HomeMy WebLinkAbout8D - Ryan Gravel Mine EIS
MEETIN.G DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JANUARY 22, 2001
8D
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A MOTION POSTPONING A
DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE RYAN CONTRACTING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
RULES 4400.1700, SUBP. 2A
History: Ryan Contracting has applied for approval of a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) for the excavation of sand and gravel on the
property located north of CSAH 42 and McKenna Road in the
Southeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22.
In January, 2000, the City of Prior Lake received a petition requesting
the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
for this project. On February 22,2000, the City Council adopted a
resolution declaring the need for an EA W. Under Minnesota Rules,
the City Council is designated as the Regulatory Governmental Unit
(RGU) charged with preparing and making the decisions on the EA W.
The City hired Liesch Associates to prepare the EA W on its behalf.
The EA W was completed in November, 2000, and distributed to the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested
parties on November 15,2000. Notice ofthe EA W was published in
the Prior Lake American on November 18, 2000, and in the EQB
Monitor on November 27,2000. The comment period on the EA W
expired on December 27, 2000.
Comment letters were received from the Prior Lake - Spring Lake
Watershed District, the City of Shako pee, the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, Scott County, Dorsey and Whitney, LLP,
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc., the Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community and the Metropolitan Council. Copies ofthe letters
are attached to this report.
I:\99files\99cup\99-075\eaw\cct:Qt.doc P~e I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (b12) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
'-r "7" 1
-T
.
T.-:r
Current Circumstances: Minnesota Rules 4400.1700, subp. 2,
requires a decision on the need for an EIS be made within 30 days of
the expiration of the comment period. The decision must be based on
the following criteria:
a) The type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects;
b) The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future
projects;
c) The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to
mitigation by an ongoing public regulatory authority;
d) The extent to which the environmental effects can be anticipated
and controlled as a result of other environmental studies
undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or ofEIS's
previously prepared on similar projects.
Minnesota Rules 4400.1700, subp. 2a, also allows the RGU to
postpone the decision on the need for an EIS, for not more than 30
days, in order to obtain lacking information.
The Issues: The comments submitted in response to the EA W include
conflicting information. Specifically, this information pertains to the
number and types of wells on the site, and to the number of wetlands
on the site. For example, the DNR comments state the proposed
operation will not affect the wetlands in the vicinity of the site, but the
Scott County comments suggest there are 5 wetlands directly impacted
by this proposal. Also, the DNR comments discourage the use of
anything more than a monitoring well, while Scott County suggests the
need for at least 5 monitoring wells.
In order to clarify these inconsistencies, the staff suggests deferring
action on this decision until February 20, 2001. While it is not
possible to do a complete wetland delineation in the next 30 days, the
staff can research the types of wetlands on this site. Furthermore, the
need for the number of monitoring wells can be clarified.
This 30-day delay does not affect the status of the Conditional Use
Permit with regard to the 120-day rule since no final action is being
taken with the EA W. Once the EA W is acted upon, the Council will
have 11 days to act upon the Conditional Use Permit request.
Conclusion: The comments included conflicting information on the
wetlands on the site and on the number of wells needed for this
project. In order to obtain the necessary information, the staff
recommends the City Council postpone a decision on the need for an
EIS until February 20, 2001.
1:\99files\99cup\99-075\eaw\ccrpt.doc
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Postpone the decision on the need for an EIS in order to obtain
additional information on the wetlands on the site and on the
number of monitoring wells for this site.
2. Adopt a resolution making a negative declaration on the need for an
EIS for this project.
3. Determine there is a need for further environmental review of this
project. In this case, the Council must direct the staff to prepare a
resolution declaring the need for an EIS based on specific findings
of fact.
The staff recommends Alternative #1. A motion and second
postponing the decision on the need for an EIS until February 20, 2001
is appropriate.
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-075\eaw\ccrpt.doc
T- I T
Page 3
T
.' 'T'-'--'--~-----
1m
(612}447-4166
Fax 447-4167
PRIOR LAKE - SPRING.LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT
City of Prior Lake .
Attn: Jane Kansier '
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
December 19,2000
;; 0\\ L ~< (:~; !l-.:~. \_~.': :~ : I I"',;
:~~lrsl' .I~t
Dear Ms Kansier:
I have reviewed the EAW for the Ryan Contracting Co. Sand and Gravel Mine and offer the following
commeJitson behalf of the District. Until such time as these items are addressed the District's position is '
that theEAW is not complete, and the potential impacts warrant further investigation.
1. On page 4 item #8 the Watershed District should also be listed as a local unit of govemmeJit from .
which a permit is needed. The proposed mine is located in the Watershed District and the activity will
meet the definition of a Land Disturbing Activity under the new rules currently being considered by the
District. The proposed activity will therefore have to obtain a permit and meet District rules.
2. On page 8 item 13 the second sentence is confusing. The statement that "water may be available in
such a pond only intermittently as the sedimeJitation pond would not extend to the water table- does ..
not make sense. A sedimentation pond needs to have a permanent pool of water to effectively settle
particles. Does the statement imply that the sedimentation pond is intended to be a dry pond that
only fills during wet weather. If that is the case, it will not provide the necessary level of water quality
treatment, and will not meet the District's, nor I believe, the City's rules for wetlNURP ponds. For the
proposed project what is the wet pond volume/design and how is it guaranteed to exist?
3. On page 9 item 13 I have several comments listed separately below.
a. An approved erosion control plan and permit is required from the District.
b. Neither steep slopes or highly erodible soils are identified on the maps or plans attached to this
documeJit.
c. Strawlhay bails are unsuitable as long-term erosion control technologies such as the 1o-year
term of this project (hay bails are only suitable for several weeks). VVhere these are intended for
use, provisions for long-term erosion control must be specified.
d. Heavy duty silt fence is unsuitable as a long-term erosion control technology such as the 1o-year
term of this project. Where these are intended for use, provisions for long-te'rm erosion cOntrol
must be specified.
e. The purpose of double rows or heavy duty silt fence on the upstream side of the sedimentation
basin in unclear. .
f. The existing topography of the site shows that it slopes away in all directions, and presumably'
surface drainage follows a similar pattem. However, the proposed site grading directs all .
drainage to the west. This in effect changes the drainage divide and will likely divert additional '
runoff to the immediate receiving water: the unnamed creek. No analysis is included regarding .
the impacts of this diversion and additional runoff on the creek, particularly erosion and. down-
cutting along its steep flow path down the bluff. The District is not inclined to permit drainage
divide alterations of this magnitude unless the impacts are mitigated and the affecteclladjoining
property owners understand and agree to the change.
If
---r--
I
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL S.E. · SUITE 110 . PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
g. It looks like the parking area slopes toward the pit area. It is unclear how drainage will get down
the 1: 1 slope without fonning gullies.
h. There may be drainage entering the property from the east side. It is unclear how this drainage
will get down the 1: 1 slope without forming gullies.
4. On page 9 item #17. See above notes regarding drainage diversions and additional surface water
runoff comments below.
a. An approved Stonnwater Management Plan and pennit is required from the District.
b. Sedimentation pond sizing infonnation was not included and it is unclear whether the proposed
pond will meet District rules.
c. The last sentence of the second paragraph states that the engineered controls identified were
calculated for the increased runoff, but does not what's done with this increased runoff, or the
standards to which the runoff will be managed. District. and I believe City, regulations require no
increase in peak runoff rates from existing conditions.
Sincerely,
.--~ iJ~
Paul Nelson
District Administrator
Cc: File
Board of Managers
- , ,
>'., ~ . ~--~_':.:.~_.. ~': ,
:ijC-
IJ;~~11f.C 2 I - j@:
,~_ I
SHAKOPEE
December 21, 2000
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Ryan Contracting Co. Sand and Gravel Mine
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-titled EA W. On behalf of the City of
Shakopee I have the following comments and/or concerns.
Item 21.
Traffic.
At page 2 of the Traffic Impact Report it is asserted that all traffic generated by the
operation would travel south from the site to CSAH 42. This seems very unlikely. The
site is adjacent to the City of Shakopee, and McKenna Road is a north-south route that
runs through the City of Shakopee to CSAH 16, which in turn connects with CSAH 83
and STH nearby to the north. It seems very likely that some of the traffic generated
would travel north on McKenna Road. This road is only a 7-ton design, and there is a
risk of damage from the traffic that would be generated. Should the mining operation be
allowed to proceed, and agreement for Ryan to pay the cost of damage to and repair of
McKenna Road should include the section of that road that runs through the City of
Shakopee.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, feel free to contact me at (952) 496-
9667.
~~~
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
CC. Mark McNeill, City Administrator
DD. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
EE. 2000 Correspondence File
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
129 Holmes Street South. Shakopee, Minnesota. 55379-1351 . 952-445-3650 . FAX 952-445-6718
Er
1
1
'~ 'If
Dee 26 2000 17:27 P.Ol
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
soo Lafnycuc Road 10
SI. P.1l11. Minnesota 551 S5.40_~
PhonCllt
Falt#
7611 Datll
F'roIn
Co.
~
December 26, 2000
Post-It" fax Note
TO""'-
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek A venue SE
Prior Lake. MN 55372
CQ
Ph<lI'Ielt
f"' . Fax IF
RE: Ryan Contracting Company Sand & Gravel Mine ~ City of Prior Lake
Environmental Assessment W orksbeet (EA W)
Dear Ms. Kansier:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EA W for the Ryan Contracting Company
Sand & Gravel Mine project. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
The project description in Item 6b indicates that a tree replacement/landscaping plan is proposed for each
phase of mining. This is a desirable project feature, espec;:ially ifuse of native species occurs wherever
suitable. This objectivE: is best met through consultation with a professional forester or al'bonst. Please
contact Alan Olson, Area Forester, at (952) 826-6760 for further information.
