HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.m. Request by SKB Environmental, Inc. to Publish an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Case 13-16-EAW�m�SEMO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Meeting Date: May 7, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: Case 13 -16 -EAW Request by SKB
Environmental, Inc. to Publish an
AGENDA SECTION:
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Consent
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
AGENDA NO.
01.
ATTACHMENTS: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW).
APPROVED BY:
1 041
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Publish the SKB Landfill Expansion Environmental
Assessment Worksheet in the May 27 EQB Monitor to Begin the 30 Day Comment Period.
SUMMARY
On October 7, 2008, the City Council approved a five year interim use permit (IUP) to SKB Environmental,
Inc. for their industrial waste and construction and demolition waste landfill at 13425 Courthouse Blvd (MN
Highway 55). SKB has submitted an application for their 5 -year IUP review that includes an expansion of
their industrial waste landfill that is proposed to fill an approximate ten (10) acre wetland located on the
south side of their property. To allow the City to fully evaluate the impact of the proposed expansion, two
planning processes need to occur before City staff could prepare a recommendation on the SKB IUP
renewal request with expansion. Regardless of the disposition on the expansion request, SKB's 5 -year IUP is
up for review and renewal and Council action will be necessary in late summer.
To assist in assessing the expansion request, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) must be
published in the EQB monitor so that the public and the relevant county, regional, and state agencies can
comment on the impact of expanding the landfill including the filling of the 10 acre wetland. Second, a
wetland mitigation study must be conducted to determine the location and feasibility of creating a new
wetland(s) within Rosemount to mitigate for the 10 acres of proposed wetland impact. Following the
completion of these two planning processes, staff will prepare a recommendation on the SKB IUP request
to expand their landfill. It is anticipated that the earliest that the Planning Commission would conduct the
public hearing for the IUP request would be August 27.
While an EAW does not require a public meeting, staff has requested that SKB conduct a neighborhood
meeting regarding their proposed expansion during the 30 day public comment period for the EAW. Staff
will inform the City Council of the date and time of that meeting when SKB has scheduled that
neighborhood meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the publication of the SKB EAW in the May 27 EQB
Monitor.
Version 8 /08rev
ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Note to preparers: This form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality
Board's website at: http: / /www.egb. state. mn. us /E nvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The
Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential for
significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit or its
agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer
must supply any reasonably accessible data for — but should not complete — the final worksheet. The
complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30 -day comment period following
notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of
information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Expansion
2. Proposer
SKB Environmental, Inc.
3. RGU City of Rosemount
Contact person
John Domke
Contact person Eric Zweber AICP
Title
Division Landfill Manager
Title Senior Planner
Address
251 Starkey Street
Address 2875 1451' Street West
City, state, ZIP
St. Paul, Minnesota, 55107
City, state, ZIP Rosemount, MN, 55068
Phone
651- 224 -6329
Phone 651- 322 -2052
Fax
651- 223 -5053
Fax 651- 423 -4424
E -mail
johndo&)wasteconnections.com
E -mail eric.zweber @ci.rosemount.mn.us
4. Reason for EAW preparation (check one)
_EIS scoping X Mandatory EAW Citizen petition — RGU discretion Proposer
volunteered
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and subpart name: Minn. R.
4410.4300, subp. 27
5. Project location County Dakota
SE L/4 L/4 Sections 19, 20, 29
GPS Coordinates 44.4449 N
Tax Parcel Number 34- 01900 -75 -012
Attach each of the following to the EAW:
City /Township City of Rosemount
Township 115 N Range 18W
93.0059 W
County map showing the general location of the project;
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries
(photocopy acceptable);
Site plan showing all significant project and natural features.
Tables, Figures, and Appendices attached to the EAW
Figure 1: Location Map
Figure 2: United States Geological Survey 7.5 Minute, 1:24,000 scale map including project
boundaries
Figure 3: Aerial Photo
Figure 4: Natural features within the site
Figure 5: Existing Conditions and Environmental Monitoring Locations
Figure 6: Base Grades Cells 1 -6
Figure 7: Base Grades Cell 6
Figure 8: Groundwater Contour Map
Figure 9: Zoning Map
Figure 10: Proposed Wetland Impact
Figure 11: PWI /NWI Map
Figure 12A: Surface Geology
Figure 12B: Bedrock Geology
Figure 13: Soils
Attachment 1: Copy of Letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Natural Heritage Program.
