HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 - McKenna Sand & Gravel Mine Operation
AGENDA NUMBER:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
BACKGROUND:
"CELEBRATE PRIOR LAKE'S CENTENNIAL - 1991"
4
HORST W. GRASER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 91-32 ON
METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE REVIEW FOR PROPOSED
MCKENNA SAND AND GRAVEL MINE OPERATION
JULY 15, 1991
Staff has prepared Resolution 91-32 at the
request of the Mdewakanton sioux Community to
petition the Metropolitan Council for a
Metropolitan Significance Review (MSR) of the
proposed McKenna Sand and Gravel Mine adjacent
to McKenna Road in the City of Shakopee.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Leonard
Prescott to Mayor Andren with this request.
The Cit~ Council is requested to adopt a
resolut1on which together with a Resolution
drafted by the Mdewakanton Sioux Community
would be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council
for consideration.
The proposed McKenna Sand and Gravel mining
operation has been in the review stage for
about five (5) months. Durin9 this time the
Shakopee Planning Commiss1on granted a
conditional s~ecial use ~ermit with one of the
conditions be1ng an Env1ronmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW).
Staff responded to the EAW notice with
comments contained in a letter dated May 23,
1991, from Horst Graser to Lindberg Ekola,
Shakopee City Planner, (attached).
The Mdewakanton sioux Community also responded
with comments which raised land use, traffic,
environmental, and quality of life issues of
the residents of the adjacent reservation
(attached). These two responses form the
basis for the Metropolitan Significance Review
request.
The purpose of the MSR is to assure that the
total effect of a proposed project alleged to
be of metropolitan significance is considered
and the orderly and economic development of
the area is promoted. Minnesota rules Chapter
5800.0010 outlines the MSR process. The MSR
process contains criteria which qualify a
project for MSR. This review is filed under
Subpart 4, Paragraph A, which reads as
follows:
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
DISCUSSION:
A. May have a substantial physical effect on
a local 90vernment unit other than the
local un1t in which the proposed project
is located. More specifically, a
proposed project may be of metropolitan
si~nificance if it adversely affects
eX1sting or proposed land use or
development in another local government
with respect to traffic, storm water
runoff, groundwater pollution, air or
noise pOllution, increased security needs
(police, fire) or other similar impacts.
Also the content of the resolution must
contain an arguable claim of metropolitan
significance. All claims must be defensible
by the local unit of government. There will
be a scoping session by the Metropolitan
Council to determine which issues raised are
legitimate for review. Only approved issues
will be allowed at a future Metropolitan
Council Public Hearing.
The Metropolitan Council plays the role of a
moderator in this process with the worst case
being a one year suspension of the project.
However, these reviews usually result in some
plan modification that is acceptable to all
parties. It is the opinion of Staff that the
sioux Community will not oppose the project if
plan modification and access changes are
made.
Prior Lake and the sioux Community need to
coordinate the presentation to the MSR
Committee. The issues are interelated since
the sioux are residents of Prior Lake but
chose to represent themselves in a land use
issue outside the reservation. To com~licate
matters, the Mdewakanton Sioux Commun1ty is
not a reco9nized government eligible for MSR
which requ1res Prior Lake to initiate the
review. Staff envisions this MSR to be a
joint presentation by Prior Lake and its
sponsor the Mdewakanton sioux Community,
rather that Prior Lake submitting in behalf of
the Mdewakanton Sioux Community. In effect,
we will defend the statements in our
Resolution and they will be responsible for
defending statements in their Resolution.
It is probable that the McKenna Sand and
Gravel operation will expand into Prior Lake
if successful in Shakopee. The review process
with realigned governments could repeat itself
in short order.
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDATION:
ACTION REQUIRED:
1.
2.
3.
Approve Resolution 91-32
Deny Resolution 91-32
Continue the item for
information.
additional
Alternative #1
Motion to approve Resolution 91-32 may be in
order.
RESOLUTION 91-32
RESOLUTION REQUESTING METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE REVIEW BY THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA STATUTE
473.173, AND MINNESOTA RULES CHAPTER 5800.0060 SUBPART 1,
SECTION B, OF THE MCKENNA SAND AND GRAVEL MINE WITHIN THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MOTION BY
SECONDED BY
WHEREAS, the City Council of Prior Lake was given notice on June
14, 1991, of a proposed sand and gravel m1n1ng operation
by McKenna Sand and Gravel Company consisting of forty
(40) acres located adjacent to and directly north and
east of McKenna Road and the City boundary of Prior
Lake; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Prior Lake has determined that in
accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 5800.0040
Subpart 3, section A, the sand and gravel mining
operation may have detrimental effects on the City of
Prior Lake and the Shakopee Mdewakanton sioux community
also in the City of Prior Lake and located directly
adjacent to and west of the proposed operation as
follows:
(a)
(b)
Land Use the mining operation will produce
substantial dust, noise, and visual pollution that
will compromise the quality of life currently
experienced by the Mdewakanton sioux Community,
negatively affect the character of the surrounding
residential and farming community, and 9reatly
reduce land use options for vacant land 1n the
area.
Traffic - the EAW has not adequately addressed the
affect the volume of traffic will have on area land
use, the problems resulting from assimilating mine
traffic with the ~redominately passenger traffic of
County Road 42, 1nternal mine traffic, regional
mine access, hours of operation, and noise
generated by accelerating trucks. Furthermore, the
EAW inadequately addresses truck and equipment
generated pollution such as dust and vehicle
related air contaminants and fails to provide
prudent design and access alternatives.