Item 11 correctly notes that significant natural features ocour in the vicinity of the site. specifically
Boiling Springs. Eagle Creek, and the SavagE: Fen. The project occurs outside the contributing watershed
of these features. so we do not anticipate any runoff-related impacts from the mining activity. However,
the site does occur within the groundwater recharge zone for Boiling Springs, Eagle Creek, and the
Savage Fen. If this project should ever require self-supplied water for washing of gravel or watering of
roads and any water supply well were to be drilled, the location would be within the area of concern for
potential ground water impacts. Water appropriation could result in significant environmental effects to
these important natural resource areas. We highlight this issue because it is unlikely that the sedimen-
tation pond will supply adequate water for dust control as offered in Item 13, Water Use. As the EA W
notes. "[w)ater may be available in such a pond only intermittently as the sedimentation pond would not
extend to the water table," Absent examination in the: E^ W of how water appropriation mjght {Ulversely
affect significant natural features, the Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) should not allow construction of any
water supply wells for the project.
Item 13 also notes that a monitoring well will be installed to identify any groundwater contarnin,ation
consistent with the discussion in Item 19, Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions. The project is almost
certainly within the capture zone of one or more wells that provide drinking water, such as the McKenna
Road Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SM~C) well. The: project increases contamination
risks to nearby wells. Con,cern about well contamination is supported by new research that improves
upon the information available in the "Geologic Survey of Scott County Minnesota,.' See Pfannkuch, H.
O. 1998. Geolo~ical Sensitivity Asessment of Groundwater Svstems: A Pilot Study for Scott County
Minnesota - Summary and Evaluation, and a related MS thesis by Sal'ldeep Burman, (University of
Minnesota, 1995). Thio; ~tud)' l'3...k$ this ares. ofSeott County l\S bc:ine: vCI')' high in tettns. of1'eoha1'S&
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-88S-646-6!67 · TtY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Emplo)'U
Who Vallles Diversity
o
Pr1nlad Qn Recycled Paller conr,a1n1ng ..
Minimum of 10'l'0 post.consumer Waste
Dee 26 2000 17:28 P.02
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
December 26, 2000
potentials from the surface to aquifer. The EA W correctly uses the Geologic Survey in assessing the
vertical permeability at this site as being high, which translates into higher susceptibility of the aquifers
(drift and bedrock) to contamination. When this information is coupled with the more receot research, we
conclude that the drilling of boreholes and monitoring wells must be done with extra care so that the
drilling itself does not add to the risk. Finally, this project may affect well-bead protection planning for
the SMSC and this should be noted in Item 26, Compatibility with Plans.
Item 12 correctly notes that state public water wetland #70-247W is located near the project site. Given
the proposed location and depth of mining-related activity, we do not expect any effects to surface or
ground water features because mining will occur well above the water table.
Storm water runoff leaving the site will flow into an unnamed intermittent creek according to Item 17.
Th is creek in turn discharges to Deans Lake, both of which will receive increased runoff volumes as a
result of the project. We strongly recommend that th.e storm water outlet, which is characterized as a "rip
rapped drainageway," be monitored and maintained to protect the water quality and integrity of both the
creek and Deans Lake.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not
warranted for the project if installation of water supply wells is prohibited under the City's CUP. We
look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of the
environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5. require you to send us your
Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. Any questions that you may have about this
letter should be directed to Bill Johnson of my staff; he can be reached at (651) 296-9229.
Sincerely,
~W-~J ~ f3?~
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor '
Environmental Plannini & Review Section
Office of Management and Budget Services
c: Kathleen Wallace
Con Chri:rtian:son
Joe Oschwald
Jeanette Leete
Russ Peterson. USFWS
Jon Larsen. BQB
Tyler Enright, Ryan Contracting Company
11'20001028.0002
RYANSANDORJWEL.WPD
2
II
,I
il.
SCOTT COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT CENTER A102
200 FOURTH AVENUE WEST
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1220
(952) 496-8177 Fax: (952) 496-8489
December 26, 2000
MS.Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior lake, MN 55372
Re: Ryan Contracting Company Sand and Gravel Mine EAW
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAW accompanying your letter of
November 15, 2000. We would like to provide the following comments for consideration in
determining the adequacy of this EAW and for consideration of appropriate conditions
should this proposal move forward. We are listing the applicable item number with our
respective comment:
Item #6 states, "Installation of a monitoring well in the northwestern corner of the Site is
proposed as a means to identify potential changes in ground water quality that may be
attributable to the mining activity."
Comment: We agree that a monitoring well is appropriate but a single well may not
provide sufficient information. Generally a minimum of three wells are recommended
to help determine ground water gradients which can change and to characterize
upgradient impacts from those possible from the mining operation.
Item #10 states zero before and after acres for Types 1-8 Wetlands within the project site.
Comment: The County GIS data base indicates five wetlands are partially located
within the boundaries of the project site. If the answer to this EAW question was
provided without the level of accuracy needed as through a wetland delineation by a
qualified delineator, one should be conducted and the EAW should be amended
accordingly. An unnamed DNR protected wetland 70-247W is shown on the
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
information provided in the EAW lying south of the proposed pit area. The wetland
appears to be at an elevation of 884 and the proposed pit bottom at an elevation of
870. Additional hydrogeological studies should be conducted to determine if the
mining operation will adversely impact this wetland.
The EAW lacked any description of an end use plan. The EAW stated that the end
use would be agriculture but acknowledged that the long range use would likely
involve development and indicated some measures would be taken to ensure that the
site would be restored with buildable soils. It would seem that a more specific end
use plan should be provided to demonstrate how this "pit" will be compatible with long
range growth and development patterns in this area. It would appear that storm water
management, provision of sanitary sewer and access would be problematic at best if
the site would be left as depicted in the attached drawings. On-site sewage treatment
systems on the disturbed soils which would result on this site upon restoration is
currently prohibited by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Rules and Scott County's
Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) Ordinance. Scott County is the authority
for ISTS construction within the entire County.
Item #10 further states, "tree planting...will eventually increase the "after" wooded
acreage."
Comment: How many additional acres of trees are intended?
Item #11 a states "a loss of three trees.. ..of the total quantity of trees surveyed for the Site
would occur."
Comment: Yet, item #10 states a total loss of 2.5 acres of trees will be removed. This
apparent contradiction should be addressed.
Item #12 states, "A protected wetland is located south of and adjacent to the proposed
gravel mining area."
Comment: As we noted previously, the County GIS data indicates five wetlands are
partially located within the boundaries of the project site. The EAW appears deficient
in respect to wetland delineation and a discussion on potential impacts to them.
Item #17a states, "The proposed mining operation will...increase the quantity of
runoff...(and)...Preparation of a storm water pollution prevention plan is required."
Comment: Considering that the runoff will impact Shakopee, has this plan been
reviewed by Shakopee and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed Management
District?
Item #17b:
The statement made is unclear as to the exact route the increase in runoff will travel
as it makes its way to Deans Lake. A map identifying the anticipated routing system
should be provided. Dean's Lake hydrology is currently the subject of controversy
and study as the area around it is rapidly developing. We recommend that this issue
be further reviewed by the City of Shakopee. Dean's Lake has only one outlet which
runs north under the bypass and subsequently through a currently limited culvert
2
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
I [
I
IllI
under County Road 101. This outlet will be relied upon for ever increasing amounts
of storm water as development continues within this watershed. Developers should
be required to contribute to the studies and costs associated with accommodating the
increased runoff from their developments. This EAW lacks the supportive
documentation needed to represent the claims made about the lack of storm water
impacts.
Item #17b further states, "The drainage conditions.. .suggest little to no impact on
receiving waters."
This conclusion needs additional supportive documentation which should have been
included in the EAW.
Item #19a states, "The Site is located at the eastern portion of the Management Area."
Comment: It is not clear within the text or submitted reference maps whether or not the
Site is part of the Drinking Water Supply Management Area designated by the SMSC
report; as well as whether or not the Site is included within a Wellhead Protection Area.
The importance of preservation of ground water resources within this area is of the
highest priority. Shakopee is rapidly growing in this direction as is Prior Lake and the
SMSC. Ground water options are restricted by the DNR and already adversely impacted
by past land use practices. Both Shakopee and the SMSC are currently preparing
wellhead protection studies which should be completed before additional development is
considered within this area. Prior Lake should also consider preparation of a well head
protection study and future potable water resource acquisition study prior to allowing any
developments which have a high potential to adversely impact ground water quality.
Excavation of protective cover soils over the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer in the
vicinity of developing areas should be carefully evaluated.
The proposed removal of the aquifer protective soils will result in an end condition
rendering this site highly susceptible to ground water contamination. This is not a
positive outcome within an area that is currently struggling for acquisition of reliable
ground water resources.
Item #20b states, "there will be no bulk storage of (fuels) at the Site....To the extent
possible, equipment and vehicle storage will be on a paved bituminous, curbed area."
Comment: A number of the EAW attachments indicated an intended on-site location
for a fuel storage area which is a common practice at mining operations. The EAW
should be clear that if fuel storage is proposed, what precautions will be taken to
prevent spillage and contamination of the aquifer.
Item #28 states "No new or expanded public services or utilities are anticipated for the
proposed project."
Comment: Mining operations within an area that is rapidly transitioning to more
intensive developed land uses should be looked at as an interim use of the land. No
definitive end use plan was proposed nor evaluated for potential impacts to the
surrounding communities or the County. We recommend the City find this EAW
inadequate in this respect and in drawing several crucial conclusions without
3
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
supportive documentation. Gravel resources are a valuable commodity within the
region and Scott County supports utilization before the land is developed. The
County's Draft Comprehensive Plan contains the following proposed policies in this
regard:
f. Gravel mining shall be allowed as an interim land use as appropriate within Urban
Expansion, Agricultural, Commercial/Industrial areas and Rural Residential Reserve
areas. Extraction shall follow strict standards for operations and end use reclamation.