6. Description
a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.
SKB Environmental Inc. is proposing to expand its Rosemount, Minnesota landfill (the SKB
Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility) by permitting a 50 foot vertical expansion and a 15 acre
horizontal expansion of the currently permitted Cell 6. With this expansion, SKB is applying for
additional disposal capacity for industrial solid waste, construction and demolition debris.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach
additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will
cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to
existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of
existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities.
SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) is located in northeast Rosemount (Figures 1 -3) on 1401' Street E, east
of US52. SKB is proposing an expansion for the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility (Facility)
(Figure 6 -7). As part of the expansion, SKB is applying for additional permitted capacity for industrial
solid waste and construction and demolition (C &D) debris. The proposed expansion will add 50 feet to
the height of the landfill and add approximately 15 acres to the currently permitted Cell 6 footprint.
SKB is requesting an increase in its industrial waste from its currently permitted capacity of 15,464,483
cubic yards to 25,052,076 cubic yards. Additionally, SKB is proposing to co- dispose of C &D debris
within the permitted industrial waste disposal areas. Because of changes of co- disposal of C &D within
the industrial waste disposal areas and changing the phasing boundary between the C &D disposal area
and the industrial waste disposal area, SKB is proposing to lower the permitted capacity of the C &D
cell from 8,752,613 cubic yards to 7,490,591 cubic yards. SKB is not proposing to change the
permitted capacity of the Municipal Solid Waste combustor ash disposal area.
The expanded Cell 6 would be located to the project south of the currently permitted footprint of Cell 6
(see Figure 3). Cell 6 will accept both industrial solid waste and construction and demolition debris.
The cell will be lined with one of two liner profiles. The first would consist, from the bottom to the top,
of a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), 60 -mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner, drainage composite,
80 -mil HDPE liner, drainage composite, and at least one foot of protective sand. This is the liner
profile that has been constructed at the site for the most recent liner construction projects. SKB has also
proposed an alternate liner profile. This liner profile, from the bottom to the top, would consist of. 60-
mil HDPE liner, GCL, 80 -mil HDPE liner, drainage composite, and at least one -foot of protective sand.
After reaching final elevations, the expanded landfill and Cell 6 would be capped with a 40 -mil linear
low density polyethylene (LLDPE) liner and two feet of soils. The final determination on the type of
liner will be based on permitting.
The expansion of Cell 6 will also involve filling the wetland within the site (Figure 10). A wetland
delineation will be required to be completed and submitted to the City as the Local Government Unit
(LGU) for approval. Conservatively, this wetland is estimated at 9.35 acres. This wetland impact is
required to be reviewed under the Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Rosemount's Wetland
Management Plan. Avoidance and minimization ( "sequencing ") will be required to be provided by the
applicant. However, it is anticipated for this environmental review that all of the wetland will be
impacted for this project. If sequencing is met, mitigation will be provided off -site in conformance
with the City's Wetland Management Plan.
This wetland has also been noted by the DNR as, in the past, used by a variety of birds. This area has
also been noted on the Central Region Regionally Significant Ecological Area (RSEA) and is ranked
high (Figure 4). An RSEA information was developed by the DNR to identify ecologically significant
areas based on aerial photo interpretation and Minnesota Land Cover Classification System Data. The
expansion of Cell 6 would result in the conversion of this area from wetland and grassland to eventual
grassland as part of the reclamation process for the Facility. As part of the wetland delineation and
permitting process, this area will be reviewed by the City and the Technical Evaluation Panel. If this
area is high quality, this will be taken into consideration of the wetland replacement plan.
The Facility will continue to be expanded and filled in phases. Once areas of the landfill have reached
final grades, those areas will be closed. In general, Cell 6 will be constructed once Cell 3 has been
completed. Based on existing capacity of the Facility, this phasing could occur within 7 -11 years.
c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain
the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The purpose of this project is to provide for continued regional disposal services such as waste
processing, recycling, and disposal for the region as part of an integrated waste management system.