(c)
storm Water Management - there is a general lack of
specificity in the amount and management of storm
water.
(d) Reclamation Plan - the reclamation plan provides no
assurance that the work will be done in a timely
manner.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
PRIOR LAKE, that this Resolution be forwarded to the
Metropolitan council for review and consideration.
Passed and adopted this
day of
YES
, 1990.
NO
Andren
Fitzgerald
Larson
Scott
White
Andren
Fitzgerald
Larson
Scott
White
{Seal}
David J. Unmacht
City Manager
City of Prior Lake
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2330 Sioux Trail NW" Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372
Tribal Office (612) 445.8900
May 22, 1991
Honorable Lydia Andren
City of Prior Lake
4629 Dakota street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re:Proposed McKenna Gravel Mining Operation
Dear Mayor Andren:
As we recently discussed, the Shakopee Planning Commission has
before it an application by David McKenna for a conditional use
permit and mining permit to operate a gravel mine on an 80-acre
site in Shakopee on the east side of McKenna Road and north of
County Road 42. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community has
Reservation land which lies on the west side of McKenna Road,
across from the proposed gravel mining operation, and a number
of the members of our community have homes on this Reservation
land. The Community is opposed to the gravel operation because
of the anticipated gravel truck traffic, noise, dust and other
problems.
We are requesting the City of Shakopee to consider an ordinance
amendment to prohibi t such gravel mining operations in
residential districts. We also are requesting that the McKenna
project be referred to the Metropolitan Council for review. A
copy of my letter to the Shakopee Mayor and Council in this
regard is enclosed for your reference.
We hope you will support in these requests to the City of
Shakopee. We feel that this level of gravel truck traffic
through portions of Prior Lake will have a serious impact not
only upon the Reservation land, but upon Prior Lake and its
residents. We would like you to consider taking two steps with
regard to this proposed gravel mine:
Honorable Lydia Andren
City of Prior Lake
May 23, 1991
page 2
(1) write a letter to the Shakopee Mayor and Council making the
same requests set forth in my letter to them.
(2) Adopt a Council resolution under Minnesota Rules, section
5800.0060, Subpart 1B requesting the Metropolitan Council to
conduct a metropolitan significance review.
It is important that the request to the Metropolitan Council be
made as soon as possible, since the project would be exempt from
Metropolitan Council review once 30 days have elapsed after a
negative declaration on the environmental assessment worksheet.
In addition to the requests to the Metropolitan Council and the
City of Shakopee, we would like to talk with you further about
responding to the EAW for this project. We feel that comments
on the EAW should be made by the city of Prior Lake, and we
would be happy to coordinate those comments with the comments
made by our attorneys and engineers.
RespectfullY,;}
/\4J t ~.-P
~~onard Prescott,
Chairman
enc.
Honorable Lydia Andren
City of Prior Lake
May 23, 1991
page 2
(1) Write a letter to the Shakopee Mayor and Council making the
same requests set forth in my letter to them.
(2) Adopt a Council resolution under Minnesota Rules, section
5800.0060, Subpart IB requesting the Metropolitan Council to
conduct a metropolitan significance review.
It is important that the request to the Metropolitan Council be
made as soon as possible, since the project would be exempt from
Metropolitan Council review once 30 days have elapsed after a
negative declaration on the environmental assessment worksheet.
In addition to the requests to the Metropolitan Council and the
City of Shakopee, we would like to talk with you further about
responding to the EAW for this project. We feel that comments
on the EAW should be made by the City of Prior Lake, and we
would be happy to coordinate those comments with the comments
made by our attorneys and engineers.
~espectfullY'j}
r\'~J jK:~vfJ
~~onard Prescott,
Chairman
enc.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 7- 6-9' 9:09AM
6'24456906"
4474245:# ,
Proposed
RESOLUTION NUMBER 7-2-91-001B
APPROVE
Request Metropolitan Significance Review of proposed
Shakopee/McKenna Road Gravel Mining operation
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS
WHEREAS,
The General council of the Shakopee
Mdewakanton sioux Community is e1l\power.d by
the Constitution and By-laws with the
authority and responsibility for supervising
the business affairs of the Snakopee
Mdewakanton sioux co~unity, and
A proposal to develop a 9ravel mining operation
located on McKenna Road in the the City of Shakopee
has been submitted to the City of Shakopee, and
The proposed Shakopee/McKenna Road gravel mining
operation ia contiquOU8 with a portion of the
Mdewakanton Sioux community known aB Phase One
located in the City of Prior Lake, and
The proposed qravel mln1ng operation adversely
impacts a quiet low density residential area of the
Prior Lake and Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
communities, and
The proposed gravel mining operation may have a
substantial impaot on the use of the recreation and
open space facilities in the Shakopee Mdewakanton
sioux community, the City of Prior LaKe and other
communties in the southwest metro area which
includes, but. are not limited to, traffic, safety,
noise, Vi.8ual obstructions, impaired use of
facilities, or interferenoe with the operation and
maintenance of the facilities, and
WHEREAS
The proposed operation
resources, Which include,
the impact on the level,
area's water resources,
habitats, and
This operation may be the beginning ot other mining
operations in the Minnesota River Valley Bluff areas
south of the river,
may impact on natural
but are not 1 imi ted t.o,
tlow, or qualit.y ot the
wildlife populations and
WHEREAS
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The General council hereby
authorizes the Chairman to execute an Initiat.ion ot Review
r$quest for a metropolitan significance review of the proposed
mining operation in accordance with Minnesota statute 473.173,
part 5800.Q06~ subpart 1, section B, allowing an affected
qovernmental un1t to request the review.
