HomeMy WebLinkAbout10A - McKenna Property EIS
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JANUARY 16, 2007
10A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION MAKING A DECLARATION
ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
FOR THE EXCAVATION OF SAND AND GRAVEL ON THE MCKENNA
PROPERTY
Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is to review a resolution making a decision on
the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Ryan mining
and excavation permit.
History
In 1999, the City received an application for a Conditional Use Permit from
Ryan Contracting to allow the excavation of sand and gravel on 13 acres of the
McKenna and Kinney properties located north of CSAH 42, and north and east
of McKenna Road. Just before the City Council was to consider this CUP, the
Council received a petition for an EAW for the project. The City Council
ultimately ordered the preparation of an EAW. This process was completed in
December, 2000.
On February 20, 2001, the City Council made a negative declaration on the
need for an Environmental Impact Statement. On February 27,2001, the City
Council adopted Resolution 01-19, which approved a CUP subject to 37
conditions (see attachment #1). Fifteen of those conditions needed to be
satisfied before the CUP would become valid. Eight additional conditions
needed to be satisfied before Ryan could begin work. Fourteen additional
conditions needed to be satisfied by Ryan on an on-going basis. In addition,
the CUP would be valid for only one year, and was subject to renewal upon
application. The need for Ryan to seek renewal of the permit after one year
gives the Council the ability to consider the information regarding Ryan's
. performance and whether the conditions imposed to address potential adverse
environmental impacts of the project after the first year of operations required
adjustment.
In 2001-02, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC)
challenged the City's negative declaration on the need for an Environmental
Impact Statement in district court. This legal action included a request that the
Court should either prevent Ryan from mining or impose additional conditions
on its operation, beyond those already required in the CUP. In its first ruling,
the Court upheld the City's negative declaration, finding that no further
environmental review was necessary, based on the mitigative nature of the
conditions incorporated into the CUP. In 2002, following a trial, the Court
denied the SMSC's request to prevent mining operations, but imposed several
additional conditions on Ryan's operations to mitigate potential environmental
L:\n9F1LES\D'~:'" ~L)P\~~')S) < /;::,,\,--};""'"''
www.cityofpriorlake.com
.. '/Phgh~)95;2.44:1.i4'236,(?i~Jk(952.447.4245
impacts.
Section 1108.212 of the City Zoning Ordinance states, "All Conditional Use
Permits shall be revoked and canceled if one year has elapsed from the date
of the adoption of the resolution granting the Conditional Use Permit and the
holder of the Conditional Use Permit has failed to make substantial use of the
premises according to the provisions contained in the Permit" Under this
provision, the City is authorized to cancel Ryan's CUP if Ryan failed to make
substantial use of the premises pursuant to the CUP with in a one-year period.
This provision is similar to provisions in the Building Code and in Minnesota
Statutes. Upon its own initiative, based on principals of fairness, the City tolled
the commencement of that one-year period until the appeal period in the
litigation brought by the SMSC expired. After the litigation and appeal period
expired, the one year time period on the CUP began to run. On January 30,
2002, the City staff sent a letter to Ryan advising them of this provision in the
Zoning Ordinance. In November, 2003, the City Attorney sent Ryan's attorney
a letter specifying the date the CUP would expire. In January 2004, after staff
concluded that Ryan had not satisfied the preconditions to the validity of the
CUP within the one year period following the litigation, the City notified Ryan
the CUP was no longer valid. Ryan disagreed with the City's conclusions and
procedures, and sued the City. Ryan also contended that the City lacked
statutory authority to impose a one-year term on the CUP or a requirement
that an applicant use a CUP within a one-year period. The SMSC intervened
in that action and aligned itself with the City. In May 2005, cross-motions for
summary judgment were argued, and soon thereafter, a settlement dialogue
began. The SMSC's counsel initially participated in those settlement
discussions, but when the potential for a settlement appeared to be possible
the SMSC dropped out.
Several hours before the City Council was scheduled to consider authorizing
the execution of the draft Settlement Agreement, the City Council received a
copy of a petition requesting the preparation of a revised environmental
assessment worksheet on June 20, 2005. The City received official
notification of its RGU status from the Environmental Quality Board on July 1,
2005. On July 18, 2005, the City Council denied the Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community's petition for a supplemental Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (Resolution 05-130).
On August 15, 2005, the SMSC initiated a lawsuit against the City contending
that the denial of its petition for a supplemental EAW was improper. On
December 21,2005, the City presented to the Court a motion for summary
judgment in the SMSC's lawsuit, arguing that the City properly denied the
EAW petition because Minn. R. 4410.1000 subp. 5 of the Environmental
Review Rules did not require a supplemental EAW if the project did not
substantially change. The SMSC agreed with the City that the lawsuit
presented a legal question about the interpretation of the Environmental
Review Rules, but the SMSC argued that "the City was obligated to review the
impacts of the gravel mine on the surrounding land use because of the
significant changes in the area."
On January 24, 2006, the Court issued the Order denying the City's motion for
Summary Judgment in the SMSC's lawsuit, for reasons that implied the Court
might have agreed with the SMSC's interpretation of Minn. R. 4410.1000 subp.
5 of the Environmental Review Rules. Following a request for clarification of
the Order, the Court explained that the Court agreed with the SMSC's
interpretation of Minn. R. 4410.1000 subp. 5 of the Environmental Review
Rules, that the City should consider changes in the area surrounding the
proposed gravel mine; and that it would be "a very good idea" to prepare a
supplemental EAW.
On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted a resolution declaring the need for
an EAW. 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 EAW on its behalf. The EAW
was completed in October, 2006, and distributed to the Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on October 19, 2006.
Notice of the EAW was published in the Prior Lake American on October 21,
2006, and in the EQB Monitor on October 23, 2006. The comment period on
the EAW expired on November 22,2006.
Comment letters were received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA), the Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH), the Metropolitan Council, the Prior Lake - Spring Lake Watershed
District, and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC). Copies
of the letters are attached to this report.
On December 18, 2006, the City Council voted to defer action on this decision
until January 16, 2006, in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4400.1700, subp.
2a, which allow 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 purpose of
postponing this decision was to allow staff the opportunity to do further
research on the comments submitted by the SMSC.
Current Circumstances
The elements of the project analyzed in the 2000 EAW have not changed.
Ryan Contracting is proposing to mine 12.91 acres of a 29 acre parcel of land
located on the north side of McKenna Road, about ~ mile north of CSAH 42.
Mining will occur for approximately four years and is limited to no more than
500,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel. Site reclamation will allow for
agricultural use.
The major change that has occurred since the 2000 EAW was completed is
the adjacent development. This development includes the Shepherd's Path
Campus, located south of the proposed mining operation. This development
will ultimately consist of a church, 442 senior housing units, a YMCA facility, a
youth center, a medical office/clinic, a bank, park area, trails, and companion
uses to the church (meeting areas, daycare, retreat center). The plan for this
development was approved in 2005. So far, the church and companion uses
have been constructed. The youth center and 154 units of the senior housing
are currently under construction.
L:\99FllES\99CUP\99-075\2005 EAW Petilion\01-16-07 cc agenda
The second major change in the area is the construction of a residential
subdivision on the SMSC property directly to the north of the mining site. To
date, 17 dwellings have been built or are under construction on the 58 total
lots. In some cases the houses are 100' or less from the proposed mining
operation. The well serving this area is located to the north of the mining site.