The Facility provides disposal of C &D waste, along with non - hazardous industrial waste and municipal
solid waste combustor ash. Expanding to use more onsite land and increasing the final permitted
elevation would maximize capacity within the existing property, thus utilizing an existing resource
rather than sighting a new landfill at a new location. The design is intended to enhance the end use
capabilities and create grassland and scattered tree habitat for wildlife. The final cover will utilize
grasses on the four to one slopes. The cover will have better erosion control features after closure and
will be maintained as part of post - closure. Some of the potential end uses for the property include open
space, grasslands or recreational.
d. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or
likely to happen? Yes _X_No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
There are no plans for future development at this time.
e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? X Yes _No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
The Facility has prepared a number of environmental review documents since the project started. Each
time, the outcome of the review was approval of the project based on a negative declaration of need for
an Environmental Impact Statement.
LANDFILL HISTORY
On January 8, 1992, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) was granted by the State of Minnesota a "Permit
for the Construction and Operation of an Industrial Waste Land Disposal Facility ". The facility was
named "Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility, SW -383" (MICF). The MPCA issued its five -year
permit on January 8, 1992. The original design consisted of ten cells. Each six -acre cell had a capacity
of 252,000 cubic yards with a total site life of 30 years. The City of Rosemount granted an Interim Use
Permit (IUP) in 1992, which has also continued to be reissued. In December 1992, the Metropolitan
Council, as the RGU, completed an environmental review of the MICF, now referred to as SKB
Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, according to Minn. Stat. 116D.04 and 116D.045 and Minn. R.
4410.0200 through 4410.7800. The initial permit authorized construction and operation of Cells 1 -3
In early 1995, UPRR sold the "Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility, SW -383" to Laidlaw, Inc. of
South Carolina. In August of 1997, the name of the facility was changed to "Laidlaw Environmental
Services (Rosemount), Inc., SW -383" (LES). A Dakota County license was also granted by in 1997
and has continued to be reissued. In 1996, in conjunction with Laidlaw's five -year permit renewal, a
permit modification was submitted by the MPCA. For this permit renewal and modification, nine of the
ten original cells were combined to form Cells 2 through 4, with each cell being divided into sub - cells.
Since Cell 1 has been operational for the previous five years, the permit conditions for that cell were
modified to increase the cell capacity by 86,442 CY to 338,442 CY.
In 1997, LES submitted a permit application to the MPCA that allowed the Facility to accept MSW
incinerator ash for disposal in a monocell in Cell 4. This action was initiated after Hennepin County
identified Laidlaw as the low bidder to provide transportation and disposal services for ash produced at
the Hennepin County Resource Company (HERO) facility. HERO is a municipal solid waste -to- energy
plant located in Minneapolis. It provides approximately 90,000 tons per year of MSW combustor ash.
Because LES Rosemount requested a permit modification to allow for MSW incinerator ash disposal,
which was not considered in the original EIS, representatives of Laidlaw and the MPCA indicated that
supplemental environmental review would be required. The supplement to the original LES was
completed in 1997 for the addition of MSW combustor ash to the LES Rosemount facility.
In early 1998, Laidlaw, Inc. purchased the Safety Kleen Corporation and in August of 1998 changed the
name to "Safety Kleen (Rosemount), Inc., SW- 383."
In June of 2000, Safety Kleen Corporation sold the facility to SKB Environmental, Inc. of St. Paul,
Minnesota. SKB changed the name of the facility to "SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, SW-
383." The permit was reissued by MPCA to SKB, reflecting the change in ownership, on August 2,
2000. In 2003, SKB submitted an EAW for the Facility with the MPCA as the RGU. The project under
review was the horizontal expansion for Cell 5 and the vertical expansion to fill saddle areas between
the existing waste cells. The environmental review was approved based on negative declaration of
need. The permit was modified in April 2003, an MPCA Facility Permit Reissuance Application was
submitted in November 2007.