CERTIFICATION
This Resolution was duly adopted by a majority of the Business
Council on this th day of July, 1991. with a vote
of __--- for~ against; abstentions. Said meet.ing was
held at the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux community Center.
Allene Roa.
Vice-Chairperson
Leonard Prescott
Chairman
Melvin camp~ell, Sr.
Secretary-Treasurer
- .. - .. ... .. ... . ... ... .. ... ... .. .. ... .. ... ... ... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. - .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... - ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... .. ... .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - - -
"CELEBRATE PRIOR LAKE'S CENTENNIAL - 1991"
May 23, 1991
Mr. Lindberg S. Ekola
city Planner
Shakopee City Hall
129 1st Avenue East
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: McKenna Sand and Gravel Mine, EAW comments.
Dear Mr. Ekola,
The city of Prior Lake has received the above referenced EAW and
has the following comments:
LAND USE:
Prior Lake's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1981 and the
Zonin9 Code implementing the plan in 1983. The areas adjacent to
the m1ne are designated as agricultural in the plan and zoned A-1
agricultural in the Zoning Ordinance. It is anticipated that
this will remain agricultural in the current comprehensive plan
update. Consequently Prior Lake's 2010 urban service area will
remain south of Co. Rd. 42.
It would appear that the mining operation will be concluded by
the time Prior Lake considers the land between Co. Rd. 42 and the
mining operation for the inclusion in urban services area. In
the event the mine is still in operation at such a time, Prior
Lake will seek mitigating measures to offset the negative impacts
of noise, truck traffic, fumes, dust and pollution of the urban
environment in areas adjacent to the mining operation. Prior
Lake does not want urban land use patterns and investment in
infrastructure to reflect the negative aspects of a gravel mining
operation.
Located adjacent to the west of the mining operation is the 160
acre Mdewakanton sioux Indian community consisting of 35
residential units. Eleven of the units are directly impacted by
the everyday operation of the mine because of the proximity to
the operation. Mitigating measures must be in place prior to the
start up of the mining operation.
LAND USE MITIGATING MEASURES:
1.) When the two quarter/quarter sections lying directly to
south of the mining operation are included in the Prior
urban service area, then all truck traffic related to
operation must cease from using all sections of McKenna
maintained and controlled by Prior Lake. In the event
the
Lake
the
Road
this
4629 Dakota St. SE. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-424~
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
occurs, all temporary access permits will be revoked.
2.) The planting plan on the berm facing the city limits of
Prior Lake must be designed by a registered landscape architect
and specifications on plant material must be included in the
plan. The plant material must make an immediate impact with the
following minimums:
a. )
b. )
c. )
Evergreens - 6' minimum
Deciduous - 2.5" caliper measured
Watering as required for first
planting.
12" above base
two years after
3.) To reduce the influence of noise and to provide some relief
from ubiquitous mining sounds emanating from the mine, the hours
of operation must be confined to the hours between 7:30 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. The operation shall be closed on all weekends and
holidays.
TRAFFIC:
Item 22 in the EAW suggests that peak ADT from the operation can
result in 200 trips, which is one truck trip ever~ 90 seconds
between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Normal activity 1S anticipated
to generate one truck trip every 11 minutes for the same period.
The ADT is dependent on the construction activities in the region
and length of the haul. Peak periods ma~ last from as little as
a few hours to several weeks. All traff1c volume is scheduled to
access the operation from Co. Rd. 42 via McKenna Road to the mine
access road. Prior Lake will not agree to take all the traffic
from the operation. The operation must be accessible from the
north utilizing McKenna Road and the northerly mine access.
The proposed volume of traffic from the mine as compared to Co.
Rd. 42 is relatively low. The current traffic on Co. Rd. 42 is
predominately passenger vehicles. The slow moving and
accelerating trucks will add an undesirable component to the ever
increasing volume of traffic on Co. Rd. 42.
The truck traffic from the mine to Co. Rd. 42 is the most visual
daily reminder of the operation. The traffic transforms a
tranquil low density rural environment to one out of human scale.
Mitigating measures must include all elements and conditions
which will comprise the residential character of the Mdewakanton
Community and the agricultural district.
TRAFFIC MITIGATING MEASURES:
1.) All truck traffic from the minin~ operation must be kept
from using the section of McKenna Road lY1ng between two access
points as shown on the EAW maps.
2.) The mine access road from the mine south to McKenna Road,
must be paved to prevent dust from deteriorating the residential
environment of the Mdewakanton sioux Community.
3.) The applicant must pay for any improvements to Co. Rd. 42 as
deemed appropriate by the City and County Engineers.
4.) Any sections of McKenna Road used by truck traffic from this
operation must be upgraded to a standard considered safe and
appropriate by the City Engineer of Prior Lake.
5.) A maintenance pro9ram for any sections of McKenna Road used
by the mining operat1on must be in place prior to the operation
and agreed to by the Prior Lake City Engineer.
6.) The applicant must submit to the Prior Lake City Engineer a
detailed plan on how internal site traffic is organized.
7.) Truck traffic must be allowed to use that portion of McKenna
Road north of the northerly access drive of the mine.
8.) All access points to McKenna Road in Prior Lake will re~ire
a driveway permit from the Cit~ En9ineer. The City Counc11 of
Prior Lake will consider the app11cat1ons.
9.) Any grading in the City limits of Prior Lake will require a
grading permit from the city Engineer.