The mining site is within the wellhead protection area for the SMSC well.
There is also a stormwater management system, constructed as part of the
residential development, located north of the project site.
ISSUES:
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 of EIS's previously prepared on similar
projects.
Each of these criteria is discussed in detail in the attached Exhibit A labeled
"Findings of Fact and Conclusions."
Most of the comments pertaining to the EAW have been addressed through
the previous EAW, the conditions attached to the approved conditional use
permit (CUP) and the conditions imposed by the Court's 2002 decision. This
project is also subject to permit review and approval from several other
agencies, including the DNR and the Watershed District. Approval of these
permits must be received before the CUP is valid and can be recorded. These
permits will assess the impacts of the project based on current statutes.
These permits will only be issued after a negative declaration on the EAW, and
after City Council action on the development.
There are two issues, however, which may merit further study. The first of
these issues is the potential impact to the SMSC public water supply system.
This system is also connected to the City's water supply system and is used as
a back-up during peak water use periods. Both the MDH and the SMSC note
the mining operation is within the wellhead protection area, leaving this supply
potentially vulnerable to contamination. There are three monitoring wells
installed on the project site which will be used to detect any potential
contamination. The question is whether this is protection enough, or whether
further study of the issue is necessary.
The second issue is the impact on the adjacent land uses. A traffic impact
report prepared as part of the EAW indicated the proposed use would have a
minimal impact on the existing road. However, in order to mitigate the impacts
of the additional traffic, the trucks from this operation will be required to go
south to CSAH 42. Signage on the site will be posted to this effect.
Additionally, Ryan Contracting will be required to post a Letter of Credit to
cover any necessary repairs to the road as a result degradation from the
UD9FiLES\9fJCUP\99-075\200fl EAW Petition\01-16,Q? cc
additional traffic.
The conditions imposed by the Court's 2002 order also limit the equipment on
the site to one front-end loader, one conveyor, one screening plant and one
dump truck at anyone time. The staff is concerned that this requirement may
cause trucks to stack on the public right-of-way while waiting to get on the site.
North Berens Road, the east-west street accessing the project site, is a 28'
wide road and will not be improved until the property to the north is developed.
Truck stacking along this road will impede access to other vehicles, specifically
emergency vehicles. The Shepherd's Path Campus facilities are geared
towards youth and senior citizen. The development is also intended to create
pedestrian traffic, with access for existing day care and youth center, the
senior housing under construction and the future land uses (YMCA, additional
senior housing). The SMSC comments also mention the impact on the new
residential development. The staff believes this impact would be very limited,
and would be no more severe than if the site were under construction for a
residential development.
Other concerns noted in the comments were noise and light. Limiting the
hours of operation will mitigate these impacts.
According to Minnesota Rules 4410.0300, subp. 3, "environmental documents
shall not be used to justify a decision, nor shall indications of adverse
environmental effects necessarily require that a project be disapproved.
Environmental documents shall be used as guides in issuing, amending and
denying permits and carrying out other responsibilities of governmental units to
avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects and to restore and enhance
environmental quality. "
The City Council must make a determination on whether or not the issues
raised by the EAW warrant additional environmental review (EIS). If so, the
Council must define the scope of the EIS; that is, the Council must specify the
issues to be studied. Any decision the City Council makes must be supported
by specific findings of fact.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The financial impact to the City since it first received Ryan's application for a
CUP has been significant. The litigation filed against the City by both the
SMSC and Ryan has consumed hundreds of hours of staff time and hundreds
of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt a resolution making a negative declaration on the need for an EIS
for this project, based on specific findings of fact.
2. Adopt a resolution declaring the need for an EIS based on specific findings
of fact.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
The staff has attached a blank resolution. The specific findings will be inserted
s a result of the Council's discussion and findings.
L\99FILES\99CUP\99-075\2005 EAW Petition\01-16-07 cc
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 07 -xx
Motion By:
Second By:
WHEREAS, On July 18, 2005, the City Council denied the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community's petition for a supplemental Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(Resolution 05-130); and
WHEREAS, On August 15, 2005, the SMSC initiated a lawsuit against the City contending that the
denial of its petition for a supplemental EAW was improper; and
WHEREAS, On December 21, 2005, the City presented to the Court a motion for summary
judgment in the SMSC's lawsuit, arguing that the City properly denied the EAW petition
because Minn. R. 4410.1000 subp. 5 of the Environmental Review Rules did not
require a supplemental EAW if the project did not substantially change; and
WHEREAS, The SMSC agreed with the City that the lawsuit presented a legal question about the
interpretation of the Environmental Review Rules, but the SMSC argued that "the City
was obligated to review the impacts of the gravel mine on the surrounding land use
because of the significant changes in the area"; and
WHEREAS, On January 24, 2006, the Court issued the Order denying City's motion for summary
judgment in SMSC's lawsuit, for reasons that implied the Court might have agreed with
the SMSC's interpretation of Minn. R. 4410.1000 subp. 5 of the Environmental Review
Rules; and
WHEREAS, Following a request for clarification of the Order, the Court explained that the Court
agreed with the SMSC's interpretation of Minn. R. 4410.1000 subp. 5 of the
Environmental Review Rules, that the City should consider changes in the area
surrounding the proposed gravel mine; and that it would be "a very good idea" to
prepare a supplemental EAW; and
WHEREAS, The City Council wishes to act consistent with the Court's guidance and interpretation,
as clarified.
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1100, the City of Prior Lake has prepared an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this proposed project; and
WHEREAS, The 30-day public comment period expired on November 22, 2006; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules 4400.1700, subp. 2a (B), 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; and
L \99FILES\99CUP\99~075\2005 FAiN Pelition\bisni<}ewMlw,icitylllfpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
WHEREAS, On December 18, 2006, the City Council has postponed the decision on the EAW until
January 16, 2007, and
WHEREAS, The Ryan Contracting excavation of sand and gravel is expected to comply with all the
City of Prior Lake standards and review agency standards; and
WHEREAS, Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project (does/does
not) have the potential for significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project (does/does not) have the
potential for significant environmental impacts.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2007.
Haugen Haugen
Erickson Erickson
Hedbera Hedbera
LeMair LeMair
Millar Millar
YES
NO
Frank Boyles, City Manager
L:\99FILES\99CUP\99-075\2005 EAW Petition\blank_resolution.DOC
.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North I 5t. Paul, MN 55155-4194 I 651-296-6300 I 800-657-3864 I 651-282-5332 TTY I www.pca.state.mn.us
r0~@~DW~~
W NO V J 5 2006 W
November 13, 2006
By
Ms. Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake Planning Director
17073 Adelmann Street Southeast
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Ryan Contracting Company Sand and Gravel Mine
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Ms. Kansier:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has received copies ofthe Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) prepared for the above project, prepared by the city of
Prior Lake, Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). The MPCA has not reviewed the EA W for
this project. Therefore, the MPCA has no specific comments to provide the RGU. This decision
not to review the EA W does not constitute waiver by the MPCA of any pending permits required
by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the project proposer to secure any required
permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. The enclosed checklist identifies
permits that the project may require, together with the most recent contacts at the MPCA.
We remind the RGU that, pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 5 (Environmental Quality
Board Rules), a copy of the RGU's decision on this EA W needs to be sent to the MPCA.