In 2008, SKB submitted an EAW for the Facility with the MPCA as the RGU. The environmental
review occurred in conjunction with the 2007 Major Modification Permit Application for the Facility.
The project under review was the horizontal and vertical expansion of the Facility to include an
additional Cell (Cell 6) and increase the Facility waste capacity to 15,434,853 CY. The environmental
review was approved based on negative declaration of need. The permit was reissued on October 3,
2008.
In April 2008, SKB submitted an Application for Major Modification which was subsequently
approved and issued by MPCA on April 22, 2009. Under the current permit the Facility is currently
accepts demolition debris, industrial waste, municipal solid waste combustor ash and, a not yet
constructed solid waste recycling and transfer station.
7. Project magnitude data
Total project acreage 236
Number of residential units: unattached attached maximum units per building
Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet
Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet)
Office 2500 (existing) Manufacturing 0
Retail 0 Other industrial 0
Warehouse 2500 (existing) Institutional 0
Light industrial 30,000 (future — reviewed under previous 2008 EAW) Agricultural 0
Other commercial (specify) 0
Building height 30 feet (previously reviewed in 2008 EAW)
If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings
No additional buildings are required with the proposed Cell 6 expansion.
8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and
financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental
review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond
guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are
prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed See Minnesota Rules,
Chapter 4410.3100.
Unit of Government
Tvpe of Application
Status
MPCA
Solid Waste Permit
Issued /expires October, 2013 /application in- process
MPCA
Industrial Stormwater
Permit
Issued
Dakota County
Operators License
Issued /expires 2014
City of Rosemount
Interim Use Permit
Issued /expires October, 2013 /in process
City of Rosemount
Wetland Conservation
Act Approval
Pending
9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent
lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any
potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards
due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to
nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines.
The land the Facility is located on is currently zoned as Waste Management District by the City of
Rosemount (Figure 9). The Facility is located in an area of heavy industrial land uses. This industrial
area is known as the Pine Bend Industrial Area. Within this industrial area, the Facility is surrounded
by heavy industrial facilities, such as an aluminum smelter, a wastewater lift station, a food waste
processing plant, an asphalt hot mix plant, and an oil refinery among others. There are also agricultural
areas surrounding the Facility as well. The Facility expansion is totally within the current property
boundary and is compatible with the surrounding areas.
Land uses adjacent to the north and northwest are industrial; land uses to the west are
public /institutional; land uses to the east and south are golf courses and agricultural. The City of
Rosemount's 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan identifies the site as Waste Management, areas to the
north and west as General Industrial, and areas to the south and east as Industrial /Mixed land uses.
Further, the City's Zoning Ordinance identifies the Facility as Waste Management Districts and areas to
the north and west of the site as Industrial Districts.
Based on the historical pattern of industrial development moving southeastward through the Pine Bend
Area, the types of future development anticipated by the City of Rosemount, as stated in the
Comprehensive Guide Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance, will continue to be industrial and waste
management uses.
10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and
after development:
Before After Before After
Types 1 -8 wetlands
9.35
0.0
Lawn /landscaping
0.0
0.0
Wooded /forest
0.0
0.0
Impervious surfaces
10
10
Brush/Grassland
61.79
46.84
Stormwater Pond
4.85
14.36
Cropland
0.0
0.0
Permitted Landfill
151.81
166.6
TOTAL
237.8
237.8
If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why:
11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they
would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid
impacts.
The site is currently brush/grassland and approximately 9 acres of wetland (Figure 10). The project
will involve the excavation and filling of the area and upon restoration, will be replaced with open
grassland with some trees and shrubs throughout the site. The grasslands would be constructed in
phases as the cells reach final grades and the final cover is constructed. Therefore, the total acreage of
existing grasslands at the Facility would not significantly change during the operation and would
increase after closure of the Facility. The landfill cells are filled in succession which, upon reaching
final waste grades; the final cover will be constructed. The phasing plan illustrating the proposed
filling succession will be submitted with the MPCA Permit Renewal Application.