Reason: Gravel resources are needed by society. Gravel removal operations are generally
compatible land uses in industrial and rural areas. Ho"wever, gravel mining should be
looked at as an interim use rather than an end use of the land. End uses should be
compatible with surrounding land uses and in conformance l1.'ith the comprehensive
plan.
c. The siting and operation of gravel mining operations must consider compatibility with
adjoining and planned land uses and mitigation measures to reduce nuisance concerns
such as noise, dust, hours of operation and traffic.
The end use proposed appears impractical and improbable due to the direction this area is
transitioning. Farming on the steep disturbed soils left after the mining operations would
appear to us to be unrealistic and residential or commercial development options in the
immediate future appear unlikely or significantly limited. We recommend that the EAW be
amended to address the inadequacies we have noted and that Scott County and the Scott
Soil and Water Conservation District be provided adequate time to review the amended
EAW.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed EAW review comments please give me a
call at (952) 496-8177.
Sincerely,
..:.;,..........,: ..:~
/.. JK(~JJ
{'xi.J~,
,....,.. <..'..' r
\:;':;lX< . .', .#:('U'7'"
r 7[~ .r!t..tl.a. ,,',
, ...~;o:.~J,.,.. ..,;if!.~". .' .. .
Allen Frechette
Environmental Health Manager
cc: Michael Sobota, Community Development Director
4
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
II r
11
,m
12/27/00 WED 16:01 FAX
~002 '
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
MINI'!1lAPOl,l:I PILLSBURY CJlNT1!P.. SOUTH all,uS$IIL5
NEW'\'OII.It 220 SOUTH SIXTH STR.UT C.OST^ MESA
5EATTl.Jl MINNEAPOLIS, MINNliSOTA SS402-1498 DILLINCS
D~nll- ""ll-GO
W^5Hl"'GTDN. D.C. TELEt'HON1!: (612) 340-2600
FAX: (612) 340-2868 HONG ICCNC
NOA,THI!ll-N V1A,QINtA (;l'.EJ\T F,t.l.LS
DES Ilo\OINM acCK2.~TIlI1..
LONPON TOICVO
^NCHOI<AOJ! GREGORY A. FONTAINE MISSOULA
$AJ.T 1J>XE. CITY (61.2) 340.8729 VhN'COtlYJUl.
December 27, 2000
Via FacsiInile and Hand Deliverv
Ms. Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
Planning Coordinator
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE '
PriorLake, MN 55372
Re: Ryan Contracting Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Ms. Kansier:
The attached comments are submitted on behalf of the Shakopee Mdewakanton
Dakota Community (the "Community"), in conjunction with the Community's separate
comments, in response to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for a sand and gravel
mine dated November 14, 2000. According to the proposal, Ryan Contracting Co. ("Ryan")
would over a period of 10 years extract 500,000 cubic yards of material from 12.91 acres
of land located in the northern portion of the City less than one mile from the Community's
north residential neighborhood. Based on the information summarized below and detailed
in the attached reports, the Community believes that the City of Prior Lake may not issue a
negative declaration with respect to the need for an environmental impact staTeri'J.ent (/lEIS")
because, among other reasons, there are potential significant environmental effects not
evaluated by the environmental assessment worksheet and significant environmental issues
improperly deferred to future permitting. The proper remedy is for the City to require
preparation of an EIS under the standard set in Trout Un.limited Inc. v. Minn. Dept. 'of
Agriculture, 528 N.W.2d 903, 907 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) and reaffirmed in Pope County
Mothers v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 594 N.W.2d 233,238 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
12/27/00 WED 16:01 FAX
~003
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of Prior Lake
December 27, 2000
Page 2
Alternatively, were Ryan to produce reliable evidence demonstrating that these defects
could be cured by more study in (and modification of) the environmental assessment
worksheet (ilEA W"), the City still may not issue a negative declaration until the project
proponent has produced such evidence and all interested persons have had an opportunity to
review and comment upon the modified EA W.
Backp-ound
Ryan has proposed to operate a sand and gravel pit on a 50-acre parcel leased from
Richard McKenna and Joseph and Carolyn Kinney.. The land is designated for long-term
urban low/medium density use and presently zoned for agriculture. Ryan proposes to strip
the topsoil and store it on site, mine and process gravel, and de-sand, stockpile and haul
material to construction and road project sites. Ryan anticipates that the mine would
operate for a minimum of 10 years, with its trucks sharing the principle access road to the
Community's neighborhood. The company's latest proposal does not quantify the amount
of water needed or the resource it would tap for water consumption. The company's
submittals indicate it may use water from the sedimentation pond, if it is available, for'dust
control. No other water source is specifically identified. As the mine is depleted. Ryan
proposes to restore the pit with the stockpiled soils and topsoil, backfill. seed, mulch, and
fertilizer. No analysis of the quantity. characteristics or effects of the fertilizer or other
proposed fill material is contained in Ryan's proposals.
MEP A Requirements
The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act ("MEPA"), Minn. Stat. Chap. 116D et seq.,
establishes procedures for review of proposals to ensure that the policy objectives of
"understanding the impact which a proposed project will have on the environment" are
achieved. See Minn. R. 4410.0300, Subp. 3. Under MEPA, an EIS is required whenever an
EA W shows that a proposed project has the potential for significant environmental effects.
See Minn. Rule 4410.2000 (emphasis added). The administrative rules requ~e ~at the
The legal description of the proposed location is SE 1/4, Section 22, Township 115 North,
Range 22 West.
II
I
If 1
12/27/00 WED 16:01 FAX
~004 '
DORSEY & WHITNEY lLP
City of Prior Lake
December 27, 2000
Page 3
responsible governmental unit consider four factors in determining whether an EIS should
be required for a proposed project:
1) the extent and reversibility of environmental effects;
2) the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects~
3) the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by
ongoing public regulatory authority; and
4) the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and
controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public
agencies or the project proposer, or of EISs previously prepared on similar
projects.
See Minn. R. 4410.1700, Subp. 7.
The EA W prepared for the City of Prior Lake does not meet the requirements of .
MEP A. It fails to sufficiently evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project on water quality and quantity, air quality, sensitive and unique environmental
resources, and the health and safety of neighboring residents. Critical issues such as the
project's effect on the Community's drinking water, the safety issues raised by congestion
on neighborhood roads, and the hazards to important natural resources are inadequately
addressed or ignored altogether. The EA W lacks key data such as the quantity and source
of water that will be needed over the life of the project and the effect of mining on the
intricate subsurface water and soil system supporting a protected waters wetland located on
the project sitel a protected waters wetland southeast of the sitel and the nearby Boiling
Springs and the Savage Fen. The analysis fails to note the deficits of dust mitigation
measures based on water, which the site lacks, and on vegetation, which actually will be
reduced by mining. The primary method for minimizing nuisance noise is a proposal to
limit the hours of operation to 14 hours per day and half a day Saturday. Thetniffic analysis
notes the deteriorating condition of the road, but the draft Conditional Use Permit fails to
require road repairs and is based on pit volume generated during operating hours that are
significantly less than the hours Ryan has proposed.
12/27/00 WED 16:02 FAX
Ial 005
DORSEY & WHITNEY LlP
City of Prior Lake
December 27. 2000
Page 4
The EA W also is procedurally defective because it explicitly -- and impermissibly--
defers analysis and mitigation of anticipated environmental impacts to future permitting
proceedings in at least four instances:
1) the EA W analysis defers to a proposed annual review of a Conditional Use Permit
the required evaluation of certain effects of mining (EA W, page 3);
2) the EA W defers to an annual review of the Conditional Use Permit the necessary
evaluation of the impacts on fish and wildlife resources (EA W, page 7);
3) the EA W defers to a future Water Appropriation Permit the crucial evaluation of
the water needs of the project (EA W, page 8); and
4) the EA W defers to a future Air Quality Permit the required evaluation of dust
emissions (EA W, page 15).
The law in Minnesota is crystal clear that a governmental body may not rely on --
ongoing monitoring and adIIiinistrative oversight as a substitute for an EIS when
considering the potential impact of a proposed project on the environment. See Trout
Unlimited, 528 N.W.2d at 909 (Commissioner of Agriculture improperly relied on future
permitting or monitoring efforts to control or redress potential project problems).
Minnesota courts reaffirmed this standard recently in two cases in which state officials
unlawfully attempted to avoid preparation of environmental impact statements in violation
of MEPA. See Pope County Mothers, 594 N.W.2d at 237-38 (MPCA improperly deferred
issue of air emissions to later permitting and monitoring) and Fillmore County Residents
'Y. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, No. CX-00-306, slip op. at 11-12 (D. Fillmore Co.
Dec. 22, 2000) (MPCA improperly deferred gathering of key infonnation to the post-
permitting stage by not seeking additional tests to obtain a thorough review of subsurface
conditions at site before allOWing the project to pro,?eed).
In this matter, the EA WIs proposal to defer to future permitting is the same as the
approach faulted in Trout Unlimited, Pope CounTy Mothers and Fillmore Coun.ty
Resid.ents. As the Court of Appeals unequivocally stated in Trout Unlimited, the purpose
of the environmental review process is to "detennine the potential for significant
environmental effects before they occur; [by] deferring the issue to later permitting and
monitoring decisions, the Commissioner abandoned his duty to require an EIS where there
exists a potential for significant environmental effects." These precedents show that
If
I
:11
.2/27/00 WED 16:02 FAX
~006
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of Prior Lake
December 27, 2000
Page 5
because the City of Prior Lake lacks sufficient information to provide the full required
evaluation of the Ryan project at this time, its legal duty is to require more study now rather
than relying on more permitting later.