Sincerely,
Q::::::- ;-~
Project Manager
~nvironmenta1 Review and Operations Section
Regional Division
JE:mbo
Enclosure
cc: Tyler Enright, Ryan Contracting Company
. 5t. Paul I Brainerd I Detroit Lakes I Duluth I Mankato I Marshall I Rochester I Willmar I Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper
~
I.~
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Operations
Regulatory (2006-6459-BAJ)
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
190 FIFTH STREET EAST
ST. PAUL, MN 55101-1638
NOV 17 _
~[E@[EDm[Em
W NOV 2 2 2006 W
By
Ms. Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
17073 Adelmann Street
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Dear Ms. Kansier:
The St. Paul District, Corp of Engineers has received an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet from the City of Prior Lake for the Ryan Contracting Company sand and gravel mine.
The study area is a 29 acre parcel in the N1I2 of Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 22
West, Scott County, Minnesota.
We have reviewed the wetland delineation included in the report and are providing a
preliminary determination that there are waters of the U.S. present on site. Pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps of Engineers has regulatory jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged and fill materials, including discharges associated with mechanical land
clearing, in all waters of the United States, which includes most wetlands.
If future project plans propose filling wetlands at this site, Ryan Contracting must submit
a completed permit application. It is recommended that the delineated wetland boundaries be
.surveyed and identified on any development plans prepared for this property.
Please note that work performed in waters of the United States, or the discharge of
dredged or fill material into wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit could subject
you to enforcement action. Receipt of a permit from a state or local agency does not obviate the
requirement for obtaining a Department of the Army permit.
If you have any questions, contact Mr. Bradley Johnson in our St. Paul office at (651)
290-5250. In any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory number shown
above.
~
Sincerely,
1?~
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copy Furnished:
Mr. Peter Beckius, Scott Soil and Water Conservation District
Mr. Tyler Enright, Ryan Contracting Company
Pri or
Lake
Spring
Lake
--
.-
WATERSHED DISTRICT
~
November 22, 2006
Ms. Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: EA W for Ryan Contracting Company Sand and Gravel Mine
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-referenced EA W. As you know, the Prior Lake-
Spring Lake Watershed District (pLSL WD) provided comments on the earlier EA W completed in
November 2000. Enclosed is a copy of those comments.
Since the time of those comments, Ryan Contracting has applied for a permit from the PLSL WD for
the gravel mining operation. That permit application is currently incomplete pending the outcome of
the environmental review process and the provision of additional information by Ryan Contracting
Company. The enclosed letter details the items that are outstanding for the PLSLWD permit
application.
Because the project involves a proposed drainage alteration of approximately 4.05 acres, the
applicant will need to demonstrate that the provisions of the PLSLWD's drainage alteration rule have
been met (Rule I, attached). Concerns about the potential impacts of a drainage alteration were
identified in item 3c of the comment letter the PLSL WD sent for the earlier EA W. . The current EA W
does not include sufficient detail to determine if these concerns have been adequately addressed.
Review of the proposed drainage alteration will be a component of the PLSL WD's permitting
process.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this EA W. If you have any questions about these
comments or the enclosed documents, Jim Eggep. or me at (952) 447-4166.
Ztl~
Shannon M. Lotthammer
District Administrator
CC: Board of Managers
Ed Matthiesen, District Engineer
Enclosures
(952) 447-4166 · Fax (952) 447-4167 · 15815 Franklin Trail S.E. · Prior Lake, MN 55372
www.plslwd.org · info@plslwd.org
(612) 447-4166.
Fax 447-4167
. PRIOR LAKE - SPRING LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT
. CitY' of Prior lake '..
Attn: . Jane Kalisier .
: 16200 Eagle .Greek Avenue SE.
Prior L8k~ MN 55372 .
December 19,2000'.. .
. "". .
Dear Ms' KariSier:' .
.' ..... /
.',
. ". .." .... "" ." . . ". '. ." -
'I have.rev.~ thE!"EAW for the,Ryan eontraCti~Co, S~ and~ravel Mine aO,d offer~e foUoNing . '. '.
commelitifon~ ,of the District. UntiI.'such time as these' ftemsare add~~ District"s position is .
thattheEAW'i~ootcanpletej,and.'t!le.~a1im~?furtherlnv~on. .... ' .
1; . On ~4' item #8 the.YVate~DiStrict'should a1so.t)e'listedas'~ local unit of ~enVnentfrprri .
whiCha'pemit'i$neectect.: 'The prc)poSedmine.is located in the Watershed District and theadivity will
meet the'defiilition Of a Land Disturbing ActiVity underthe new rules currently being" consid~ by the' .
Distri~. . The proposed activity will therefore ha\(e to obtain a permit and meet t;>istrict ruleS. .
,~. On,paQe 8 item 1'3~~.sent~is cOnfusing~' Th~ ~t that "water may bea\(ail~~ein
such a pond only it!teimi:tter1tly8$ the sectm,entation pond \\OOld not extend tothe'Yiater table" does'
, .notmake sense. A sedimentatiOn porld' needS to haveapEmlanent poplofwaterto effectively. settle
. . . partiCles.'ooes thesbit.ementimply that.the sedi~. pOnd is intet'!ded to be a drY. pond that . . .
'. oni}; fills dunng .wetweather~ If that is the case, .It will oat 'provide the~ry level of water' quality .
treatment,::8nd will'nOt meet the DfStricrs, nod bellENe, the CitYs rules for WetlNURP pOnds. Forthe "
p~ p.qedWhat is the:Wet pcjrid "oI~~gn arid hO>.v is, it guaranteed to exiSt? . .
3. . O~page ~ ltem13lhavesevera. ~nt$'listedseparm~ beI~. ,.: .,'. . '.
. a.. Ancippro.vec:terosian cootrol plan and permitl$ required from ~ pistrict., " .: '.' ' .... ..
b. .Neither steep S1~.or highly ~iblesoilsare .~dentifjed~the 'maps Orpiana attached to this. .
dOCUment.',.,.:.'. .... .... '.: '.~....'., ". . .... ":'. . ,..'. "".. '. ..',..
c~ $tniIw!hay bailsareunstJltable ~,IOng;-teim eri>sicincOntroltechnologies.such as the 1 ().:year ,.
t~.Oflhisprqea (hay .bt:ils'are.Only 'suitSble forSf:!ller8J weeks). VVherethese Elre'ir1t~ for'
.use;pn:M~'f~~:eroSiOneontrolm~Stbe~$pecified.: ," ' 'C' '.' '. c'. ,
d: '~duty silt f~Js unsuitable as a .0000errn'erosion~ technology, f;K.Ich 'as. the' 1 O-year
.'. termd this 'project: \tvhere.'theseare i1itended for use, provisiOns for.lot!g-term .eroSion cOntrol
. muStbespecffled.::",:: .'. '.' d....... ..' ."'. .... ".', ".:"
e.. The ~ Of doUbk!. rows Or heaVy dUty. silt fence on the upstream Side of the sedimeritation .
baSin IOuOdear., ,.~.' '.. ,', .", ' ..' " . ': . . ". ';.