A wetland delineation will be required to be completed and submitted to the City as the Local
Government Unit (LGU) for approval. The proposed horizontal expansion of Cell 6 would result in
impact of the remaining wetland in the area (approximately 9.35 acres). This wetland impact is
required to be reviewed under the Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Rosemount's Wetland
Management Plan. Avoidance and minimization ( "sequencing ") will be required to be provided by the
applicant. However, it is anticipated for this environmental review that all of the wetland will be
impacted for this project. If sequencing is met, mitigation will be provided off -site in conformance
with the City's Wetland Management Plan.
This wetland has also been noted by the DNR as, in the past, used by a variety of birds. This area has
also been noted on the Central Region Regionally Significant Ecological Area (RSEA) and is ranked
high (Figure 4). An RSEA information was developed by the DNR to identify ecologically significant
areas based on aerial photo interpretation and Minnesota Land Cover Classification System Data. The
expansion of Cell 6 would result in the conversion of this area from wetland and grassland to eventual
grassland as part of the reclamation process for the Facility. As part of the wetland delineation and
permitting process, this area will be reviewed by the City and the Technical Evaluation Panel. If this
area is high quality, this will be taken into consideration of the wetland replacement plan.
b. Are any state - listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant
communities or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? X Yes _No
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Describe any measures
that will be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Provide the license agreement number
(LA -__) and /or Division of Ecological Resources contact number (ERDB 20130220) from which
the data were obtained and attach the response letter from the DNR Division of Ecological
Resources . Indicate if any additional survey work has been conducted within the site and
describe the results.
The DNR was contacted to obtain information about threatened and endangered species (see
Attachment 1). The information from the DNR indicates that the Loggerhead Shrike, a threatened
species, was documented within the project boundary. SKB has taken actions to maintain and improve
shrike habitat within their property. The perimeter fence will be left in place and available for shrikes
to use. The final end use will provide some trees and shrubs, but primarily grassland. The project will
also be constructed in phases so that as new cells are opened during operations, another one is closed
and vegetated. This will continue to provide shrike habitat areas even during facility operations.
Following final closure, the overall habitat will be enhanced. SKB also plans to minimize the use of
pesticides on the final cover vegetation.
The final end use will provide trees, shrubs, grasslands, and storm water ponds per the approved
closure plan. The final cover will be planted with grasses and the tree planting may include hawthorn
plum trees. The cells at the Facility will be filled in phases which, upon reaching final waste grades,
will be covered in accordance with the phased filling plan and will be submitted with the MPCA
Permit Renewal Application. This will allow shrike habitat areas even during facility operations.
Following final closure, the overall habitat will be enhanced. SKB also plans to minimize the use of
pesticides on the final cover vegetation.
If the Facility expansion will result in the construction or disturbance of suitable nesting habitat during
the breeding season of April — July, SKB will be required to contact DNR to determine if additional
study is needed.
12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic
alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment —
of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? _X—Yes _No
If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s) if
the water resources affected are on the PWI: NA Describe alternatives considered and
proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts.
The DNR PWI and the National Inventory Wetland (NWI) maps were reviewed. There are no PWI or
water bodies are within 800 feet of the property boundary. Figure 11 depicts the PWI and NWI water
bodies in relation to the Landfill property.
The expansion of Cell 6 is anticipated to impact all of the 9.35 acres of the wetland at the site (Figure
10). SKB is will be working with the City of Rosemount through the Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) and the City's Wetland Management Plan permitting process to address sequencing and
mitigation for the wetland that are on -site. SKB has hired a consultant to update the wetland
delineation that was done in the past. Mitigation will be provided off -site in conformance with the
City's Wetland Management Plan.
The project does include the construction of storm water ponds to treat and store surface water from
the Facility. Existing drainage ditches will be redesigned and constructed to prevent the runoff of site
sediment during construction, operation and after final closure.
13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to
or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water
(including dewatering)? _Yes _X_No
If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes
to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any
appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known.
Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain
methodology used to determine.
This project does not involve installation or abandonment of any water wells. Nor does the project
involve any connections or changes to connections to public water supply or appropriations of either
ground or surface water.
14. Water - related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland
zoning district, a delineated 100 -year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic
river land use district? _Yes _X—No
If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions.