Potential Significant Environmental Effects
In addition to the defects outlined above regarding impermissible deferral to future
permitting, the EA W fails to sufficiently evaluate and analyze the substantive effects of this
project and explore whether, if at all, they can be effectively mitigated. Minnesota courts
have held that a responsible government unit that ignores the potential for serious
environmental effects or fails to consider an important aspect of a problem has acted
arbitrarily and capriciously. See Pope County Mothers, 594 N. W2d at 236-37. The
responsible government unit neglects its duties when it fails to address all of the potential
significant environmental effects raised by the proposed project operations. See Fillmore
Counry Residents, supra at 9. The discussion below, and the other reports submitted on
behalf of the Community, demonstrate that serious environmental considerations have not
been evaluated in compliance with MEP A.
1. Communi tv Drinkine: Water Ouality and Ouantity
The proposed mine has potential significant negative effects on the drinking water
used by neighboring residents. The Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") comments
raise this impact as an issue requiring more analysis, and the Department of Health plans to
submit supplemental comments outlining its concerns. The Community believes that this
issue is of utmost importance and must be fully evaluated before any decision can be made
on this proposed project because of the serious threat the project may pose to the public
health of Community residents.
The Community has a public water supply well located in the inunediate vicinity of
the proposed mine. The north water service area of the Community depends on the quality
of this well for its drinking water supply. The mining project falls within the- di1.nking water
protection area of the well upon which the Community depends. Because of the hydrology
of the area, the addition of wells to the mining project to either de-water the pit or mitigate
dust will necessarily impact the Community's public water supply. Moreover, even if no
well were located on the project site, the use of hazardous materials and other contaminants
in connection with the proposed mine may threaten the public water supply. The detailed
comments of the Community, submitted under separate cover, address the failures of the
raJ 007
12/27/00 WED 16:02 FAX
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of Prior Lake
December 27, 2000
Page 6
EA W to adequately analyze the environmental, health and safety issues relating to this water
supply issue. The comments of the DNR and pending comments of the Department of
Health amplify these concerns.
These water supply issues are not merely hypothetical or theoretical concerns. The
report prepared by Peterson Environmental, a copy of which is enclosed with these
comments, demonstrates that there is at the project site an additional water table at higher
elevations than is described in the Ryan EA W. The presence of this water table likely will
mean seepage of water into the mining pit, which in turn could trigger the need for Ryan to
de-water through additional wells on site. The EA W did not analyze the impact of
additional wells on the quality and quantity of the Community's nearby drinking water
supply; instead Ryan suggests only locating a monitoring well at the northwest portion of
the property to track changes in groundwater quality. This is an inadequate means to protect
a critical resource -- the neighborhood's safe and dependable supply of drinking water.
Even the most frequent monitoring could not prevent the flow of contaminants and
pollutants from the project site to the neighboring homes if adequate safeguards are not put
in place before the mining operations begin.
Moreover, as the Community's separate report describes, the public well that the
Community uses for its drinking water draws its water from the Jordan aquifer. The well is
cased through the overlying glacial material and grouted into the Prairie du Chien
formation. It is open for the entire thickness of the Jordan formation. Because the
groundwater flow is southeast to northwest -- from the gravel mine to the Community's
supply well -- a well installed on or near the mine will pose a distinct threat to the
Community water supply. First. additional wells could deplete the Community's water
supply; and second, because of the permeable soils in this area, graveling operations could
affect the drinking water quality if there were any releases of harmful materials associated
with operations, such as oil and gasoline leaks, or misapplication of any herbicides or
fertilizers used in restoration activities. In fact, there are no binding legal controls
suggested in the EA W to prevent pollution associated with such chemical releases, whether
they are unintentional (as in the case of oil or gasoline spills) or intentional (application of
fertilizers and herbicides). As the DNR notes in its comments, the project increases
contamination risks to wells and may affect well-head protection planning for the
Community.
Ryan's proposals to use water for dust mitigation and processing depend, again, upon
the sedimentation pond and an unspecified off-site water source. As the EA W notes on
I r
----r-
l
II
12/27/00 WED 16:03 FAX
141 008
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of Prior Lake
December 27 ~ 2000
Page 7
page 8, the sedimentation pond will provide only an intermittent water supply for dust
mitigation. Water for processing needs are simply not addressed in the analysis. Ryan's
initial proposal contemplated using 10,000 gallons per day from an on-site well, but the
latest version is silent as to quantity and vague as to the source of water for the project.
The EA W notes only on page 8 that a Water Appropriation Permit would be required for
use of groundwater and surface water.
As the Peterson Environmental analysis indicates, a gravel operation with
simultaneous needs to mine, de~water the pit, process the product, mitigate dust, seed and
restore topsoil, and replace trees in a phased operation customarily requires the quantity of
water provided by an on-site welL Ryan's initial proposal contemplated such a need, and
nothing in the Conditional Use Permit draft prohibits a well during the life of the project.
Yet the EA W does not analyze the impacts of water needs on public drinking water supplies
in the neighborhood. As the DNR notes in its comments, the project should not proceed
without an EIS if it includes a well, but without a well the project is unlikely to have enough
water on-site to mitigate dust or to serve processing needs. The neighborhood, then, faces
the possibility of either an air quality problem relating to inadequate dust control if the
project proceeds without a well or a water quality problem if the project proceeds and la.ter
adds a well. These serious potential environmental effects are left unaddressed and require
the City, as the responsible governmental unit, to undertake further review.
2. DNR Protected Wetlands
Minnesota's regulations promulgated under MEP A make it mandatory [0 conduct an
EIS for any project that will drain a protected waters wetlands. Minn. R. 4410.4400 Subp.
20. The City of Prior Lake, as the responsible governmental unit in this instance under the
state rules~ is charged with verifying the accuracy of environmental documents and
complying with the environmental review processes. Under these regulations, the City has
a duty to investigate the very real potential that the mine would drain a protected waters
wetland, which is located on the project site, before any permits may issue.
The EA W completely fails to address the unique hydrological features at the site
that likely link the adjacent protected wetlands and the proposed mine. This failure is
significant because, as the Peterson Environmental report details, it is likely that mining
could drain water from protected wetlands. The project site has a water table at an elevation
of 808 feet above sea level, and protected water wetland No. 247 is at an approximate
elevation of 884 feet above sea level. The Peterson report explains that these unusual
12/27/00 WED 16:03 FAX
~009
DORSEY & WHITNEY LlP
City of Prior Lake
December 27,2000
Page 8
features in close proximity likely mean that there are two groundwater flow systems; one at
a deeper level with the sand and gravel deposit and one at a higher level with the overlying
sands and gravel. Ryan has not shown, and the EA W does not analyze, the relationship of
these two systems, and neither the company nor the EA W addresses the possibility that
mining at the deeper pit level could drain water from protected wetland No. 247 at the
higher level. A second protected water wetland, No. 248, lies south and east of the site on
the DNR's map of protected waters. The effect of mining or additional wells on this
wetland is not addressed at all in the EA W. Because the DNR based its analysis on Ryan's
data, the agency should be given an opportunity-to further evaluate the project effect on
both wetlands based on this new information.
3. Boilin~ Springs and Savage Fen
As mentioned in the Community's memorandum in support of its petition for an
EA Won January 14, 2000, and in the DNR current comments to the EA W, the project's
effect on unique natural resources has not been adequately evaluated and requires more,
study. As the Peterson Environmental report details, a graveling operation of the size and
scope proposed customarily requires an on-site water welL The EA W, however, does not
analyze the effect of such a well on the important water resources in the area. Given the
fact that the potential impacts on Savage Fen and Boiling Springs were among the reasons
further environmental was required by the City. the EA WIg failure to address these matters
is inexplicable. More importantly, under Trout Un.limited, Pope County Morhers and
Fillmore County Residen.ts, analysis of potential project impacts on these resources (and
any necessary development of mitigation measures to protect the resources) c'annot be
deferred to a later permitting process.
The DNR had documented by extensive study that these features, the Boiling Springs
on Eagle Creek and the Savage Fen calcareous fen complex in Scott County, are created by
groundwater from the Jordan and Prairie du Chien formations and are very sensitive [0
disturbance from development. Becaul)e of the fragile nature of these important resources,
the DNR has established a policy providing that no net decrease of water leve1s'-at Boiling
If
I
I
III
12/27/00 WED 16:04 FAX
I4J 010 '
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of Prior Lake
December 27, 2000
Page 9
Springs or the Savage Fen may be caused by developments.2 As the DNR comments note,
the EA W dismisses impacts on these resources because they are not within the same
surface watershed as the proposed project. Because use of groundwater on site remains a
very real possibility, an adequate environmental review should include review of the impact
on these resources and the potential the project has to cause impennissible water
reductions at the Savage Fen and the Boilings Springs. If de-watering is necessary, the
process could adversely effect the Savage Fen and the City of Savage's well field. As the
Peterson Environmental report notes, temporary de-watering activities already have had ill
effects on the fen. The EA W notes only that the surface watershed boundaries are outside
the City Limits and do not include the site. The analysis does not evaluate the possibility of
de-watering and the ripple of effects such an activity would set off. MEP A does not permit
this absence of meaningful review.
4. Health, Safety and Livabilitx
, , Ryan's proposal raises a number of health and safety issues that have not been
adequately addressed by the EA W. These matters are detailed below. .
The EA Wls analysis of the impact of gravel truck traffic on the two-lane McKenna
Road fails to address the deteriorating condition of the road and UseS artificially low
vehicle traffic speeds. These problems are more fully described in the Community's report
and the traffic study prepared on behalf of the Community. These analyses are submitted to
the City under separate Cover.
In addition to the concerns in the above-referenced Community documents. the
EA Ws traffic analysis is based on the assumption that the pit will operate five days a week,
10 hours a day. The company's proposed operating hours, however, are six days a week; 13
hours on weekdays and all day Saturday. See Item 24. Even the Planning Commission's
recommended hours of 14 hours a day fiVe days a week and four hours on Saturday could
generate more pit volume than accounted for in the EA W, and therefore, more trocks than
the environmental analysis to date has reviewed. Moreover, although the traffiC-study
1 Calcareous fens are protected by Minn. StaL ~ 103G.223, which provides that fens may not be
filled, drained or otherwise degraded, wholly or partially, by any activity, unless the DNR
commissioner, under an approved management plan, decides some alteration is necessary.