LAND REHABILITATION:
If the mining operation is successful in securing all necessary
permits and mineral is extracted over a period of time, the City
of Shakopee should have in place guarantees for eventual
rehabilitation of the mine. It is suggested that the City
Council of Shakopee require a bond from the fee owner of the land
in an amount sufficient to provide for the reclamation of the
mine in the event the applicant does not.
In the event you have any questions regarding these points, I
would be happy to discuss them in greater detail.
Sif0.
Horst W. Gras
Planning Dire
CITY OF PRIOR
cc: Leonard Prescott, Chairman, Shakopee sioux Community
DORSEY & WHITNEY
A P....TN&..HJP IMcLlJorNO Pao.&..'O"~L eo.PO.ATIOMS
350 P...RI. ...VI!NUI!
KJlW TOR.. OW TOU 1001111
12121 415-9200
2200 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA ~~402-1498
(612) 340-2600
TELEX 29- 0605
FA.X (61~ 340-2868
201 PIRST A'\"ENUE~ S. w.. SUITE 340
IlOCBJl8T1lR, XIlfKJlBOr... 558011
1&01) 288-3156
1330 CONNI!CTlCt:T AVI!NUI!. N. W.
W'AlIBllfOTO". D. C. 110036
(202) 851- 0100
3 GRACECBt:lICH STREET
LOlfDO" IIC3V OAT. JI"OLAlfD
44-1\-9l!g-3334
36. RUE TRONCHET
75009 PA1IlIl. PRAlfOB
33-1-411-66-119- 49
4G~ RUE DE TBEVES
B-104O BR1l8BBLS. BBLOIll11
32-2-238-18- U
1200 PIRST INTERSTATE CIINTER
BILLI"OS. 1l0"TAlfA 58103
14(6) 2112-3800
201 DA"IDSON BUILDING
ORBAT P.u.LS, llO"TAKA 59401
14(6) 127-3632
EUZABETII A. GOODMAN
(612) 34().4977
121 EAST PRONT STRI!IIT
llI.8BOCLA. 1l0lfTAIU 598011
(406) 721-6025
June 4, 1991
Mr. Dave Unmacht
City Manager
City of Prior Lake
4629 Dakota Street
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: McKenna Gravel Pit
Dear Mr. Unmacht:
Pursuant to Jim Townsend's request, I am sending you copies of the
following:
1. The response to the EAW by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community; and
2. Chapter 5800 of the Minnesota Rules, which contains the Metropolitan
Council's Rules regarding matters of metropolitan significance.
Very truly yours,
.:-- .
" " ;-~ ~-/
{. '. <... .\.----
// '..-!
..' ol"..-\.
Elizabeth A. Goodman
BY MESSENGER
EAG/jn
Enclosures
cc: James E. Townsend, Esq.
'.
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2330 Sioux Trail NW., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372
Tribal Office (612) 445-8900
FAX: (612) 445-8906
OFFICERS
LEONARD PRESCarr
ChOlrperson
ALLE~E ROSS
V,ce ChOlrperson
MELVIN CAMPBELL SR
Secretary! Treasurer
May 29, 1991
City of Shakopee
129 First Avenue East
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Attention: Mr. Lindberg S. Ekola
Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Proposed
McKenna Sand and Gravel Mine, Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Ekola:
The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community ("SMSC") occupies a
reservation, one hundred sixty acres of which are located immediately adjacent to
the westerly boundary of the McKenna's project. This property (the "SMSC
Reservation") currently contains approximately 42 dwellings which house 77 adults
and 33 children. SMSC is extremely concerned about the effect this project will have
on the environment and offers the following comments on the EAW. We trust
that you will carefully consider these comments (and your responses thereto) when
you make your decision as to the need for an EIS.
INADEOUACY OF EA W: SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENT At EFFECTS
The EAW is inadequate (as more specifically addressed below) because it fails
to include information needed to determine the potential for, or significance of,
certain environmental impacts. This project will potentially significantly affect
several aspects of the environment. The Environmental Quality Board Rules
define "environment" to include ambient noise, air, water, flora, fauna, land and
man-made or natural features of historic, geologic, or aesthetic significance.
1. Impact on Ambient Noise Levels. Significant noise levels will be generated
from several activities-operation of gravel mining equipment, gravel
crushing, screening and processing equipment, conveyers used to stockpile
gravel, gravel being loaded into trucks, trucks entering, leaving and
maneuvering within the site and heavy gravel truck traffic on adjoining
City of Shakopee
Page 2
May 29,1991
public roads. Trucks on and off the site are of particular concern since their
operation generates considerable noise-acceleration and gear shifting of
heavy load trucks; back up warning beepers; etc. The effect of machinery
noise upon nearby residents is exacerbated by the vibration that accompanies
this noise.
A. Inadequacy of maps. The maps accompanying the EAW in response to
Question No.5 are inadequate to enable EAW reviewers to assess the
distance between the above-described noise and vibration generating
activities and the nearest homes on the SMSC Reservation. EA W
Guidelines require that maps show "a graphic close up of the project in
sufficient detail to identify key physical features" including roads,
utilities, buildings, drainage structures, cut and fill areas, materials or
waste storage areas. Of the above-described on-site noise and
vibration generating activities, the maps show only the main access
road location and the location of the crusher in phase I. The EAW is,
therefore, inadequate to enable a reviewer to asses noise levels at the
nearest receptor. The response to Question No. 25 says that the
applicant will install on site circular truck routes to minimize truck
back-up noise, but the maps do not show the number or location or
give the reviewer any information to assess the extent to which these
routes will mitigate the noise level at the receptor. A detailed plan for
on site traffic for all phases of the project should have accompanied the
EAW.