The Facility is not in a shoreland zoning district, 100 -year flood plain, or a state or federally designated
wild or scenic river land use district.
15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body?
_Yes _X—No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential
overcrowding or conflicts with other uses.
16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of
soil to be moved:
15 acres; cubic yards Total excavation: 967,417 cy; Total fill: 770,302. Describe any steep slopes
or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and
sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction.
No naturally- occurring steep slopes, or highly erodible soils are present on the proposed Project site.
However, upon closure of the Facility there will be some upper side slopes designed with maximum 25
percent grades and 2:1 slope ratios on the lower portion of berm along the south property line of the
Facility. The final slopes will have storm water benches and downchutes to control and direct storm
water to the sedimentation basins.
To mitigate any potential erosion, erosion control practices may include the use of silt fencing,
drainage channels, erosion control berms, and infiltration ponds. Construction and operation of the
landfill area will disturb only a limited area of the overall site and in a phased manner. At the
conclusion of landfilling, a final cover will be constructed over any remaining open landfill cells. All
final cover will be seeded. Storm water controls are incorporated on the final cover slopes including,
but not limited to: berms and drainage diversion ditches to reduce the potential for erosion of the side
slopes.
17. Water quality: surface water runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe
permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any storm water pollution prevention
plans.
Storm water management at the Facility provides for the control of surface water drainage resulting
from precipitation events both on the SKB property and areas that drain onto the Facility. Storm water
drainage facilities are constructed for the following purposes: (1) to modify existing storm water
infiltration areas to increase capacity to assure that downstream flow from the Facility is not increased;
(2) to construct control facilities to convey runoff from areas outside of the disposal cells to the storm
water infiltration areas; and (3) to collect precipitation falling on an open cell to prevent release of this
storm water from the cell.
The storm water management plan for the Facility consists of facilities to control runoff inside and
outside of the cells. The control facilities outside of the cells control runoff from precipitation that
falls outside of the cells whereas the control system inside of the cells controls runoff from
precipitation which falls inside of the cells.
The control facilities outside of the cells consist of a series of storm water basins with accompanying
drainage ditches designed to hold runoff from a 100 -year, 24 hour precipitation event occurring over
the site area, plus the NURP storage volume from a 2.5 year storm, as required by the city of
Rosemount.
Control of storm water inside the cells consists of providing sufficient storage to totally contain storm
water within the cell from a 100 year, 24 hour precipitation event. Storm water that comes in contact
with waste will be treated as leachate.
As the cells are constructed, the storm water management ditches will be constructed to adequately
manage and convey runoff to the storm water basins. Storm water drainage ditches and
retention/infiltration basins will be modified and constructed as needed during the construction of each
sub cell to provide storm water management during the ongoing development of the Facility.
b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream
water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of
receiving waters.
Currently, there are three on -site retention and infiltration ponds to accommodate the storm water that
is generated on -site. These three ponds manage the storm water generated on -site and there are no
direct storm water discharges to water bodies. At the completion of the Facility there will be a total of
six storm water basins.
18. Water quality: wastewaters
a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial
wastewater produced or treated at the site.
SANITARY WASTEWATER
The Facility discharges sanitary wastewater in quantities typical of a 2,500 square foot office to the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Empire Waste Water Treatment Facility (MCES).
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER (LEACHATE)
Leachate is produced when precipitation comes into contact and percolates through the wastes in the
landfill cells. The leachate generated at the Facility is collected by a series of pipes, which drain to the
sumps in the landfill cells. The leachate is then pumped from the sumps into a gravity leachate line.
The collected leachate will either be stored in the on -site storage tanks before being sent off -site for
treatment, or will be piped directly to the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and
operated by the Metropolitan Council.
b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of
composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water
bodies (identifying any impaired waters), and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of
receiving waters. If the project involves onsite sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site
conditions for such systems.
Treatment of wastewater does not occur on -site and there is not discharge of wastewater to local water
bodies.
c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility,
describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and
composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary.