12/27/00 WED 16:04 FAX
141011
DORSEY & WHITNEY lLP
City of Prior Lake
December 27, 2000
Page 10 .
included in the EA W notes that the traffic may spike to 1.00 one-way trips per day during
seasonal peaks, the study apparently evaluates the hazards posed by the operation on an
averaged number of trips rather than the peak traffic conditions. Other methodological and
factual defects in the study are described in the Community's separate report. In short, the
EA W'g traffic conclusions provide little meaningful evaluation, and further analysis is
required.
Even assuming the data were informative, the focus on delay at the intersection of
McKenna Road and County 42 does not address safety issues faced by those driving on
McKenna Road to the Community's residential area. The hilly, rolling terrain and curving
road conditions, which would decrease a driver's visibility, and the residential character of
vehicle traffic on McKenna Road, which includes school buses, are not addressed at all in
the EA W. The City must require that these important issues be fully considered, and
appropriate mitigation measures be devised, before any permits can be issued for this
project.
The EA W suggests in Item 26 that light pollution from the operation will be
mitigated by the fact that the mine will operate only during daylight hours, but a'i discus~ed
above the actual operating hours are not set. Ryan proposed 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
weekdays and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. These are "daylight hours" only during portions
of the seasonal operating plan. Even under the Planning Commission's proposed hours of 6
a.m. to 8 p.rn, on weekdays and 8 a.m. to noon on Saturday, it is unlikely that all operations
at the mine could occur during daylight. Thus, the EA W effectively ignores this concern.
The EA W accepts that standard mining equipment will be used at the site, generating
noise in a range of 50 decibel levels to 90 decibcllevels. Because the analysis docs not
specify the kinds of equipment to be used. there is no basis for evaluating what mitigation
measures are proper or how effective the suggested "maintenance and muffling" will be.
The only other measure proposed, limiting operating hours, does nothing to lower the
decibel level or protect and preserve the residential character of the adjacent properties. as
the Community notes in its report. Once again, there has been a total failure (0 ''lddress an
important potential impact.
Finally. as di.scussed above, dust control is water dependent, and the site offers only
an intermittent water supply. While the EA W recognizes the project will generate dust
from mining, gravel stockpiling and soil stockpiling, it does not quantify the effect on air
quality, deferring to the possible need for air quality permits. The analysi~ suggests on
I r
I
il
II
12/27/00 WED 16:04 FAX
~012
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of Prior Lake
December 27, 2000
Page 11
Page 15 that a vegetation buffer may provide dust mitigation, but Item 10 details that the
overall wooded/forest acreage actually will decrease from 8_5 acres before the project to
6.0 acres after the project, while lawn/landscaping remains a constant 0.6 acres. These air
pollution issues must be resolved before the City can act upon the project proposal.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined in these comments, the Community respectfully urges the
City of Prior Lake to complete further environmental review of the proposed project to
satisfy the requirements 'of MEPA. The City should require an EIS, or at a minimum,
require Ryan to submit additional information so that the City can detennine whether a
negative declaration can be issued. It is clear, however, that the EA W. as it stands, does not
satisfy the requirements of MEP A.
GAP: gle
cc: William J. Hardacker, Esq.
.2/27/00 WED 16:05 FAX
~013
PETERSON
ENVIRONMENTM
CONSULTINCi; INC.
December 27. 2000
Ms. Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of~'rior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake. MN 55372
Subject:
EA W Comments
Ryan Contracting Sand and Gravel Mine
Prior Lake. MinneSota
Dear Ms. Kansier.
We have reviewed the EA W for the proposed Ryan Contracting sand and gravel mining
operation in Prior Lake. Minnesota. We have concll.1ded that there are significant
hydrologic, soils and sutfac,e water issues that were either inadequaIely addressed or were
overlooked in theEAW. These issues need to be addressed or analyzed in more detail to
determine the impact of mining operations 'on sensitive resources. Our comments are as
follows:
1. Question .12, l"hysi~al .Impacb on Water lUsour'ces: The description of site
groundwater and :surfat;e:-water hyd,rol~gy is insufficient to determine the effects
of tbe rnining operation on DNR Public Waters Wed~Dd 247W.
The proposed mining site has complex geologic stratigraphy consisting of a veneer of
stratified. relatively fine-teKtUtec1/tome textured glacial till draped over a pre-
existing outwash/terrace deposit of sands and gravels (the source deposit of interest).
The mining operation as propqsed is confmed to a relatively steep knoll in the center
of the site. The knoll itself is a 2a-foot high landfonn with a maximum elevation of
924 feet above sea level (fASL). The EA W indicates that gravel mining will remove
this knoll and that excavation will continue down to an elevation of no lower than ~50
feet. Water table elevations were indicated in the EA W to be at npprOXUnatcly sa8
feet in depth. One significant semi-permanent, DNR protected wetland (public
Waters Wetland 247W)(hereafter referred 'to as PWW 247W) is located on-site but
approximately 400 feet to the immediate south of the proposed mine pit. The
elevation ofPWW 247W is ~pproximately 884 fASL. Another DNR wetland, PWW
248W is located approximately 1500 feet southeast of the site.
IJS!. M6!ncJot.J Uei,hts ROad, 5ui'~ 100 . ~ndolJ Heighl5. Minl1l!..~l;r 55120.1712 . 6S1.(,B6-lJISI . fait 651-686.0J69 " E.mail! Pe(JncflPETF.RSONE,\III.com
Sig R...pids. Midtig"'l1 (23 II 796-o90J " www.Pl:lcrJoncrnv.com
1"1
II
nr
12/27/00 WED 16:05 FAX
f4I 014 '
Ms. Jane Kansicr
Comm~ts en Ryan Conl;r:l,ctin; EA W
December 27. 2000
Page 2
The description of the project provided in the EA W indicates the watertable to be
within the sand/gravel unit at an elevation of 808 feet (based apparently on soil boring
logs in Appendix F). This information is inconsistent with; (1) the presence ofPWW
247W about 400 feet from the mine pit location'at approJcimate .elevation 884 fASL
and (2) the presence of hydric (i.e. .'wetland") soils near the mine pit location at
elevations of approximately 900 fASL. This inconsistency is probably the Tesult of
the presence of two groundwater flow systems under the site: a "perched" system
associated with the till overlying the sands and gravels, and an underlying system
associated with the sand and gravel deposit itself Wetlands and wet soils adjacent to
the mine pit are apparently associated with the till units, The report does not,address
the impacts of the project o.n till groundwater hydrology, and does not address the
possible iIlteraction betweel1 the two geologic units. It is very possible that water-
laden sand stringers exist in the surface till sediments that could drain water out of
PWW 247W if truncated or cut during the mining,process.
Moreover, the topographic map supplied with the EA W indicates that a substantial
portion of the surface catchment f()r PWW 247W would be removed by mining
operations. However, the EAW does not address the impact of this catchment size
reduction on the hydrology of the wetland. The water regime of a wetland is the
result of a balance between water inputs (primarily mnon and groundwater seepage
inflow) and outputs (seepage outflow, overflow and evapotranspiration), Surface
runon from the sUII'ounding contributing area is a major source of water for rIuin'y
wetlands, and is likely a significant source ofwaterforPWW 247W. -
The elimination of a'DNR protected wetland is a mandatory BIS threshold under the'
EQB Rules (Minn.Rules. 4410.4400 Subpart 20). Thus, it is particularly import8.;D~
that the EAW dem.onstrate that the hydrology ofPWW 247W will not be'eliminated
by; (1) th~ proposed catchment size reduction. (2) breaching of an aquitard in the
glacial till that perches thc surficial water table. or (3) a combination ofbot~ U'this
cannot be demonstrated, it appears that the EQB Rules would require the Responsible
Government Unit (RGU) to order an EIS. If it is demonstrated that the hydrology of
PWW .247W would potentially b~ adversely affected but not eliminated by the
adjacent mining project, the EAW still would need to quantify the impact and discuss
the mitigation measures proposed to rectify or compensate for it.
If the gravel mine exp~riences seepage, additional wells to de-water the pit may need
to be installed. The EA W does not address the potential ad~tion of wells or bow the
project will process sand and gravel without ~ on-site water source, which in a large
graveling operation may require the volumes of water supplied by an on-site well.
2. Question 12, Physical Impacts on Water Resources (continued): TheJ!.A W does
not disc:uss impacts to potential WCA wetlands on the anining site.
Two significant areas of hydric (wet) soils (Webster soil. Typic Endoaquolls. fine-
loamy, mixed mesic, 'map unit Wb) ar,e indicated On the Scott County soil survey as
being '\Within the mining site~ these areas lie at approximately 900 fASL. The EA W
does not discuss whether these areas are jurisdictional wetlands under the Wetland
12/27/00 WED 16:05 FAX
IaI 015
Ms. Jme K:lnsier
Comments on R)'illl Contracting EA W
December 27. 2000
Page 3 .
Conservation Act (WCA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If these areas arc
not jurisdictional wetlands, the EA W needs to provide an explanation as to why not
If they are jurisdictional wetlands. the EA W needs to provide a discussion of the
anticipated impacts and proposed mitigation.
3. Question 13, Water Use: Given the complex geohydrological Jetting of the site,
the effects of any and all planned and potential groundwater appropriations
need to be addressed in the EAW.
The EA W suggests that a well may be used in the future but that one is not planned at
this time. If a well is needed to augment. ponding as a source of water for dust
control. relatively high withdrawal volumes may be needed. Yet the aquifer source to
be used (quaternary sand lU\d gravel 0 or bedrock) and the projected effects of such a
well, on piezometri~ or watertable swfaces of the so~e aquife.- are not addtessed.