'. , f.'T1le eXisting:t()pog~ of.the .site,~ t~!t slopes ~ in'all~~()Ils,and ~mably' .
surfaCe drainage.fdlciwsaSimRaff)attem.Howeve(,the,proposed s1tegtading directsaR. . , . . .
drail19t~'~\Nest"Q1is in~eCtchanges thedl1linage divide a~ will, Jikefy ~ ~itional', '.
runoff to the immedi~ ~ingWater: the unnamecf creek. No analysis is included regarding . .
the impacts of thi$ di\tersion antJaddltional runoff on the creek, particulartyerosiOi'l anddowrr' .
ci.rttingalong.~ steep.f1aw ~down the bluff The District is nOt incrmect to permit.drainage. .
divide altetationsofthis magnifuc:fe unless the impacts are mmg8ted arid the 'affeCtedl8cJjoining
property oiNners understand arlci agree to the change. . . .
1667.ouFRANKLlN TRAIL S,E. ~,SLJiTE11-0 · 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 forming 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 foming gullies.
4. On page 9 item #17. See aboIIe notes regarding drainage diversions and additional surface water
runoff convnents below.
a. An approved Stormwater Management Plan and permit is required from the Distrid.
b. Sedimentation pond sizing infonnation was not included and it is unclear whether the proposed
pond will meet Distrid 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 runoffwiR be managed. District. and I believe City, regulations require no
increase in peak runoff rates from existing conditions.
Sincerely,
.--~ ;J~
Paul Nelson
Distrid Administrator
Cc: File
Board d Managers
Prior
Lake
Spring
Lake
FILE
-
--
WATERSHED DISTRICT
March 6, 2006
Mr. Tyler Enright
Ryan Contracting
8700 13th Avenue East
Shakopee,~ 55379
RE: Ryan Contracting Mining Operation (McKenna Gravel); Application #05.23
Dear Mr. Enright:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the status of the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District
(pLSL WD) review of the above-referenced permit application. The PLSL WD received the initial
permit application on November 29, 2005. On December 5, 2005, the PLSL WD notified you that
your application was incomplete, and identified the additional items needed to complete your
application.
Since that time, we have .met with you and received additional information. However, Jim Eggen's
letter to you of February 22,2006, identifies the information that is still required to complete your
application. At this time, application #05.23 remains incomplete.
If you are interested in setting up a meeting to discuss your application, please contact Jim Eggen or
me to discuss a date and time. I have checked with Jim and our engineer Ed Matthiesen, and some
datesltimes that could work for us this week are any time on Tuesday (March 7), Wednesday morning
(before 10 a.m., preferred meeting date), or early on Friday.
Thank you for your continued efforts to submit the information necessary for a complete application
to the Watershed District. I look forward to meeting with you to talk: through the remaining
information needs and questions. In the meantime, if you have any questions about the District's
review process or related issues, please contact me at (952) 447-4166 or slotthammer@plslwd.org.
Sincerely,
c;(L ~
Shannon M. Lotthammer
District Administrator
(952) 447-4166 · Fax (952) 447-4167 · 15815 Franklin Trail S.E. · Prior Lake, MN 55372
www.plslwd.org · info@plslwd.org
Page 2 of3
RYJ& at Ii""",
~~
From: Jim Eggen [mailto:jeggen@plslwd.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22,20069:51 AM
To: Tyler Enright
Subject: McKenna Gravel
Tyler -
Here are the comments, largely from our engineer.
I have a meeting to attend and may have a few more notes later. If I do I will forward them to you within the day.
The application remains inadequate at this time with these outstanding questions.
McKenna Gravel, Application #05.23, Outstanding Issues:
Erosion Control:.
1. The legends on the drawings do not identify all of the erosion control BMPs (e.g., silt fence, diversion berm,
erosion matting) Applicant needs to provide complete legend references.
2. Provide interim and fmal vegetative stabilization plans. The description provided by the applicant does not
address interim vegetative stabilization that would describe the vegetation as the site is lowered.
3. The description (item 22 in the latest submittal) of how surface flows and drainage will be handled during
operation did not include a description of how construction of the stormwater pond would be sequenced with
the mining operation. It is not clear how the pond (located at the low point in the pit) can be constructed prior
to mining being initiated and if/how drainage from the pit will occur prior to construction of the outflow ditch
(and pond) as shown on Sheet 4.
4. Additional information needs to be provided regarding how maintenance of the stormwater pond will be
guaranteed following completion of the mining operation. How will landowner responsibility be guaranteed?
Given our limited knowledge of the ownership of the land and mining rights, it would be good to include that
information as it is planned both during Ryan's mining and after the mining is done and Ryan is gone from the
site.
Hydrology and hydraulics:
1. Subwatershed B post-development would not be as shown on Figure 6 unless the diversion berm were
extended further north to prevent the northernmost drainage from entering the pit. Also the berm is not high
enough to contain the drainage at the lowest point (902' contour at the east side). The top of the berm should
be at least at elevation 905' .
2. No detailed model calculations/output, assumptions made in modeling existing and proposed conditions, etc.
were provided to support the hydraulic impacts summary provided in Table 1 of the submittal.
3. No units of measure are provided in Table 1.
4. The summaries of Proposed Conditions (ditch) and Proposed Conditions (sedimentation pond) are confusing.
It is not clear what model routing was used. Outflows from the ditch are higher than those from the pond
(which presumably outlets to the ditch). Provide a routing diagram. and detailed calculations for the hydraulic
modeling.
5. Ensure the riprap strip at outlet has a diffused flow rather than concentrated.
6. Show details of pond outlet on drawings. The detail for the 'skimmer structure' on Sheet 4 does not clearly
show the intended flow direction with respect to the structure. Height, width or length, etc dimensions should
be shown Also, the plan references are to a 'pond outlet structure (see detail)' but the detail is called 'skimmer
structure.' This inconsistency should also be corrected.
Wetlands:
The 30' wide buffer around existing wetland at the southwest of the mining area is not shown on Sheet 2 (mining
plan). Placement of wetland buffer signs are not specifically indicated on the plans. A detail of the sign to be use
could be provided or a note could be added to indicate that PLSL WD's sign or the City's sign will be used (either
is OK with PLSL WD).
2/28/2006
Page 3 of3
Waler Quality. Infiltration & Rate Control:
, 1. Specify use of biorolls around infiltration basins. Show in drawings how applicant will ensure that water
is routed to infiltration basins for infiltration.
2. A vegetation plan should be provided to show how vegetation will be utilized to ensure that the pores of
the infiltration basins will remain open over time. That is, establishment and maintenance of suitable
vegetation for stability, deep root penetration and good evapotranspiration.
3. No details are provided for infiltration basin construction - only the plan note on Sheet 4. There is no
evidence to support the assumed 0.15 in/hr infiltration rate assumed in the calculations in Table 2
submitted by the applicant. Detailed calculations and construction plans for the infiltration basins need to
be provided.
Other Comments
1. The application indicates that topsoil will be saved/stockpiled at the northern edge of the property, but
the plan shows the northern edge of the pit extending very close to the edge of the property - within
insufficient room for stockpiling topsoil. The applicant needs to clarify how stockpiling for
reclamation will accomplished.
2. The copy of the City of Prior Lake Conditional Use Permit was not included in the most recent
submittal from the applicant. Please provide that or a note on the current status of that permit.
3. The explanation of how the small existing stockpile will be addressed (item 18 in the most recent
submittal) is unclear.
Jim Eggen, District Technician
Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District
15815 Franklin Trail SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
952-447-4166, fax-952-447-4167, cell 612-986-4993
ieggen@plslwd.org
2/28/2006
(d) As a condition to the approval of a permit under this Rule H, the District
may require the applicant and owner to enter into a compliance agreement with the
District.