The wastewater discharged from the Facility is treated at the Empire Wastewater Treatment Facility,
which is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Council. The industrial wastewater is discharged
from the Facility per SKB's MCES Discharge Permit (Permit No. 2133). The Facility expansion will
not increase the overall volume or change the parameters in the leachate. The current discharge permit
has volume and concentration limits. The Facility is able to meet the discharge limits without any on-
site pretreatment. The proposed project will not change SKB's compliance with its current discharge
permit with the Metropolitan Council.
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 10 minimum 70 average;
to bedrock: 30 minimum 113 average.
Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the
site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to
avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
A hydrogeological evaluation of the Facility was prepared by Environmental Engineering Management
and submitted to the MPCA as Volume III of the January, 1991 Permit Application. Supplemental
hydrologic data has been obtained through numerous soil borings performed during the operating life
of the Landfill.
Previous investigations at the Facility indicate the first bedrock unit encountered is the Prairie Du
Chien (Figures 12A and B). The Prairie du Chien is composed of dolomite and sandy dolomite. The
upper bedrock unit ranges in elevation from 795 feet above mean sea level (ft. msl) to just below 680
ft. relative to the National Geodetic Datum of 1929 (NGVD). This corresponds to an approximate
depth below ground surface of 30 to 190 feet. The average depth to the upper bedrock unit is
approximately 113 ft.
The Prairie du Chien is hydraulically connected to the overlying glacial sediments and to the
underlying Jordan Sandstone. Underlying the Jordan Sandstone is the St. Lawrence Formation which
is underlain by the Franconia Formation. The St. Lawrence Formation is predominantly composed of
sandy dolomite and dolomitic siltstone. The St. Lawrence Formation is predominantly composed of
interbedded sandstone, siltstone and shale. The upper Franconia is a minor aquifer in this area of
Dakota County. The lower Franconia and St. Lawrence act as regional confining units. The sandstone
and dolomite bedrock units can provide significant quantities of groundwater for use by municipalities,
industries and farmsteads. Groundwater generally flows to the northeast toward the Mississippi River,
which acts as a minor discharge zone for the upper bedrock aquifers.
Valleys have developed in the bedrock due to pre - glacial erosion. A major bedrock valley is located
north of the Facility. This valley trends west - northwest to east - southeast and is approximately two and
one -half miles wide. This valley has cut through the Prairie du Chien and Jordan units to an elevation
of approximately 500 ft. NGVD. Smaller bedrock valleys have also been identified near the Facility.
However, no geologic hazards such as sinkholes or other karst features have been identified beneath,
or near the Facility.
b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil texture
and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto
the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.
The soils at the Facility range from silty clay loam to sandy loam, with sandier soils predominating the
area (Figure 13). Boring logs indicate the following American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)
classifications: SM, SP, SP -SM, ML, CL -ML and CH -ML. Specific soil series at the Facility include
Hawick coarse sandy loam, Easterville sandy loam, Dickenson sandy loam, Kennebec silt loam,
Marsham silty clay loam and Kato silty clay loam. These soils develop on glacial outwash, such as the
sediments that underlay the Facility.
Field information collected at the Facility indicates there is 30 to 130 feet of glacial sediments. These
sediments were deposited by the Superior lobe glacial advances. Superior lobe outwash overlies a
relatively thin Superior lobe sandy loam till. Minor lenses of finer- grained silts and clay have been
noted in the outwash. The outwash unit is described as sand and gravel with cobbles. The underlying
till is described as reddish -brown sandy loam with cobbles and boulders commonly encountered. The
first groundwater is encountered within the outwash sand. Groundwater generally flows from the
southwest to the northeast. Figure 8 shows the groundwater flow information.
Due to the sandy nature of soils of at the Facility, the risk of groundwater contamination is present
should liquid waste or chemicals be spilled or spread onto the soils. However, environmental
monitoring, landfill cell design, which includes a liner with three barrier layers, liquid handling, and
waste acceptance and handling plans minimize any risk of contamination to the underlying soil at the
Facility.
20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks
a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal
manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and
location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source
separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is
generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste
reduction assessments.