We question the accuracy of the statement in the response to Question
No.9 that "the distance from the aggregate processing area to the
nearest residence. . . is approximately 1,000 feet." The measured
distance on Map B from the phase I crusher location to the nearest
depicted home appears to be 850 feet or 15% closer than the stated 1,000
feet. What is the location of "aggregate processing equipment" other
than the crusher? Where will these activities be located in phases IT
and m. Is the map accurate? At the March 7, 1991, Shakopee Planning
Commission meeting regarding the conditional use permit required
for the project, the applicant's engineer stated that the scale of certain of
McKenna's maps was not accurate. Map B should be complete and
accurate.
City of Shakopee
Page 3
May 29, 1991
B. General inadequacy of response to permit question: Compliance with
noise standards.
The response to Question No.8 is inadequate in that it states that the
need for MPCA permits will be determined as a part of the EAW
process. It is the responsibility of the RGU to provide the information
called for in the EA W form. Failure to provide such information
about the project deprives EAW reviewers of their right and
opportunity to fully assess and comment upon the project during the
3D-day review period.
The EAW does not cite any basis for the determination in the response
to Question No. 25 that "typical mining equipment generates 88 dBA
measured at 50 feet from the source." The accuracy of this information
is critical since it presumably will form a part of the basis for
determination by the MPCA and the City of Shakopee of whether or
not the project will meet applicable MPCA and City ordinance noise
standards. As mentioned above, other information needed to
adequately determine whether this project will meet applicable noise
standards is missing-Leo MPCA and City noise standards are phrased
in terms of maximum noise levels at the nearest receptor; information
about the distance between each noise source during each phase and
the corresponding nearest receptor is inadequate. Any MPCA
comments to the EA W regarding noise standards might differ if the
EAW fully and accurately set forth the information required by the
EA W form.
C Inadequacy of information on berm landscaping. The response to
Question No.9 says that the landscaping on the berms will help shield
noise. However, the EAW contains no specifications as to the spacing,
density or height of the plantings, the soil medium of the berm or the
post planting maintenance plans. The berm landscaping should be tall
enough and dense enough to have an immediate and significant
mitigating effect. It can be expected that many of the plantings will die
if planted in clay soil. There should be a landscape design by a
registered landscape architect and a requirement for financial
guarantees to ensure the long term viability of the plantings.
City of Shakopee
Page 4
May 29, 1991
Furthermore, there should be a requirement that the berm and
landscaping be installed prior to commencement of operations.
D. Accuracy of trip generation figure; nature of trucks. The response to
Question No. 22 states that the maximum average daily traffic will be
200 trucks in the peak construction season. This determination is based
upon the applicant's proposal to mine 1,000,000 cubic yards of gravel in
10 years. The EA W contains no information on borings or other
geological basis for the determination that this site will produce only
1,000,000 cubic yards. Has this determination been verified? The
accuracy of this figure is critical because, if the site yields greater
amounts, the traffic (and impacts created thereby) may be greater
and/ or the life of the project may be longer. If the traffic is greater, the
assumptions in the EA W regarding noise levels from trucks are
inaccurate. There is no indication that the site will be restricted to
single unit trucks. "Double bottoms" {trucks with trailers} are believed
to generate more noise.
E. Validity of assumption that all trucks will be routed south. The
response to Question No.9 says that truck traffic impacts on the SMSC
Reservation will be minimized because all trucks will be routed to
County Road 42 via the south mining access road. SMSC questions the
validity of this statement because it seems highly unlikely that the City
of Prior Lake will agree to handle all of this project's truck traffic. The
response to Question No. 22 says that the applicant expects that the
trucks will have a southerly destination. Is the compass direction of
the project's market predictable over the life of the project?
F. Hours of operation. The EAW mentions no limitation on hours of
operation. To minimize noise and other impacts on residents of the
SMSC Reservation and other surrounding properties, hours of
operation should be limited to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, holidays excluded.
G. Security Concerns. After operating hours, gravel pits often attract
uninvited noise producing activities such as target practice, dirt bikes
and teenage partying. An on duty security guard should be required to
prevent vehicular and pedestrian access.
City of Shakopee
Page 5
May 29, 1991
H. Improper characterization of adjacent land use. The response to
Question No.9 indicates that adjacent land use is low density
residential and agricultural. Although the SMSC Reservation now
contains 42 dwellings, SMSC's zoning plan for this area permits one
dwelling per acre. Given recent renewed interest in the preservation of
Indian culture, it is quite possible that the residential population will
significantly expand over the life of the McKenna's project (the next 12
years). Houses in greater number may be located nearer to the project
than indicated in the EAW. Even if it is determined that noise levels
measured at the currently existing nearest receptors meet City and
MPCA standards, will noise levels measured at these future home sites
meet standards? Unlike the typical person seeking a house site,
Mdewakanton Sioux Indians desiring to live on a Mdewakanton Sioux
reservation cannot simply find a different place to live which is not
adjacent to a gravel mining operation.
II. Impact on Air.
A. Dust. This project will generate large quantities of dust as a result of
traffic on dry, unpaved roads, the loading and conveying of gravel and
wind blowing dust off trucks, machinery, mined areas and stock piles.