RULE I - DRAINAGE ALTERATIONS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the managers that surface water may be drained
only in a manner which does not unreasonably burden upstream or downstream land.
2. REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall artificially drain
surface water, nor obstruct or redirect the natural flow of runoff, so as to affect a drainage
system established under Minnesota Statutes, chapter l03E, or the public health and
general welfare of the District, without first obtaining a permit from the District.
3. CRITERIA. The applicant for a drainage alteration shall:
(a) Describe the overall environmental impact of the proposed drainage
alteration and demonstrate that:
(i) There is a reasonable necessity for such drainage alteration;
(ii) Reasonable care has been taken to avoid unnecessary injury to
upstream and downstream land;
(Hi) The utility or benefit accruing to the land on which the drainage will
be altered reasonably outweighs the gravity of the harm resulting to the land
receiving the burden; and
(iv) The drainage alteration is being accomplished by reasonably
improving and aiding the normal and natural system of drainage according to its
reasonable carrying capacity, or in the absence of a practicable natural drain, a
reasonable and feasible artificial drainage system is being adopted.
(b) Provide a hydraulic design which complies with Rules F and G, and if
the alteration involves a landlocked basin, the alteration must comply with Rule
D3(t) for outlets from landlocked basins.
(c) Provide a stable channel and outfall.
Adopted 8/12/03
27
(d) Obtain a permit under Rules D and E if the drainage alteration is part of
a land disturbing activity or a development or redevelopment of land.
4. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the permit application
(one set full size, and two sets reduced to a maximum size of 11" x 17"):
(a) Map showing location of proposed alteration and tributary area.
(b) Existing and proposed cross sections and profile of affected drainage
area.
(c) Description of bridges or culverts required.
(d) Narrative and calculations verifying compliance with Paragraph 3(a) and
3(b) above.
5. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) No permit shall be required under this Rule for the alteration of drainage
in connection with the use of land for agricultural activities.
(b) The managers may waive the requirement of Paragraph 4( d) above if the
applicant submits easements or other documentation in form acceptable to the District
evidencing the consent of the owner of any burdened land to the proposed alteration.
Such easements or other documentation shall be filed for record and evidence thereof
submitted to the District.
(c) All drainage alterations not required by this Rule to obtain a permit shall
nevertheless be conducted in full compliance with Rule C.
RULE J - BUFFER STRIPS
1. POLICY: Natural vegetation around watercourses and wetlands is integral to
maintaining the water quality and ecological functions these resources provide.
Vegetative buffers reduce the impact of surrounding development and land use on
watercourse and wetland functions by stabilizing soil to prevent erosion, filtering
sediment from runoff, and moderating water level fluctuations during storms. Buffers
provide essential habitat for wildlife. Requiring buffers recognizes that watercourse and
wetland quality and function are related to the surrounding upland.
2. DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this Rule J, unless the context otherwise
requires, the following words and terms shall have the meanings set forth below. Words
and terms not defined in this Rule shall have the meanings set forth in Rule A.
Adopted 8/12/03
28
NOV-20-2006 15:20
FRor.j . r1DH
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
,.. """^ t~.J. . w..,..-_I.I...... .......
9524474245
P.01
Prllrlerillg, Ht.lli,m,ini"lllIuJ intpr"uillg rh(lI)#lllzh ()f IIll Mi,,,,mll/l,/11
Environmental Health Division
Section of Drinking Water Protection
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
Fax Number: 651/201-4701
DATE:
/ I.- ~ o. () b
TO: '....rVl.-
g-jl~ ~4V~" L
.6~v
ADDRESS:
FAX NO:
tj $'..;) - LfLf-; - if-.) y,::;
FROM: ~ ev<~~-~
PHONE:_&S/~~O/-i~1?
Number of pages, ~ cover sheet:
.,.,
.5
REMARKS:
/j4A~.. ~ ~rJ
.;(-,-
n1-tJ~j7 .
If frallsltti.r,riotl is incompltte or il1egible_ pll!(,lSd ,-aU _"c?ndtr (.~""}Wlt aT "FROM" ahow!).
C;c"cl.~1 T"fnfIl'lAdan: (651) 201-5000 III TDD/TYY: (GSl) 20t-S797 · MiI\nCI/I':1 ll.eI:IY ~crvice: (ISOO) 627-3519 · w\l1W.hc:uth.q:Llo.rr&JI.Ut
flllr dirtt.\inn. \0 all)' "f tht MDB loc.uiCllu, c.'lll (ftS 1) 101-5000 · An C'1j1.L:U (J~'pou"llh~' ",n\o'Ju,..r
November 20, 2006
~~@\H\!J~~
.U\, NO'! t 7 2006 ~
Ms. Jane Kansier
Planning Director
City of Prior Lake
17073 Adelmann Street
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
By ----===--
.::::;
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Ryan Contracting Company Sand and Gravel Mine
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) prepared for a sand and
gravel mining operation proposed in Prior Lake, Minnesota, by Ryan Contracting Company.
The proposed site is in the southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22, on
12.91 acres ofland. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) interest has to do with the
potential of the proposed activities to affect drinking water supplies. The nearest public drinking
water supply system to the proposed site is operated by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community (SMSC). The final and approved drinking water supply management area
(DWSMA) for that community's water supply includes part of the proposed mining site.
We recognize that the mining activities will involve the removal of unconsolidated materials, in
phases, down to a depth corresponding to 50 feet above the local water table. The removed
materials will be sorted and the fines will be stockpiled for use later in reclamation activities.
The vulnerability of the DWSMA for the McKenna well serving the SMSC is moderate, owing
largely to the thin veneer of fine-grained materials at or near the ground surface. Well and
boring logs (Unique Nos. 736389, 736390, 736391, and 2000 and 2002 borings) from drilling at
the site indicate that the fine-grained materials are typically present within 15-30 feet of the
ground surface. Below these shallow materials, sand and gravel is present down to the carbonate
bedrock (Prairie du Chien Group). As part of the mining activities, the shallow, fine-grained
materials will be temporarily removed. As a result, during the period of active mining, the open
pit will constitute an area of high or very high vulnerability within the DWSMA of the SMSC.
High and very high vulnerability areas exist in DWSMAs for many communities elsewhere in
Minnesota. Management of such areas to prevent groundwater contamination that may affect the
drinking water supply requires a broad-based effort. The EA W states that during mining
operations 1) no tanks will be used to store fuels on-site, 2) vehicle maintenance will be
perfonned in a mobile unit with wastes transported off-site, and 3) product washing operations
will be conducted at a different facility. These and other requirements of the City's conditional
use pennit will help to prevent contamination at the site, but will require consistent vigilance on
the part of the operator. Finally, contingency planning in the event of an emergency should be
coordinated with the SMSC and others in the community.
General Information: (651) 201-5000 . TDD/TTY: (651) 201-5797 . Minnesota Relay Service: (800) 627-3529 . www.health.state.mn.us
For directions to any of the MDH locations, call (651) 201-5000 . An equal opportunity employer
Ms. Jane Kansier
Page 2
November 20, 2006
The coarse nature of the materials being mined means that stormwater may infiltrate locally
during mining activities. Surface drainage from adjacent properties must be diverted away from
the mining area so that it does not infiltrate into the ground or directly enter groundwater in areas
where sand and gravel are exposed. Infiltration of stormwater in such areas represents a
potential source of contamination. Accordingly, MDH discourages the infiltration of stormwater
in a vulnerable DWSMA and within a one-year groundwater travel time to the well. This would
be a concern if the area is within the emergency response area for the SMSC well.