Depending upon the" wel{ and aquifer charactcrilitics' chosen'as the'result of a moreo
detailed as~essm~t, a well study may be required to confirm that water resources in
the; area. will not be adversely affected. For example. recent temporary dewatering
activities have unex:pectedly but adversely impacted the Savage Fen. .
4. Question 17, Water Quality-Surrace Water RUDOff: The Qua~tity and Quality
of Surfaee Water Runoff to be Discharged from the Mining Site need to be
Quantitatively Analyzed.
The discussion of surface water runoff quantity and quality provided in the EA W
does not adequately describe or analyze the potential for impacts to downstream
water bodies. In' itsEAW Guidelines. the Minnesota. Environmental Quality Board
(EQB) has provided guidance as to the appropriate content and level of detail to
provided in this portion'oftheEAW.
"The intent of this question is to characterize the effect of the project on
the amounts and composition of surface water runoff from the site and
techniques planned to'mininiize adverse quantity and Quality impacts. The
emphasis should be on post-construction stotlDwater impacts and on
permanent mitigation measures rather than erosion and sedimentation
control during construction. which should be discussed under item 16."
(EA W Guidelines Item 17, Page 9; emphasis supplied).
The EAW provides nq quantitative information as to~ (1) the volume of or rates at
which stormwater runoff -will leave the site during storm events of various
ma.gnitudes, (2) the anticipated nutrient pollutant and sediment loads tbe runoff will
be carrying, (3) the character of downstream water boaies into which stonnwater
discharges will drain and (4) the effectiveness of the proposed treatment'methods in
protecting those downstream water bodies.
The immedia.te receiving water for drainage from site is cited as an unnamed
intermittent creek. which "based on the USGS topographic map drains northward
app(o...imately one-quarter mile to where the drainageway ends." This drainageway
I j
it
,..
12/27/00 WED 16:06 FAX
IaJ 016
Ms. J 3I\e 'Kansier
Comments on, 'Ryan Contracting EA W
December 27, ;2000
Page 4
traverses property owned by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. The
narrative provided in the EA W provides no description of. this intermittent creek.
what happens to the discharged stormwater when it reaches the end of the
drainageway or how the proponents plan to avoid damage to Shako pee Mdewakanton
Sioux lands. The EA W goes Oll to mention another intermittent stream one-half mile
north of the site that combines with two other intermittent streams and eventually
drains to Deans Lake. It is unclear whether water from the mining site will flow from
'one intermittent stream to another and whether the water will eventually reach Deans
Lake. Also, the EAW,provides no infonnation about these other intermittent streams
through which stonnwater discharges from the mine mayor may not flow.
If drainage will ultimately reach Deans Lake, the: EA W needs to address the potential
impact of stQrmwat,er discharges on this Water body. The Prior Lake-Spring Lake
: Watershed District recently cotnplet~d improvements .to, stonnwater treatment
facilities upstream of Deans Lake and also removed a'sediment delta. where those
facilities enter the lake. The EAW should explain in detail how ponding facilities on
the mining site will prevent adverse sedimentation and nutrient loading impacts to
Deans Lake and whether the project will result in more frequent maintenance of the
District's stonnwater managem~nt facilities.
The EQB' s SAW Guidelines . indicate that:
A stonnwater discharge that may affect a lake is a.n example of a situation
in which the RGU must exercise judgement about the elI:tent of analysis
needed. Generally regarded as sensitive and valued reSources, the lake
may require a numerical nutrient budget analysis to adequately'
characterize the extent of the potential impact. Any n,utr1ent budget
analysis performed should be ,based on a generally accepted model of B
lake's response to [an] increase in phosphorus loading or other critical
nutrients if phosphorus is not limiting"(EAW Guideline::s Item 17, Page
10).
If Deans Lake will be the ultimate destination for stormwater discharges from the
mining site. the EA W should 'either provide a. "nutrient budget analysis as
recommended in EA W Guidelines or provide some defensible rationale as to why
such an analysis is not warranted. The EA W indicates that an on-site sedimentation
basin will be used to ameliorate impacts to downstream water bodies but no design
criteria or calculations are given for this basin. The proponents do not indicate
whether this basin is intended to meet any water quality function beyond sediment
control or whether it meets Nati~nal Urban Runoff Program (NURP) de~..criteria.
12/27/00 WED 16:06 FAX
~017
Ms. Jan\: Kansicr ,
Comments on Ryan Canl;nlct.ing EA W
December 27. 2000
Page 5
S. Question 19, Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions: Specific NRCS soil
classifications and characteristics aJ'e required elem~nts of an EA W but al"e Dot
provided. '
Question 19 of the EAW fonn requires that the NRCS (SCS) soil classifications be
provided !!long with a discussion of contamination, and mitigation issues.
Contamination and mitigation issues are addressed in Attachment F and in the report;
but only engineering classifications, particle size classifications, and borehole
stra.tigraphic logs are provided in Attachment F. NRCS classifications and soil
characteristics present in the Soil Survey of Scott County are'not provided.
We hope that the foregoing ,comments are of assistaDce in your processing of the Ryan
ContIacting gravel mine EA W. If you have any questions on this material, please feel
free to contact our office.
Best Regards,
~eterson Environmental Consulting, Ine.
~
President
Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1118
II r
I
II
1rl
\
,\ )
.f
Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux COilllllunity
OFFICERS
Stanley R CrOOks
c'-a,'rman
2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW - PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TRIBAL OFFICE: 952-445.8900 - FAX: 952-445-8906
Glynn A. Creoks
Vice C~ar,7:an
Lori K, Crcwchi!d
Secretary/Treas"rer
26 December 2000
Writer's Direct Line 952-496-6158
City of Prior Lake
Attn.: Jane Kansier,
Planning Coordinator
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
D rn ~ [~Ow [~~ r~~\
"11 '
lB2'1311 ~\
RE: Comments on Draft EA W
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Attached are the comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) on
the draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet (Draft EA W) produced for the gravel
mining operation proposed by Ryan Contracting, Inc. There is a general comment
section followed by comments on the traffic study then comments organized by section
and paragraph ofthe Draft EA W. -
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact me at the above
telephone number. I would also appreciate being noticed regarding any further action on
this issue including any Planning Commission or City Council meetings.
Sincerely,
Ad!~
Stanley A~11ison
Land and Natural Resources Manager
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
General Comments
The Draft EA W is insufficient to allow issuance of any Conditional Use Permit (CUP). It
fails to address certain impacts on adjoining land owners. It fails to address impacts on
tribal (federal) surface waters, it inadequately addresses the potential for groundwater
impacts on a public drinking water supply and assumes to much as fact without
documentation. The Draft EA W requires more in-depth research, increased documentation,
a higher level of data analysis and a complete rewriting. As it stands, the Draft EA W fails
to meet the statutory intent of the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act that
environmental impacts from such irreversible actions as a mining operation be carefully
reviewed before they take place.
Traffic Study Comments
A copy of an analysis of the traffic study is attached to, and made part of, these comments.
This analysis raises three points: 1) the sight distance on McKenna Road and the mine
access point should be evaluated using the actual speed of traffic, not an artificially low
posted limit; 2) the degradation 0 McKenna Road is not addressed sufficiently and this
requires a commitment by Ryan to repair to City standards; and 3) there are no clear
assurances that the mine traffic will travel south on McKenna to County 42 and no stated
penalty if it does not. These items raise sufficient issues with the Draft EA W traffic
analysis to require further analysis.
Section Comments
Section 6 b. Project Description, including associated figures.
The text of the section lists several restrictions or operating limits to be applied to
the mine under the CUP. One of these limits is no on site fuel storage in any Above
Ground Storage Tank (AST). Figure 3 clearly indicates a fuel storage site located at
the parking area. It is the SMSC's opinion that no fuel storage should be allowed at
any location on or near the mine. In fact, if the CUP is issued, the SMSC requests
that all equipment be required to park on an impervious, curbed surface when not in
use to mitigate the potential for fuel spills.
If this list is intended to be a comprehensive list of CUP limitations, it is missing
several important limitations including a restriction on any use of well water on the
site for any purpose. The Draft EA W must state, on unambiguous terms, that its
conclusions are based on no groundwater use or withdrawal at the site of any kind
other than that required to monitor the groundwater. It must also state that if this
condition is not imposed and enforced, the entire environmental analysis is not
longer valid.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
Page 1
Ii
1
I
TII
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
Section 6 d. Are future stages of the development including development on any outlots
planned or likely to happen?
The test borings submitted as part ofthe Draft EA W were, for the most part, limited
to the 12 acre area proposed for mining. This is misleading because it does not give
the evaluator a complete picture ofthe potential project. Borings should have been
completed on a grid over the entire optioned area to identify or eliminate any
potential expansion areas. The borings completed do, however, clearly indicate that
the gravel resource extends to the northeast outside of the 12 acre area. They do not
define the extent ofthe body.
Expansion of the mining beyond the initial proposal will significantly alter any
environmental impacts. Relying on the one year term of the CUP and additional
review is not acceptable for Draft EA W purposes. The reason Section 6 d is
included in an EA W is specifically to have these type of possibilities addressed up
front and avoid the potential cumulative impacts. Avoiding the issue by providing
limited data, or simply ignoring the possibility, is not adequate impact analysis.
Section 8. Permits and Approvals Required.
An NPDES permit from the MPCA is listed as required. The immediate
downstream receiving water is located on SMSC trust land. This land is under the
jurisdiction ofthe SMSC and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EP A). Any NPDES permit granted by the MPCA that may affect, or significantly
impact, the water quality of any tribal water will require approval of the EP A prior
to issuance of the permit.
No mention is made of any requirement for a permit to mine or excavate beneath the
power lines present on the property. At a minimum, the proposer should contact the
owner of the power lines and the Draft EA W should report the status of any
requirements.