As is the case with noise impacts (discussed above), the assumptions in
the EAW about the amount of dust created generally by the site's
activity level and specifically by the site's truck traffic level may be
inaccurate if the assumption about this site's gravel production
potential of 1,000,000 cubic yards is inaccurate. Also, as is the case with
noise impacts, the assumption that traffic impacts on air will be
minimized by southerly truck routing is suspect. The inadequacy of
the maps is again problematic because they do not show the site's
internal traffic layout, the location of all phase I machinery or the
location of any machinery or stock piles in phases IT and m. The EA W
states that the maximum height of stock piles will be 25 feet. The
adequacy of this height limitation should be discussed in terms of the
location of the stock piles in each phase. The response to Question No.
9 says that the landscaping on the berms will help shield dust and
pollution. As mentioned above, the EAW does not contain adequate
information to address concerns about the timing of installation, the
quality and the long term viability of the berm landscaping. The
inadequacy of the response to question No.8 is again apparent as the
EAW contains no analysis of whether this project will meet MPCA
City of Shakopee
Page 6
May 29, 1991
standards regarding fugitive particulate matter. The response to
Question No. 27 merely states that the applicant will have to be aware
and comply with state air quality regulations.
B. Air contaminants (including dust) generated by stationary sources.
Minnesota Rwes, Part 7001.1210 requires sand and gravel operations
(except those producing less than 150,000 tons of product per year) to
obtain a stationary source air emission facility permit. Such a permit
would presumably regulate all air contaminants (including dust and
exhaust fumes and odors) emanating from the site's stationary sources
including the crusher, the conveyers and the dust control chemicals.
The EAW contains no discussion of this permit requirement and its
applicability to this site, even though the Rules specifically refer to
gravel operations. There is no discussion of the exhaust from the fuel
used by the crusher or other equipment. The EA W indicates that only
EP A and MPCA approved chemicals will be used for dust control.
However, certain chemicals which are approved due to their limited
potential to contaminate ground water have the unpleasant side effect
of emitting odorous gases.
C. Vehicle related air contaminants. The conclusion in the EAW that an
indirect source permit is not required for this site may be different if
the assumption about this site's gravel production potential of
1,000,000 cubic yards and the resulting trip generation figure are
inaccurate. The EAW Guidelines (see comments to Question No. 23)
indicate that, even if an indirect source permit is not required, a project
may nevertheless require an estimate of likely air quality impacts if it
contributes to traffic congestion. The unsubstantiated trip generation
methodology in the EAW projects a maximum average traffic count of
200 trucks per day, but there is no discussion of how many trucks may
be present at peak traffic times.on any given day. Has there been an
analysis of the combined effect of the project's truck traffic and traffic
from the race track, from Valley Fair and/or the SMSC casino? There
is no indication of the speeds at which the trucks will travel or of
weight loadings or whether "double bottoms" (trucks with trailers) will
be prohibited. Acceleration lanes for trucks to gain speed before joining
traffic should be required. Truck lanes should also be required on hills.
Otherwise, bulky, slow moving gravel trucks in heavy traffic will
contribute to traffic congestion and impact air quality.
Ci ty of Shakopee
Page 7
May 29,1991
m. Impact on Water.
A. Effect of project's water use on availability of water in SMSC wells.
There are 8 drinking water wells located on the SMSC Reservation. Six
of those wells are located in the northerly 80 acres which are across
McKenna Road from the project. Three wells are located along the
easterly boundary of the SMSC Reservation and are especially near to
the project. The response to Question No. 13.b says that water will be
used for dust control and aggregate washing. Appropriation of
additional water for dewatering purposes is not mentioned.
Presumably, the applicant concludes that dewatering the pit will not be
required based upon the assumption that the water table is lower than
the area where mining activity will occur. What is the basis for the
stated depth of the water table? Is it a reasonable conclusion that
dewatering will not be necessary? The EA W contains no information
as to the amount of water the project will use for dust control and
aggregate washing and no information as to the rate of pumping and
the direction of sub-surface water flow. There is inadequate
information as to the depth and location of wells on the SMSC
Reservation. SMSC is very concerned that the project's water pumping
will create a zone of influence that will significantly decrease water
availability in its wells. The attachments to the EA W include only one
well log in SMSC's name. SMSC needs assurance that the location and
depth of all its wells have been considered and that this project will not
affect its water supply. A quantitative analysis of this project's impact
on ground water levels should be provided as a part of the
environmental review process. Even if it is determined that the
project's water appropriation will not affect existing SMSC wells, will it
affect ground water wells serving future home sites? As mentioned
above, unlike the typical person seeking a house site, Mdewakanton
Sioux Indians desiring to live on a Mdewakanton Sioux reservation
cannot simply find a different place to live with water availability not
affected by a gravel mining operation.
B. Effect on water quality.
1. Environmental hazards due to past land use. The well log for
applicant's Well No.4 refers to an underground fuel oil tank
located 3S feet north of Well No.4. It is not clear from the well
City of Shakopee
Page 8
May 29,1991
location map whether this tank is located in an area that will be
mined. The well map shows more than one well on the
applicant's property. Any unused wells must be sealed so that
they do not remain as possible entrance points for ground water
contamination. Has the property been examined for other
environmental concerns due to past land use? Fuel storage
tanks, household dumps and contamination associated with
farm equipment maintenance and the storage, transferral and
disposal of agro chemicals are common environmental concerns
on property that has been in agricultural use.
2. Substances used, and wastes produced, by the project which may
potentially contaminate soil and ground water. The EAW says
that there will be no on site storage of fuel for machinery.
