - �� �
4V �,' � C 9 �;`' , n I A ;� ; � ���'� �' �;
• �,��. ,
.�.,4 � . ._ p,.� !nver Lo} n, _ 0 N � � �._ �y�� �� F�' t ___�� .
. ,... � ,� - — 'a .
� ,r � v 1 � •� . I J�i l- � . �� I � . h � � i
J i ' � �q. L 9L f� v- � � r�/ i 1 iR � � ' �� � �" . Z�.
} � 1 J
\ . � ;� i • ! C �� f�
� � � i! i
_� . . � � � �l�' ` J�lt i ' � �-.�,Y`' � . i n i_.- -_ l W . a ��..., 7�,�
' ��� � �,�� ;r � �. � , �:. ��;' � ,! ��; �,� x:�
l'y, � y ...; i �1 1 � 1 P•."' V j.
, ! � ��. r �.� r , 1� �s �J� � '�I �� ��, §� �,��-�� �:' � ��� . ��f.
..--.._" , (.. i .. , j fk i: I .,� ` . � . ,-�'_ �\. � .f I � �, ` - . � � '��u �-i��ts� . " J� �
� � \� � AS � ��.�'� � �i� Cl_ �1 �a' ljct ,l�y�� 1 �o �8 L�s _,� �/cJY�`
I p t;�,._
��� � � �i �+ �[�..� - - ��o . , .�����'��'',. V��G . ' -� '1•�,LL.� *•�� �s,-
;� ;,7 � . � 4 L t �{'
�
"'� -'t x :r`� �F'�i _''"'�,� 1� ► `� -r-.�?�-1.F•-.._ �Z.s� � ._�•--- 9 . s/ �"s,,'
- ' l)1� . ,:�,La � -�- 'v � T , r J . � � � s i-
� j � / �
� r .a', ' /. " i � *
r� �� ' � ��,� ���5 �t,; �, �:� � / d ` .;" , , ��,�;�
� �F� U,.a�o t � � K �rand� i!t�� i � a ` _�� ,F��•a :�F , i '1i� ,
� ! I,, krr.�r. � � . . �l� . � � � � _ _� . ' � - ���
' f � � '!nn ,�1 v- A . � -fJL i 1 �� J i I x�'. I �(+,'' i ��y���, �..
` �
� r+
�\I\ ' �Y•.�1 :�, � � �: Ir t i\ i� � ��\ti12A I.� `t-- �y,,,�°'�`� I ;: � i �"f.}:
-��— � � T.� � �—� 1�� � ✓ \ "�'; ' C � _ 5�.`�'�'['
� G r � �, �- '} `
��". �.-� ��_� C _ j�� - ` ! -. ��ci, '�i.� m5 :}� ':�R'�k I I�`'
�- r. �F�` j�\ ;;� -�'\��7 �� .}-�} �: � i . .J,t � �; �� i.
� % "� L 0 :f 4 .._ � ..�}!y` � 9' i . y.�'�_� v
. ' 4� �1 ( � �S I .�- ��� ,� � �C� y-�'a I'' J `�/ ( 11l! yr''E ' � �'�}� .
cc
i �' � /�. iZ� 23 �I� i r, r-, � �- �� �` / A � ; �
��' �,�� -'�-� / "� , �-ti � � \� �'� 4'�.�ji � � ��� �}�_"1s�;,xp �I
��.�- , b�-. . (�'� f'c � [(� p i �,
1 � �- � � ✓ ;��-�� r�' ��I`-� }��- �i v�^� �'�- j��. � � ,f, �� �,� i.�
�L'r, i - �'(� �� !\`li�.'i � / t `� : �`t�V�i s.- _R � fi��`,w�1�: � 1�����F�v . .���C_ \��(f`:i'�',c�t .,�?f I
��� , ^ �;��; � . '�._<. �� I a I- °!d'�� :5� '.' .'� ,� j� _ � 9� �.
( � _ t 1 JJ,,
f, � �:�� ' r� "� , -_ - 'l�l �� r;. � . � �L_:, �,��' � � '� � .
�i � /�}L . . �> --� . `\. � 1 if.,�'- � ('��yf ) fil r n .
��.: -'. � 'i �» _. � ' ! 'f. 1�' \ ��C �` f� •4� -„ $7M�; S� '� ,�
� —
c. � _C =� ' c� ��_ ' f� '2q�T` 1� � � , G.
_- i � , . �� .� ' l ... � ,. h " n � ,7 '� i + .
.