The CUP, if it is approved, must clearly state that no work of any kind can take
place until all of the relevant permits are issued.
Section 9. Land Use, paragraph 3
The Draft EA W avoids the issue of the SMSC residential area located to the west of
the proposed mining site. The use of the 1994 and 1997 aerial photos were said to
appear to indicate that there were some additional building sites west of McKenna
Road. On the ground verification would have revealed that this area is fully
developed with residential housing. This area is indicated as a "wooded area" in the
Draft EA W, Section 9, paragraph 2. While it may be wooded, it is a fully developed
residential subdivision.
Section 10. Cover Types.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
Page 2
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
The wooded cover type is being reduced from 8.5 to 6 acres. This 2.5 acre
reduction is considered minimal in the Draft EA W. It is, however, a nearly 30%
reduction in wooded ~ea. This is being replaced with impervious surface and
cropland. This is a significant alteration ofthe habitat types. This cannot be
addressed by the calculation of the caliper inches of trunk being cut verses what is
being replaced. The removal of trees will alter the local ecosystem. It will not be
restored for many years.
Section 12. Physical impacts to water resources
Because the gravel operation in definition will strip soil of vegetation it is probable
that runoff from the area will increase. Because runoff numbers have not been
provided, the amount of runoff, or change the in the amount of runoff can not be
ascertained. The site map does show rip-rap and a retention pond so increased
runoff appears to be anticipated. The drainage route ultimately will flow through an
ephemeral stream that is mostly undisturbed. Any increase in surface water flow
may cause an increase in sediment load to receiving areas and erosion of the
ephemeral stream channel.
The Draft EA W does not provide any design parameters for the erosion and
sedimentation controls. It was not possible for the SMSC contracted engineering
firm to evaluate the system based on the material s in the EA W. In Section 16 the
system is stated to be "designed for a lO-year, 24 hour storm event". The Draft
EA W does not define this parameter to any greater extent. At a miirimum, the
system should be designed to keep the discharge at the current rate and volume.
Depending on how this system is actually designed, there may be impact on
downstream tribal waters. If the system is constructed as shown on the Draft EA W
plates it appears that approximately 4.5 acres of surface area will be added to the
drainage basin that flows onto and across tribal lands. Tribal waters are federal
waters under the jurisdiction of the SMSC and the EP A. Potential impacts to these
waters cannot be ignored simply because they are not waters of the state.
Section 13. Water use
The Draft EA W does not clearly state whether water for dust control will be brought
from outside the project area or obtained from property owners within the project
area. If the water for this process is purchased from the land owners it would result
in a withdrawal from existing Jordan wells on their property. There is no clear,
precise and unambiguous statement in any portion of the Draft EA W that
groundwater withdrawals from the mining area must not be allowed. This
prohibition must include additional withdrawals from existing wells on the property.
Without these statements, and such a prohibition in the CUP, the environmental
analysis is of no valu~.
Section 16. Erosion and Sedimentation.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
Page 3
1,[ T
I
,.
II: 1/
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
This section does not give enough information to evaluate the effectiveness of the
designed system. It does not state whether the 10-year, 24 hour design is intended
to retain all of that storm water on site or release portions during the event. Without
more information the effectiveness of the planned system cannot be evaluated. It is
laudable that a Minnesota Professional Engineer was used to design the system.
This does not, however, allow the Draft EA W to simply state that the system is
good enough without providing any data for others to evaluate.
Section 17. Water Quality; Surface Water Runoff
17 a. Water Quality. This section does not discuss water quality. It simply states
that the runoffwill increase. It does not address existing quality nor how the
increased runoffwill impact the future quality. The Draft EA W is insufficient in this
section. As stated above, both the MPCA and the EP A (for tribal waters) must be
involved in any water quality determinations.
17 b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site
This section does not clearly identify the receiving water bodies. It does not
indicate the existence of tribal trust lands along the routes of discharge. It also does
not provide any actual data on runoffto allow evaluation ofthe impacts. Without
runoff munbers it is difficult to detennine the impact to receiving water bodies. The
Draft EA W is insufficient in this section. There should be an analysis of the
drainage system and modeling ofthe runoff potential. A complete stormwater
pollution prevention plan must be prepared and reviewed prior to any CUP issuance.
Section 18. Water Quality: Wastewater
The Draft EA W does not state that this analysis is based on prohibiting any washing
operations at the site. As with the groundwater issue discussed above, the Draft
EA W must clearly and unambiguously state that the analysis is based on not
allowing washing operations. It must also state that the environmental impact
analysis is invalid if a gravel washing operation is begun.
Section 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions
Part a: Several areas in this section require comment. They are addressed below
by paragraph number:
Paragraph 1.
While it is true that there are no sinkholes or karst conditions present at the surface it
must be stated that the Prairie du Chien Formation is an erosional surface at depth.
This surface consists of well fractured dolomite that probably does have karst
features. There is a clearly demonstrated hydrologic connection between the Prairie
du Chien Formation and the Jordan Sandstone in the areas of the proposed mining
operation. This was demonstrated in an observation well located approximately
1000 feet west of the proposed mining operation. See Hydraulic Properties of the
Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer. Shakopee. Mdewakanton Sioux Community.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
Page 4
I[
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
Southeastern Minnesota. 1997. United States Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 99-4183.
Paragraph 3.
It is true that the Scott County Geologic Atlas does not ascribe a high susceptibility
to short term contamination for this area. The Scott County Atlas must, however, be
used within the limits of the original purpose of the document. This is a county
wide compilation of data intended to give a general idea of the overall geologic
conditions as known at the time of publication. It is not intended to be used for site
specific analysis, especially where additional information is available. Water well
logs are available for several wells in the immediate area. These are public
documents available from the Minnesota Geologic Survey. There are published
water resource reports. There are more detailed and local studies developed by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. None ofthese sources are cited. The
comments below regarding Part b of this section indicate that the sensitivity analysis
could have been updated to some extent using the data provided in the Draft EA W.
There is a high probability of potential contamination related to any release during
or after the mining operation. Removal ofthe upper layers ofless permeable soil
and clays may open a conduit for contamination via more permeable sands and
gravel. The well log for the SMSC public water supply well indicates fine sand or
sand and gravel from the surface to the top of the Prairie du Chien Formation
(Minnesota Unique Well No. 00554090). Other well logs on the area also indicate
that the material overlying the Prairie du Chien Formation is primarily sand or sand
and gravel. This possibility was not addressed in sufficient detail in the Draft EA W.
The potential for long term contamination was not addressed at all. The stated mine
life for the project is ten years. Once the surface is disturbed the potential exists for
contamination at any point during this stated mine life. This time period would
allow for cumulative contamination, accidental contamination or intentional
contamination by another party. These threats are not addressed in the Draft EA W.
Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6
The draft Drinking Water Supply Management Area is identified in attachment E.
It is not clear from this figure where the proposed gravel operation is in relation to
the Draft Drinking Water Supply Management Area nor what possible problems
may exist. The Draft EA W simply states the general proximity of the project to the
public water supply well. There is no analysis of the contamination potential or
routes. The general intent of this section of the Draft EA W is to present geologic
hazards. This requires site specific analysis of all data available. The Draft EA W
should provide the information and some summary of the analysis.
The entire well head protection area and Drinking Water Management Area was
established based on existing land use at the time of development. Alteration of the
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
Page 5
"
tll
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
land use from agricultural to mining will probably alter the DWMA sensitivity
rating. It may also require amendment ofthe boundaries ofthe DWMA.
Part b: There are several areas in this section that require comment. They are
addressed below by paragraph number.
Paragraph 2.
The borings also suggest that the sand and gravel deposits continue to the east and at
depth. See log for Boring 7 for eastward trend. They also indicate that sand or sand
an gravel are present at depth over most ofthe area. Borings 1,4, 4A and 7
terminate in sand or sand and gravel. Borings 2 and 6 terminate in clayey sand. If
the area is mined to the proposed depth, it will leave a large area of sand or sand and
gravel with some clayey sand exposed at the surface.
Paragraph 3.
This paragraph correctly states that the vertical permeability, thus the potential for
contamination, is greater in sandy materials. The paragraph does not make the
connection between the exposed sand and gravel and the nearby water wells.
Paragraph 4.
Mitigative measures are discussed in general. The Draft EA W should state specific
mitigative measures contained in the proposed operation. Ifno mitigative measures
are proposed, the project should not be allowed. General statements that mitigation
is possible or desirable are not sufficient. In addition to any mitigative measures the
trigger levels for those measures must be set. Eacl1 established response should
have an action point where response is required and list the party responsible for
activating the measure.
The project proposer should state the exact mitigation methods proposed. The Draft
EA W should look at each proposed mitigative measure and evaluate its probability
of success relative to potential contamination. In many cases this would not be a
necessary exercise. In this case, there is a public water supply at risk.
Section 20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks.
Part b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site
and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater
The total anticipated volume of fuel and other hazardous substances on site at any
particular time should be explicitly stated. This should include the fuel in any
onboard tanks on any equipment. All equipment should be included, both stationary
and mobile. The fuel on site should also include an average for trucks hauling
gravel during the operational day.
There are no measures stated to prevent contamination from a fuel release from on
site equipment. This equipment should, at a minimum, be parked on an impervious
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
Page 6
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
surface when not in operation. The impervious surface should have curbing
sufficient to contain the maximum possible fuel release. Any stationary on site
equipment that has an onboard fuel tank should be located on an impervious surface
or have double wall tanks.
A complete and detailed spill and release prevention and response plan must be
prepared, reviewed and approved before any CUP is approved. This plan should be
part of an EA W, thus the draft EA W is insufficient without this plan.
Part c, indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground
tanks.