However, there is no discussion of how the crusher and other
machinery will be fueled. We guess that the crusher will use
diesel fuel. If there is no separate fuel storage tank on site, either
the crusher must include a large integral tank or there will be
frequent site visits by fueling trucks with the potential for
spillage during fueling. Will measures be taken to prevent fuel
from contaminating soil and ground water? How will
machinery be maintained and repaired? Will oils and other
hazardous substances used in maintenance be stored on site? If
so, will they be stored in an environmentally appropriate
manner? Will explosives be used or stored on site? What
chemicals will be used for dust control? How will they be
stored? Where will the recycle pond be located in each phase?
The response to Question No 19.a says that there has been no
determination of the quantity of the waste water stream from
aggregate washing. Is the maximum size of the recycle pond
sufficient to handle this unestimated volume of waste aggregate
washing water? The response to Question 19.b says that the silt
from the recycle pond will be spread on site. What is the
estimated volume and composition of the silt? Will the silt
contain any contaminants? The reclamation plan should
include either the sealing of the water well or an appropriate
maintenance plan so that it does not become an access point for
water contamination. Although the EAW says that the direction
of surface water flow is northerly and easterly, there is no
indication of the direction of ground water flow. SMSC is
City of Shakopee
Page 9
May 29,1991
particularly concerned about potential ground water
contamination because of the applicant's engineer's comment at
the March 7, 1991, Shakopee Planning Commission meeting that
ground water flows from the project westerly to the SMSC
Reservation. The gravel to be removed by this project now
serves as a natural filter for the water that ends up in SMSC's
wells. What is the effect of removing this natural filter?
3. Effect on quantity and quality of storm water runoff. The
response to Question No. 10 indicates that the site's impervious
surfaces will increase by 500% as a result of the project. Is the on
site sedimentation pond adequate to control sedimentation,
phosphorus and additional run off? What contaminants may be
present in the site's storm water discharge? Has the impact on
Dean Lake, Pike Lake and the Minnesota River been adequately
analyzed? When it issued new storm water regulations last
November, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
considered potential contamination of storm water run off from
gravel pits significant enough to expressly include this industry
by SIC Code (#1442) in the group of industries required to obtain
NPDES permits for storm water discharges. There is no
discussion of the anticipated impact of these regulations on the
project.
IV. Impact on Flora and Fauna.
A. Effect on wildlife habitat. EAW Guidelines say that Questions 10 and
11 are included in the EAW form to insure an assessment of wildlife
habitat. SMSC is very concerned about this project's impact on wildlife
habitat because it will affect the wildlife on the SMSC Reservation.
Residents of the SMSC Reservation now enjoy the presence of wood
ducks, deer, birds, rabbits and squirrels. Residents also trap small game
and hunt rabbits, squirrels, pheasant and other upland game on the
SMSC Reservation. The response to Question No. 10 shows that, even
after reclamation, the project will cause a 69% decrease in
wooded/forest areas and a 100% decrease in brush/grassland.
Obviously, no wildlife habitat will exist during mining operations.
Even if there is phased reclamation, the noise and dust from the
remaining phases will have an adverse effect on wildlife. Whathfmandal guarantees will be required to insure that the reclamation
City of Shakopee
Page 10
May 29,1991
plan will be implemented? Has the reclamation plan been analyzed
from the standpoint of pre-project/post-project wildlife habitat? The
EAW states that the project will last from eight to twelve years. It may
last longer if the assumption about this site's gravel production
potential of 1,000,000 cubic yards is inaccurate. Will the current level of
wildlife return after this site is reclaimed or will its destruction be an
irreversible environmental effect of this project? The response to
Question No. l1.a says that the vegetation on the berm will provide
some habitat. As mentioned above, however, the EAW does not
contain adequate information to address concerns about the timing of
installation, the quality and the long term viability of the berm
landscaping. We question the accuracy of the statement that the site
includes no wetlands. At the March 7, 1991, Shakopee Planning
Commission meeting regarding the conditional use permit for this
project, the applicant's engineer stated that an intermittent stream runs
through the property. The stream is not shown on the maps included
in the EAW. How significant is the stream to wildlife? It is apparent
from the EAW that the RGU has not adequately addressed the quality
and value of the project site's wildlife habitat.
B. Effect upon flora on SMSC Reservation. Residents on the SMSC
Reservation engage in the traditional Indian practices of gathering wild
mushrooms, ginseng, berries, plums, choke cherries, wild grapes, herbs
for medicinal and craft purposes and cutting small trees for building
"sweat lodges" for spiritual sweat lodge ceremonies. SMSC is
concerned that the dust and fumes generated by the project will
adversely affect these natural resources on the SMSC Reservation.
v. Impact on Land.
A. Potential for soil contamination. For the same reasons as those set
forth in Section ill. B above in the discussion of potential adverse
impacts on water, SMSC is concerned about the potential for soil
contamination.
B. Adequacy of erosion control. The site contains steep slopes and
erodible soils. Are the erosion and sedimentation measures to be
employed during the project adequate? The response to Question No.
17 indicates that the acreage to be excavated is 40 acres. However, the
grade break between existing and proposed contour lines on Map B
Ci ty of Shakopee
Page 11
May 29, 1991
show as much as 30 feet between existing and proposed elevations.
This seems to indicate that the area to be excavated extends into the dty
limits of Prior Lake.