'� � E; � I. � � L G t�� � • �-• �� t a � � ,�, i��.,� '` E-
. *;' � ' ` ° �. `..� ll Hn.IJ.Al e�";� � �.^� �f ! \"f''. �"r ��i � �` r.:� - ,. .,.C�__�y � C�-'.
t � _ �
�� � .I;�; ! � , . . . �e_ �'�:�� � , � � - r ',G,t ' � � ��� �� � 7,
��,. �. a . � , �, � �5� f� •1 , � ,
a� � J'� _� � :" F �56. - ,,.as� � + b ��'�„ i i'� � �
_- --� �.Enz - �'. �..;- ` t . __.. Y.. . 3��.I I; `l�,
�r ` �� � � �} � i
�/�_, 1. - `� � - - .�' �S S' i ; i
r` _
USGS Location Map o5
Zavoral Property Proposed Mining Project Mile
TKDA
Land Use - 2020 Comp Plan � `i � I ,,.�'
Ayrfculture (AG) °�,if�` `,�,,�� ��"
�: �*�<� ,
'��,'� �`�,�<< �' �a+����
Semi-Ruraf Residential (SR) , � � ��,. r- w'�
Retaii Business (RB) •',,��:�'� ; � f� �
-r^ 3 ri'�.� • � �/i�►•�,_�
Saint Croix River Districl ��'`'�``��"`r����' � •
~� { � ,
.}' I
2}�J F {
Sl le i�4 t�+' .€'`��r, y �'
;r�r a� . °' �� �I�
t F �;-.��'- �
r:!����. ,�,_ �jj`�'
, '.�f{N�� � . d •'',,
�'�a � .r�� „s`. .��� �� /j � �
"� �� ���' �y , � `" _ j�' /� , �I
'�"t{ '��+'� YSr� � j`�� �:,a.� :ry# r�',•r rE,� � " 7
�y,� 3 4+y.:ur�° � ��n Y_ il.bry • '�.• � �
�';(� '$�.•^+6, � ��' . ^A��Iy _ A1J'r��.,
S ��� . ��' �VM �[ t � � �� � rJ
1.'� .. � k. ! �
�'% �}ria }� � 'i; fsS.-* �.+�. � � �`� y 'a � � /� � h
'�p� � �, rr'",g ,�-"�".., �,<`.�-.�- "'Y �"- . , � y�;.. J� *!, �
�q�t F�. �'1� i •�R ,F� ' � � %
S,•' .a i 7 . f..h. 11'z � t'd• I �� �.a ' � /
`�� . .�� . ti r ` / ;/
.��: ,, . � �
.,. � �. �. . . ��� . / �
. � . �' ,�
. :3,��_ , -,- t� .
: � ,//`
� -� �;; ,�- , � T;t, ,� �� �//
� , �'' y ' Yk h��� .�'' / ,.. . !tr , �J�� r� �
• Y Y�a 4��'��r�,� j; \ � .�. . ¢�` �•i�f��.
. . ,.t�,. , ,�,y�Yy�;'�j �♦-� ,7. � �� *''_" � j� .
�NL� �y�f A '¢> 'Y. a� .y � J 1 �.. -rv' �{ . .
� ♦��� �A�� ta� � �'h � � �'�I�� _
'4f`�'�'" ' 1°� ..� . ,� '4 �� `rv`;�
J�I a � ''°#' ,i": �a. . �'. ., .
Ls � s 'F;:
� � s �; i�- ;:
j T
.. f � _t ��� `,� ..l*+'d .'�.i���.f .:�' S.�
� � ^� �`� r4.7 �'1I'. " 9� � - 4-r^,, � .�. }�..y
.�1�`� �' ���SMT��t N !'{ � X'h ' ^ ,��`.r ra �/ �,�"1
��a: .4: � i" ' S i �� � � ` r+� y �+". e✓��a ,^ , � }Si»:
��.�� '�,�,: �,, ' ,. �}t,�y� ;A t i -:'� �`(� :'4 .'t 'Y'�'�J` � v+��,_w�
F� �� ' �'� � �� �9�� �#', ..�r / '"� �'��
. �;, � . ,�.� : ��++, � � ���t.(;�
k�„�yr(i. . , 1e� ' . � �. .?,�.
,��MF�� ,. :. � . ..
.rYq� �,��.''' �� i 1 �*Y7c e .., " . . . � ,i � . � .:�-�`
_ , .'l. - -�'^}�..t . , h,..�'y-..' . � ,., _ � _
. � � ��� . ... i' ;w Pr � � 4` A
".� ; �'� ' ���,�.,, . . � . *, .
`� 4 � � i� ' �� ��A i � � �
. '. �
' � � ' # ��" �', �
�' � �'' �` ";�. �.��.�� ° �: �
} n, k ��t; �. � ��� . '
� � �. ' �r �' !�
ti �ri ;��- t s � . ' ..y^ C . ' � . . -
r� k } . y3' . �.. : � .
'�.��
,�
r.
. _ y e;� /
� � .t >a ti
�
r
'�-'���.��"+�`. _ � � V / y,
,;
�� _ � � � � I
. , x.
' +e.�„s�r a*�.,'�&���,� �._.,;:. .�'�'�`�` ��s�' � �� I
� . • . �
. , r .
. `�' .,'.
Planned Land Use 50U
ZaV01'` �� Feet �
al Property Proposed Mining Pro�ect
TKDA