Regarding the final reclamation plan, it is not clear if the natural geologic protection that
currently exists can be restored. The lateral continuity of the fine-grained materials will be
disrupted during mining. Use of these materials during reclamation is an admirable goal but, as
so much volume will be lost due to the removal of the marketable materials, a large depression
will remain. Covering all of the bottom and the sides of the depression with the fine-grained
materials may help to limit the vulnerability of the site. However, such a result may also trap
stormwater within the basin, which could pose a problem for reasons already mentioned if
handled and disposed of improperly.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions about this
letter, please call me at 651-201-4648.
Sinc~~
Stephen W. Robertson, Hydrologist
Source Water Protection Unit
Environmental Health Division
P.O. Box 64975
St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0975
SWR:kmc
Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community
OFFICERS
Stanley R. Crooks
Chairman
Glynn A. Crooks
Vice Chairman
2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW - PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TRIBAL OFFICE: 952-445-8900 - FAX: 952-445-8906
Keith B, Anderson
Secrelary!Treasurer
~~N~V ~ 1I ~o~ ~
November 22, 2006
Jane Kansier, Planning Director
City of Prior Lake
17073 Adelmann Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
By
RE: Comments on Ryan Contracting Company Environmental Assessment
Worksheet
Dear Ms. Kansier,
Attached hereto and submitted for filing, please find the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community's Comments on the Ryan Contracting Company Environmental Assessment
Worksheet. I am formally requesting a copy of the record of decision.
If your have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Tribal Administrator Bill
Rudnicki at 952.496.6145 or Land Manager Stan Ellison at 952.496.6158.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
General Comments
The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) update presented for the
City of Prior Lake's consideration was addressing changes in the character of the
neighborhood surrounding the proposed gravel mine. As presented, the EA W fails in this
purpose. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community ("the Community") continues to
oppose Ryan Contracting's proposed mining activities. The project presents a true threat to
the Community's public drinking water supply and the peace and tranquility of residents
living in nearby Community subdivisions. Changes in the project since the original 2000
proposal have heightened these concerns. As a sovereign governmental entity with
governmental responsibility to its Members, the Community will continue to oppose this
project as presented.
As presented, this 2006 EA W is nearly identical to the 2000 EA W. Comments supplied in
2000 by the Community, Prior-Lake Spring Lake Watershed District, City of Shakopee,
Scott County, Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Peterson Environmental Consulting do not
appear to have been reviewed in the preparation of this 2006 EA W. If not for new
development by the Community and non-Community entities adjacent to the proposed
mining area, the Community could well have submitted the identical comments. This
failure to review the original comments is counter to the legal requirements and policy basis
of the environmental review process.
Due to the failure to truly update the EA W, Community comments on the most recent draft
are similar to comments submitted in 2000 with the addition of new concerns related to
changes in the neighborhood character. The EA W is still insufficient to allow issuance of
any Conditional Use Permit (CUP). It continues to fail to address certain impacts on
adjoining landowners. 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 too much as fact without documentation. The EA W requires more in-
depth research, increased documentation, a higher level of data analysis and a complete
rewriting. As it stands, the 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.
The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act was established as procedure for review of
proposals to ensure the policy objectives of ''understanding the impact which a proposed
project will have on the environment." The City of Prior Lake lacks sufficient information
to provide the full-required evaluation of the potential for significant environmental effects.
Critically, it also appears that the project as now configured will violate State environmental
quality standards governing noise pollution. The potential for downstream damages related
to any release of silt and sediment is greatly increased due to the type and value of
improvements to the land.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
The EA W is also procedurally defective because it explicitly-an impermissibly-defers
analyses and mitigation of anticipated environmental impacts to future permitting
procedures.
Traffic Study Comments
The updated traffic analysis recognizes additional traffic generated by the Shepard's Path
development and the future signal at McKenna Road and County Road 42. However,
several points are raised 1) the degradation of McKenna Road is not addressed sufficiently
and this requires a commitment by Ryan to repair to City standards and 2) 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 EA W traffic analysis to
require further analysis.
Increased activity in the area and the Shepard of the Lakes plans for future development that
will cause significant traffic increases. This will create a more dangerous situation on
McKenna Road. A major deficiency of the traffic study is that it treats dump trucks as just
another ''vehicle trip" that will be lost in the thousands of trips through the area each day. In
reality, it is the infusion of heavy construction equipment into an increasingly busy
passenger vehicle flow that creates the potential for accidents and injuries. The Traffic
Study should be revised to address specific impacts derived from the traffic mix. The
traffic study also failed to mention, let alone address, the noise impact related to loaded
trucks hauling gravel through residential neighborhoods in the early morning and evening
hours.
Section Comments
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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 EA W purposes. The reason Section 6 d is included in
an EA W is specifically to have these types of possibilities addressed up front and
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
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.
This section requires the listing of all known local, state, and federal permits and
approvals (emphasis added). An NPDES permit from the MPCA is listed as
required. The immediate downstream receiving water is located on Community
trust land. This land is under the jurisdiction of the Community and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EP A). The Community stormwater
management system is operated under a federally issued MS4 NPDES permit. Any
NPDES permit granted by the MPCA that may affect, or significantly impact, the
water quality of any tribal water or impact the Community MS4 NPDES permit
limits will require approval of the EP A prior to issuance of the permit. A federal
NPDES construction site permit may be required. There was no analysis of
Community ordinances or regulations regarding stormwater management or
construction site controls. Even though the proposed site lies within the jurisdiction
of the City of Prior Lake, it is immediately adjacent to and upstream from
Community lands. Community regulation should have, at a minimum, been
reviewed for potential complications.
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 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 and approvals are issued.
Section 9. Land Use, paragraph 3
The EA W completely avoids the issue of Community residential areas lying
immediately adjacent to the proposed project. The East Village subdivision is
located directly north of the proposed mining project and is currently occupied, not
planned at the EA W asserts. Some residences are within 100 feet of the proposed
mining area. In addition, the EA W again avoids identifying the Community
residential area west of the project. The preparer used 1994 and 1997 aerial photos
indicating that there were some additional building sites west of McKenna Road.
This area is indicated as a ''wooded area" in the EA W, Section 9, paragraph 2.
While it may be wooded, it is a fully developed residential subdivision. This same
comment was provided in 2000 and yet was not considered in the updated EA W.
On the ground verification would have revealed that this area is fully developed
with residential housing. In fact, a review of widely available 2000, 2003 and 2005
aerial photography would have indicated the development status of this area and
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
would also have clearly shown the status of the East Village Subdivision. Failure to
even review publicly available aerial photography indicates the update was neither
complete nor serious.
Section 10. Cover Types.
The wooded cover type is being reduced from 8.5 to 6 acres. This 2.5 acre
reduction is considered minimal in the EA W. It is, however, a nearly 30% reduction
in wooded area. This is being replaced with impervious surface and cropland. This
is a significant alteration of the 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, if ever.
Section 12. Physical impacts to water resources.