C. Reclamation plan. EA W Guidelines indicate that the project
description called for by Question No.6 should focus on aspects of the
project that may directly or indirectly manipulate, alter or impact the
physical environment, including project closure actions. The
reclamation plan that is attached is very general. Are post project
erosion and sedimentation measures adequate? Will the reclaimed
site support wildlife to its current extent? The reclamation plan should
include either the sealing of the water well or an appropriate
maintenance plan so that it does not become an access point for water
contamination. \Vhat guarantees will be required to insure that
reclamation will be timely and adequately accomplished and
maintained? Financial guarantees should be posted by the fee owner of
the land.
D. Future expansion of proiect; Future use of site. Even though the
applicant does not presently intend to mine more than 40 acres, SMSC
is concerned that this intention may change and the project will be
expanded in the future. Even though the response to Question No. 30
says that the applicant's brother will not obtain any rights to expand his
operation as a result of this project, SMSC is also concerned that such
operation will also want to expand. Owners of former gravel pits are
often approached with proposals for siting cement plants, asphalt
plants, recycling plants, etc. on old gravel pit lands. Even though any
such expansions or new noxious uses would also require
environmental review, once the City has permitted gravel mining to
the extent of the currently proposed project, the environmental
resources to be jeopardized by new projects will be far fewer than they
are today. SMSC is concerned that this project will affect land use
patterns and be the beginning of the continuing deterioration of the
area's environment.
VI. Impact on Man-made or Natural Features of Historic, Geologic, or Aesthetic
Significance.
A. Topography. As indicated in the response to Question No.6, the site
contains many steep hills and variations in elevations. This
City of Shakopee
Page 12
May 29,1991
interesting topography is uncommon in the metropolitan area, is
characteristic of areas near the river and is aesthetically pleasing. The
hills can be seen in the distance from the surrounding properties. This
aspect of the site will be totally and irreversibly destroyed by this
project, leaving a site with a maximum grade of 18%.
B. General character of site and surrounding area. Question No.9 calls for
a discussion of any conflicts with nearby land use that involve
environmental matters. EA W Guidelines (page 24) note that gravel
mining is a nuisance to nearby residents and state that a complete
discussion of surrounding land use should be given in the EA W.
However, the EA W does not evidence a full appreciation of the current
character of this area, which is a feature of aesthetic significance in and
of itself. Residents of the SMSC Reservation now enjoy a tranquil
agrarian/rural environment with birds, wildlife, woodlands, rolling
hills and pleasing views. This project will convert that environment
to one of noise, dust, fumes, truck traffic, heavy equipment, temporary
shacks, gravel stock piles, stagnant sedimentation ponds and a denuded
flat landscape.
C. SMSC Reservation. The SMSC Reservation itself is a feature of historic
and cultural significance. The land was dedicated by the United States
Government to the Mdewakanton Sioux Tribe in 1889. This
reservation is one of only four Sioux Indian reservations in the State of
Minnesota. One hundred ten Sioux Indians currently make their
home on this land. Activities are carried on in an attempt to preserve
the culture of the Sioux Indian tribe, which once occupied all of the
Minnesota River Valley. Many traditional Sioux Indian practices
involve use of natural resources and the outdoor environment. As
mentioned above, the land is used by residents for hunting, trapping,
gathering and spiritual ceremonies. The EA W does not adequately
address this project's effect upon such significant cultural and historical
features of the neighboring lands even though the United States
Supreme Court has given special recognition to the importance of
protecting such features when they appertain to a federally recognized
Indian tribe.
City of Shakopee
Page 13
May 29, 1991
OTHER INADEQUACIES OF EA W
In addition to the above-mentioned inadequacies, the response to Question
No.8 fails to mention the need for Metropolitan Council review. Under Chapter
5800 of the Minnesota Rules, a project is considered to have metropolitan
significance and require review by the Metropolitan Council if it has a substantial
physical effect on a local governmental unit other than the local unit in which the
project is to be located. There is certainly a substantial physical effect on the SMSC
Reservation. Given that the project abuts on Prior Lake land, that the applicant
proposes to route the project's truck traffic through Prior Lake and that the grade
breaks between existing and proposed contour lines on ~ap B seem to indicate
grading into the city limits of Prior Lake, there is also a substantial physical effect on
Prior Lake.
The response to Question No.8 mentions only a driveway permit and a
grading permit (for the south mining access road) from the City of Prior Lake. As
stated in the response to Question 30.a, if there were any grading or excavation in
Prior Lake, a permit would be required from Prior Lake. As mentioned above, Map
B seems to indicate grading in Prior Lake. The routing of traffic through Prior Lake
may also require a permit from Prior Lake.
The EAW fails to discuss reasonable alternatives which would avoid this
project's potential significant environmental impacts. On two occasions, SMSC has
requested the applicant to come to SMSC with a proposal acceptable to the applicant
whereby this project would be abandoned. The applicant has not yet responded.
CONCLUSION
This project has a potential for significant environmental effects on ambient
noise, air, water, flora, fauna, land and features of historic, geologic and aesthetic
significance. The effects will be extensive; they will be present every day during the
8 to 12 year (or longer) project life; and, some will be irreversible, even after
reclamation. If this project proceeds, other noxious projects can be anticipated,
creating the potential for even greater cumulative effects. The EAW fails to discuss
the comparative environmental impact of reasonable alternatives. Because the
EA W lacks reasonably available information about certain potential environmental
effects and fails to even mention others, it is not suffident as the basis for a reasoned
decision about the potential for, or significance of, the environmental impacts of
Ci ty of Shakopee
Page 14
May 29, 1991
this project. An EIS must be required in order to adequately address the potential
environmental effects of this project.
Respectfully submitted,
SHAKOPEE MDEW AKANTON
SIOUX COMMUNITY
By
Allene Ross, Vice-Chair