The Draft EA W states that there will be no storage tanks on the site. The plans and
maps for the project indicate an above ground fuel storage area immediately
adjacent to the parking lot. This discrepancy should be cleared up. There should
also be some indication of the amount of fuel present on the site during refueling
operations. The fuel truck may not be a regulated AST but a release from the
vehicle will have the same effect as a release from an AST.
Section 24. Odors, noise and dust
The tribal residential area to the west of McKenna Road, which was not included in
the surrounding land use section of the Draft EA W, will likely be negatively
affected by the noise and dust generated by the mining operation. The Draft EA W
states the noise levels will be below 50 dBA. The current noise levels in this area
are very low. There is no industry, no major highway and no air traffic. The
relative increase in noise will be very great. This relative change must be
considered as an impact on the people living in the area. In addition, the allowable
hours of operation are not acceptable. The 0600 hours start time is to early for this
type of operation.
It is unlikely, as the Draft EA W suggests, that the dust can be confined to the project
area. Some mitigative measures should be in place to rectify the negative impacts.
Section 25. Nearby Resources.
The area surrounding the proposed mining site contains several sites of reported
archeological artifacts. Sites 21SC-BIAFN-l, -3, -4, and -5 all lie in the Northwest
Quarter of Section 22. These sites were not located until the BIA and SMSC
conducted a Phase I archeological survey of that area. It is likely that such artifact
scatters exist in, and around, the project area. This entire area should be subjected to
a Phase I archeological survey including a site walk prior to any further excavation
or disturbance of the soil.
Section 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations.
The proposed use may be fully compliant with City of Prior Lake planning. This is
not entirely true. The site is proposed to be first restored to agricultural land use.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
Page 7
n
r
!I
UI
Comments of.the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
The mine area will be left with extensive 3: 1 slopes. These areas will be difficult or
impossible to farm. The City Comprehensive Plan calls for the area to become
urban low/medium density residential. In its current condition the site is a very god
fit for this use. Mining with restoration to 3: 1 slopes and an approximate 50
elevation difference will make this ultimate use much more difficult.
The section requires the Draft EA W to address the compatibility with "local,
regional, state or federal" agencies. The SMSC is a federal entity holding land
immediately adjacent to the north and close by to the west. The Draft EA W does
not discuss any relationship between the proposed project and any planned use or
land use regulation of the SMSC. This alone makes the draft EA W insufficient and
requires a revision.
The SMSC has existing residential parcels located less than 100 feet to the west.
The land immediately to the north is planned for residential and institutional use.
The SMSC received no request for land use planning information. The SMSC did
receive a request for information on the Well Head Protection planning and
responded with the requested materials.
While the mining operation is not explicitly incompatible with the Wellhead
Protection Plan being developed by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community,
any land use that removes the low permeability surface soils has the potential to
negatively affect the drinking water for area residents. As stated above, this
operation may require re-designation of the area as highly susceptible and expansion
of the Surface Drinking Water Management Area.
G:\Iand\ryan\cmt2
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan construction Gravel Mine CUP Application
12/26/2000
Page 8
;;
w
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO / HOPKINS, MN 55343/ (952) 238-1667/ FAX (952) 238-1671
December 21, 2000
REFER TO FILE: 99 - 92
Mr. Dan Guenther
William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc.
1107 Hazeltine Boulevard, Suite 480
Chaska, MN 55318-1008
RE: Review of Traffic Portion ofEAW for Gravel Mining Operation Proposed by Ryan
Contracting Company
Dear Dan:
In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the traffic portion of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the gravel mining operation proposed
by Ryan Contracting Company in the City of Prior Lake. The site is about ~ mile north
of CSAH 42 and would have a single point of access on McKenna Road where this
roadway has a short radius curve between the west and the south. The purpose of our
review is to determine whether the proposed gravel mining operation would cause any
negative traffic impacts.
Through our review, we have identified three major issues regarding potential traffic
impacts of the proposed gravel mining operation. Though these points have been
addressed in the EA W, we believe that several key questions about potential traffic
impacts have not been adequately answered. Thus, our judgment is that the EA W is
incomplete in its present form.
For each of the three crucial traffic issues, a brief description is provided next regarding
the issue and the points that have not been adequately addressed in the EA W.
. Sight distance at the intenection of McKenna Road and the site access.
Figure 5 in Attachment G for the EA W addresses the adequacy of sight
distances at this intersection and at the intersection of McKenna Road and
CSAH 42. The conclusion presented in this figure is that adequate sight
distance is provided at both intersections. We strongly disagree with the
conclusion of adequate sight distance at the intersection of McKenna Road
with the site access. The reason for this objection is that the analysis
presented in Figure 5 is premised on a 20 mph travel speed on McKenna
Road. We acknowledge that a 20 mph advisory speed is posted for the
curve on which the access is located, but we would suggest that many
If
,I
III
Mr. Dan Guenther
2
December 21,2000
motorists travel this segment of McKenna Road at a significantly higher
speed. The legal speed limit for McKenna Road is 55 mph.
Numerous traffic studies have demonstrated that it is highly important to
provide adequate sight distances at intersections in order for the
intersections to operate in a safe manner. This factor is especially important
in this circumstance involving gravel trucks, which are heavy and have slow
acceleration capabilities. To provide an adequate level of safety, we would
suggest that sight distances at the site access point should meet the standards
for travel speeds of at least 45 mph. The EA W needs to be revised to
address whether adequate sight distances would be provided at this speed
level.
· Maintenance of McKenna Road between the site access and CSAH 42.
Page 5 in Attachment G for the EA W includes the following statements:
"The roadway surface for McKenna Road is currently showing
deterioration. Wheel rutting and pattern cracking is visible near the CSAH
42 intersection. Several areas have already been patched near the pit access.
Additional truck traffic will hasten the deterioration of the roadway." These
statements clearly indicate that the proposed gravel mining operation would
damage the condition of McKenna Road. Other statements are provided in
the EA W, which indicate that the CUP would require the proposer to submit
an irrevocable letter of credit for potential road repair and that Ryan
Contracting would propose to maintain McKenna Road in cooperation with
the City.
In our judgment, the statements in the EA W regarding the role of Ryan
Contracting in maintaining McKenna Road are insufficient. The statements
suggest that repairs mayor may not be necessary and that the City may
share in the financial responsibility to maintain McKenna Road. Given the
significant negative impacts that the gravel mining trucks would have on the
condition of McKenna Road, two potential outcomes associated with the
current EA Ware:
a) City determines that the EA W does not sufficiently address potential
environmental impacts and states that an EIS would be required.
b) City indicates to the proposer that the EA W should be modified to
express a firm commitment by the proposer to maintain McKenna
Road to City standards, as directed by City staff, solely at the
proposer's expense.
. Assurances that all vehicles will travel directly to and from CSAH 42.
Page 2 in Attachment G for the EA W includes the following statement,
"All traffic generated by the operation will travel south from the gravel pit
to the intersection ofCSAH 42/McKenna Road." This statement indicates
Mr. Dan Guenther
3
December 21, 2000
that a fundamental premise for all analyses that relate to trips generated by
the site is that all trips will travel directly to and from CSAH 42. Two
questions that the EA W does not address are:
- What assurances/commitments are provided by the proposer to be
certain that all trips travel directly to and from CSAH 42?
- What penalties would the proposer incur if any trips travel to and from
the north on McKenna Road?
Lacking firm commitments by the proposer for such traffic control and
associated penalties for traffic violations, one would have to assume that
some trips would travel to and from the north on McKenna Road. In that
event, the traffic related analyses in the EA W are invalid because they
assumed that all trips would travel directly to and from CSAH 42.
I trust that the comments in this letter will be helpful to yourself and other participants in
reviewing the EA W for the gravel mining operation proposed by Ryan Contracting
Company. Call me if you have any questions or need follow-up assistance.
Sincerely,
BENS OOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ A Benshoof
II
I
.
'['11
~ Metropolitan Council
~ Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
rrYrn @ rg Dnn ~ N
IIJJr ~/LJ'!,
t\l DEe 293m ·
I'.. '------_____
December 27,2000
L
Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)-Ryan Contracting - Sand and Gravel Mine
City of Prior Lake
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 18409-1
Metropolitan Council District 4
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the EA W to determine its adequacy and accuracy in
addressing regional concerns. Ryan Contracting Company proposes to operate a sand and gravel
mining operation, for private use, for approximately ten years. Approximately 500,000 cubic
yards of material will be mined from 12.91 acres. At the conclusion of mining the site will be
returned to agricultural use.
Staff submits the following advisory comments:
Environmental Services (Chris Elvntm, 651-602-1066)
General
The Metropolitan Council is aware of the rapid depletion of aggregate resources through
urbanization. The Council supports utilizing the resource in an orderly manner prior to
urbanization as a way of promoting smart, economic growth.
Item 16 and 17 - Erosion and sedimentation with Water quality
Item 16 and 17 - Erosion and sedimentation pond will be installed near the outlet drainageway.
Runoff from the site will pass through the sedimentation basin and leave the site through a rip-
rapped drainageway. The sedimentation pond should be designed according to National Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) standards or similar criteria if runoff is to be released from the basin.
The staff review ,concludes that the EA W is complete and accurate with respect to regional
concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not
necessary 'for regional purPoses' ;, '
230 East FIfth Street St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1626
(651) 602-1000
Fax 602-1550
TDD/TIY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602.1888
An t:'nflnI Onnnrl"nihl "'rnn'I'ul~r
Ms. Kansier
December 27,2000
Page Two
If you have questions, please contact Chris Elvrum, technical reviewer, at 651-602-1666.
Sincerely,
!'y!:;fbo-
Director, Environmental Services
Cc: Julius C. Smith, Metropolitan Council District 4
Keith Buttleman, MCES, Director Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department
Tom Caswell, Sector Representative
Linda Milashius, Referrals Coordinator
Linda O'Connor, Principal Reviewer
Lf
11
il. II