Because the gravel operation by 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 in the amount of runoff cannot be
ascertained. The site map does show riprap 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 EA W does not provide any design parameters for the erosion and sedimentation
controls. It was not possible for the Community contracted engineering firm to
evaluate the system based on the materials in the EA W. In Section 16 the system is
stated to be "designed for a 10-year, 24 hour storm event". The EA W does not
define this parameter to any greater extent. At a minimum, 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 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 Community and the EP A. Potential impacts to these waters
cannot be ignored simply because they are not waters of the state. This same
comment was provided in 2000 and yet was not considered for the updated EA W.
The quantity and quality of waters leaving the mining site is extremely relevant to
the Community downstream storm water conveyance system.
Without actual runoff data to interpret, the Community cannot adequately analyze
the impact on the East Village system, the Prior Lake Channel improvement, or its
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
impact on the Community's MOD with the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed
district pledging no more than 0.5 cfs from the Community to the Prior Lake
Channel through the East Village System.
Additionally, the EA W fails to address the East Village Subdivision System. The
system incorporates unique features to handle stonn water runoff and minimize
impacts on the regional drainage system. In accordance with Community law, the
system was designed to replicate natural conditions as nearly as possible. This
required the use of extensive bio-remediation areas and infiltration systems. The
design involves the placement of engineered impoundments, specially engineered
soils, drain tile and extensive plantings of various water tolerant and upland grass,
tree and shrub species. The system is designed to allow stonn water to infiltrate into
the subsurface rather than run off as surface water. The design also incorporates
overflow areas with special plantings to hold and absorb stonn water during storm
events. The system has worked as designed since its construction.
This East Village stonnwater management system is also part of an overall regional
approach to stonnwater management. The Community is participating in negation
of an agreement among the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District, the Cities of
Prior Lake and Shakopee and the Community to address their overall stonnwater
management issues. The Community committed to a low discharge into the Prior
Lake Drainage channel as part of this agreement. The East Village system is part of
the Community approach to reducing overall discharges. Although the system may
be able to manage the increased flow, the introduction of silt or sediment from an
upstream source will damage or destroy much of the system. The impact on the
East Village System and the regional drainage system should be addressed in the
EAW.
Section 13. Water use
The 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. In
addition, no mention whether or not vehicle washing will be occurring at the site. If
the water for these processes is purchased from the landowners 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 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
value. This same comment was provided in 2000 and yet was not considered for the
updated EA W.
Section 16. Erosion and Sedimentation.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
This section does not give enough information to evaluate the effectiveness of the
designed system. It does not state whether the 100year, 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 Professional Engineer was used to design the system. This does not,
however, allow the EA W to simply state that the system is good enough without
providing any data for others to evaluate. This same comment was provided in
2000 and yet was not considered for the updated EA W.
In addition, a potential source of contamination is vehicle tracking of sediment on to
the road. No mention of sedimentation control measures from this likely source is
provided. Without disclosure, it is difficult to determine actual impacts. It is
relevant to know whether or not external washing of trucks and other construction
vehicles will be occurring at the site. Again, the quantity and quality of waters
leaving the mining site is extremely relevant to the Community downstream storm
water conveyance system.
As noted above, the EA W does not address the East Village System. Erosion and
sedimentation will have a major negative impact on the East Village System. The
storm water system was carefully calibrated and any significant release of silt or
other sediment from open areas of the gravel mine would negatively impact the
storm water management system. Silt and sediment-laden runoff from the gravel
mine would, in fact, ruin the engineering and require the Community to remove and
replace the soils and plantings. This is a potentially significant environmental
impact that should be addressed in the EA W.
Section 17. Water Quality; Surface Water Runoff
17 a. Water Quality. This section does not discuss water quality. It simply states
that the runoff will increase. It does not address existing quality nor how the
increased runoff will impact the future quality. The 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. This same comment was provided in
2000 and yet was not considered for the updated EA W.
A potential source of stormwater contamination not considered at the site is vehicle
tracking of sediment on to the road and fuel leakage. As stated earlier, the quantity
and quality of waters leaving the mining site is extremely relevant to the
Community downstream storm water conveyance system.
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
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
provide any actual data on runoff to allow evaluation of the impacts. Without runoff
numbers it is difficult to detennine the impact to receiving water bodies. The EA W
is completely insufficient in this section. There should be an analysis of the
drainage system and modeling of the runoff potential. A complete stonnwater
pollution prevention plan must be prepared and reviewed prior to any CUP issuance.
This same comment was provided in 2000 and yet was not considered for the
updated EA W.
Section 18. Water Quality: Wastewater
This section identifies sanitary waste from workers or employees from independent
trucking companies and makes the statement "no other waste water will be
generated." This statement requires additional support because the EA W does not
explicitly state that this analysis is based on prohibiting any vehicle or gravel
washing operations at the site. As with the groundwater issue discussed above, the
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. This same comment was
provided in 2000 and yet was not considered for the updated EA W.
Section 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions
Part a: Several areas in this section require comment. The comments are addressed
below by paragraph number. The nature of the comments is similar to those
provided by the Community in 2000 that were not addressed in the updated EA W.
The general intent of this section of the EA W is to present geologic hazards. This
requires site-specific analysis of all data available, not a cursory review of dated
countywide level data. The misapplication of regional data to site specific analysis
indicates the superficial and cursory level of evaluation in the EA W.
Paragraph 1.
It is simply inappropriate to say that no karst exists when the Prairie du Chien Group
has been defined by the Minnesota Geological Survey and Minnesota Department of
Health as a karst aquifer. A Community well log less 0.5 miles away indicates
fractured limestone. See Hvdraulic Properties of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan
Aquifer. ShakoDee. Mdewakanton Sioux Community. Southeastern Minnesota.
1997, United States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-
4183. Only three wells penetrate the Prairie du Chien near on the proposed site.
One of them indicates probably karst features in the Prairie du Chien Group. This is
not enough data to draw the conclusion of a lack of karst and, in fact, is more likely
an indication of the presence of karst features.
Paragraph 2.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
Geographic Atlas of Scott County, Minnesota (the Atlas) 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. The Atlas 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 and the Minnesota
Geological Survey. None of these 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 EA W.
There is a high probability of potential contamination related to any release during
or after the mining operation. Removal of the upper layers ofless penneable soil
and clays may open a conduit for contamination via more penneable sands and
gravel. The well log for the Community 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
EAW.
The potential for long-tenn contamination was not addressed at all. The stated mine
life for the project is four 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 EA W.
Paragraphs 3 and 4.
The EA W states that the aquifer is not susceptible. Earlier in the EA W, however, it
is stated that 'less penneable' material is discontinuous across the site, reducing the
number of wetlands on the site. The three well logs show less penneable materials
only exist at depths ofless than 25 feet, and bore holes indicate clayey sand at
depths ofless than 30 feet. Per the sand and gravel mining operation proposed, the
site will be excavated to a depth of up to 50 feet. All 'less penneable' materials will
be removed, leaving the aquifer quite vulnerable.
Paragraph 5.
The groundwater susceptibility map provided as Attachment E appears to be taken
from the Scott County Groundwater Susceptibility map. This map was made at a
scale inappropriate for use at the site level, and is unable to predict the vulnerability
of the aquifer at the site. Any conclusion based on Attachment E is therefore
unsupported. There is additional public information available from federal, tribal
and state agencies to help illuminate these issues.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
Paragraph 6
Well over 100 residences are served by the McKenna well, with the addition of East
Village, not 50 residences as the EA W claims. It should be noted that the McKenna
well is the sole permanent water supply source for these residences. The back up
well is in the same aquifer as the McKenna well, and insufficient for long-tenn use.
Any contamination impacting the McKenna well will also impact the back up well.
Paragraph 7
The EA W incorrectly states that the Community has a draft Drinking Water Supply
Management Area (DWSMA). The Community Wellhead Protection Plan was
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota
Department of Health in 2002, after public review by local governments and
residents. The DWSMA defined in this plan intersects with the proposed gravel pit
site. The City of Prior Lake has been an active participant in the development of the
Community Wellhead Protection Plan and its updates. It is disingenuous that the
draft version of the DWSMA was analyzed in the EA W, when the City has a copy
of the approved plan. In accordance with Minnesota Department of Health
guidelines, the Community DWSMA is being adjusted to reflect new geologic data.
The revision of the DWSMA will include over half of the gravel pit site.
Paragraph 8
Potential risks to groundwater resources have not been adequately assessed because
all reasonably accessible information has not been reviewed. Countywide maps and
atlases were never intended to supply site-specific information, and cannot be the
basis for drawing a conclusion that groundwater impacts are avoided or minimized.
Again, it should be emphasized that the McKenna well is the sole permanent water
supply for over 100 Community residences, and the mining site falls within the
well's DWSMA. The proposed mining site will remove less penneable material,
leaving the aquifer, which supplies the well, more vulnerable. By not reviewing
adequate information or not supplying all pertinent information in the EA W, the
Community cannot fully assess the impacts the mining operation will have nor
accept that the proposer will ensure that the aquifer is protected. This is especially
evident when the proposer has had over five years to review readily accessible
relevant documents, but has chosen to submit a nearly identical EA W to the one
submitted in 2000.
Part b: There are several areas in this section that require comment. They are
addressed below by paragraph number.
Paragraph 3.
This paragraph correctly states that the vertical penneability, thus the potential for
contamination, is greater in sandy materials. The paragraph fails to make the
connection between the exposed sand and gravel and the nearby water wells.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
Paragraph 4.
Mitigative measures are discussed in general. The EA W should state specific
mitigative measures contained in the proposed operation. If no 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. Each 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
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
surface when not in operation. The EA W suggests that this will only be done to the
extent possible. 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 EA W states that there will be no storage tanks on the site. If refueling of
vehicles is to be done on-site, 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.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
Section 24. Odors, noise and dust
The nearest residences are NOT the property owners who lease to Ryan, 250 ft away
from the mining area. In reality, the nearest occupied residences are those in East
Village. The mining operation abuts the property line between the lessees and the
Community. This places the nearest residences less than 100 feet from the mining
operation. Also not listed are Community residential areas west of McKenna
Roads.
The original and revised EA W forecasts that the project would generate noise in the
range of 50 dBA to 80 dBA. EA W at 24. The EA W states that such levels are
within state standards for mining equipment. This analysis is incomplete. MPCA
noise regulations not only place limits on equipment, Minn. R. Ch, 7030, but also on
the allowable limits for "noise area classifications." The current noise levels in this
area are very low. In 2004, a location adjacent to the Ryan mine was measured at 38
dBA 1. 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 too early for this type of operation,
especially when coupled with the close proximity of the residential areas.
The noise classification for residential areas is "1," prohibiting noise above 60 dBA
more than 50% of the time for a one hour survey (Lso), and noise above 65 dBA
more than 10% of the time for a one hour survey (LlO). Minn. R. 7030.0020.
Although it acknowledges that the project will generate noise substantially in excess
of these levels, it contains no analysis of whether these standards are likely to be
exceeded at the receiver, the relevant benchmark. Moreover, the project as
proposed will begin operations at 6:00 a.m. on weekdays. The hour between 6:00
a.m. to 7:00 a.m. is considered "night" under relevant regulations, and subject to
limits of 50 dBA (Lso) and 55 dBA (LlO). Finally, Ryan proposes to excavate the
same amount of gravel in four years rather then ten. EA W at 6b. This more-than-
doubling of mining intensity substantially increases the likelihood that Lso and LlO
limits will be exceeded.
Furthennore, it is unlikely, as the EA W suggests, that the dust can be confined to the
project area. Introduction of dust and airborne fine sand and silt into nearby
residential areas carry potential high impacts. Adults and children living in these
areas that have anyone of a number of respiratory ailments such as asthma will be
severely impacted. These health risks were not even listed in the EA W let alone
analyzed.
I County State Aid Highway 21 Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Table 6-7 Noise Monitoring and
Modeling Results.
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
While the leasors are being compensated for the disturbances due to noise and dust,
other residents, including those living closer to the site, will be negatively affected
by the noise and dust generated by the mining operation without mitigation or
compensation. Four years is a significant amount time to have all daylight hours of
six days a week of a mining season occupied with the constant noise of a mining
operation. Doubtless, this will be a significant impact to Community residents.
In addition to impacts to residents, the cultural use by Community members
utilizing the natural area adjacent to the proposed mining project will also be
impacted. This forest, identified in the 2000 Community Land Use Plan not
reviewed for the preparation of the EA W, clearly identified this as a natural area that
is used by Community members for hunting, gathering, recreation, and spiritual use.
Some of these activities are sound-sensitive and will certainly be impacted by a 50
to 80 dBA noise level.
The project cannot go forward if it will violate state noise standards. Minn. Public
Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod and Gun Club, 257 N.W.2d 762 (Minn.
Jut. 22, 1977) (noise levels of 65-70 dBA merited denial of permit). As described,
the project clearly has the potential for significant environmental impacts and an EIS
should be ordered.
Section 25. Nearby Resources.
The area surrounding the proposed mining site contains several sites of reported
archeological artifacts. Sites 21 SC-BIAFN-l, -3, -4, and -5 all lie in the Northwest
Quarter of Section 22. These sites were not located until the BIA and Community
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.
Also, the nearby Maple-Basswood forest, just north of the proposed mining area, is
a natural and cultural resource used by Community members for hunting, gathering,
recreation, and spiritual use. This natural area and its use is clearly identified in the
2000 Community Land Use Plan. The Community received no request for land use
information for the preparation of the EA W.
Section 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations.
The proposed use is not fully compliant with City of Prior Lake planning. The site
is proposed to be first restored to agricultural land use. 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 good fit for this use. Mining
Comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Ryan Construction Company EA W
11/22/2006
with restoration to 3: 1 slopes and an approximate 50 elevation difference will make
this ultimate use much more difficult.
The section requires the EA W to address the compatibility with "local, regional,
state or federal" agencies. The Community is a federal entity holding land
immediately adjacent to the north and close by to the west. The EA W does not
discuss any relationship between the proposed project and any planned use or land
use regulation of the Community. This alone makes the draft EA W insufficient and
requires a revision.
The Community has existing residential parcels located, in some cases less than 100
feet, to the north and west. Four years of active mining from before sunrise to early
evening will be a significant impact on Community residents. The mining operation
proposed and the surrounding residential land use are completely incompatible.
Also, the nearby Maple-Basswood forest, just north of the proposed mining area is a
natural and cultural resource used by Community members hunting, gathering,
recreation, and spiritual use. The land uses will be impacted by noise generated
form the proposed mining project. The Community received no request for land use
planning information. The Community 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.