The full Facility is designed and currently accepts non - hazardous industrial waste, municipal solid
waste combustor ash and C &D debris. In addition to these waste types that are currently accepted, the
Facility is currently permitted to accept mixed municipal solid waste, source separated compostable
materials, yard waste, and various other recyclable materials. Each of the operating and permitted
activities takes place or will take place in a state of the art waste management facility. These facilities
exceed the requirements in Minnesota Rules.
This includes a liner system with three barrier layers in the industrial solid waste disposal areas, thicker
liner components in the mixed municipal solid waste combustor ash disposal area and the presence of a
liner in the C &D debris disposal area. The compost area will also take place over these lined areas.
Transfer operations will take place within a building. Recycling operations will take place either
within a lined area of the Facility or within a structure.
During construction excavated materials will be reusedlrecompacted for the exterior berm of the cell
where possible. If there are any excess excavated soils not used for berm construction, they will be
stockpiled onsite and used as cover materials for intermittent or final cover. Waste generated during
construction of the landfill cell includes; geosynthetic liner material, geosynthetic fabric, and
geosynthetic membrane remnants. Waste or scrap generated during construction will be disposed of
within the active landfill cell.
The permitted operations that may generate a waste product would be the composting operation and
some of the recycling operations. The disposal areas of the Facility are able to manage residuals from
these types of recycling operations. The landfill cell design employed by the Facility exceeds the
MPCA guidance for Industrial Landfill Cell Design.
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. If the use of toxic or
hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any
alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission.
The Facility does not accept any toxic or hazardous materials and has a MPCA and Dakota County
approved Waste Acceptance Plan that provides a detailed process for evaluating waste before it is
accepted for disposal or processing.
As outlined elsewhere in this document, the Facility is permitted to accept non - hazardous industrial
solid waste, municipal solid waste combustor ash, C &D debris, mixed municipal solid waste, source
separated compostable materials, yard waste, and source separated compostable material. The waste
loads are sorted for recyclable materials prior to disposal. Unacceptable materials are rejected if found
during load inspections.
On site personnel will be responsible for visually inspecting all loads to ensure that prohibited
materials are not unloaded on site.
c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store
petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response
containment plans.
ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANKS
Currently, the Facility has four (4) aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) utilized for diesel fuel and three
(3) stationary ASTs utilized for leachate storage. The diesel fuel storage ASTs are mobile tanks and are
moved near the working face in each of the active landfill Cells (3, 4 and 5) for the purpose of fueling
site equipment.
The leachate ASTs do not contain petroleum products and are dedicated storage for leachate prior to
offsite treatment. The total capacity of the three leachate ASTs is approximately 750,000 gallons. The
secondary containment area for the leachate AST is constructed concrete basin, with a volume of
417,225 gallons. The secondary containment area volume can contain the contents of one AST plus
volume generated by a 25 -year, 24 -hour rain event with enough freeboard to prevent leakage from the
containment area. Each of the leachate ASTs was field constructed in 1991. Currently, one tank is
operational and the remaining two can easily be readied as required. The leachate from the site is
discharged to the MCES facility through leachate gravity pipeline. The expansion of the site does not
require any additional AST's as part of operation.
BELOW GROUND STORAGE TANKS
Although the Facility does not have any below ground storage tanks, the Facility utilizes below ground
leachate pipes used to transport leachate from each landfill cell off -site to the MCES sanitary sewer
line. The underground pipelines are all double walled and placed sufficiently deep ( -6 feet) to prevent
damage due to freeze -thaw.
PORTABLE CONTAINERS
The Facility has two totes that are stored in the container management building. One tote is 300
gallons and contains 15Wl40 Oil and the other is a 325- gallon tote containing IOW hydraulic oil. The
totes are located indoors and do not require secondary containment. There are also twenty (20) 55-
gallon drums that contain various petroleum products and/or used petroleum products. All 55- gallon
drums are stored in the Container Management Building. The Facility currently has these container
and no additional containers are needed for the proposed expansion
EMERGENCY RESPONSE CONTAINMENT PLAN
The Facility maintains a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) onsite in the event
a spill occurs as required by the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 112 (40 CFR 112) and
Minnesota Statute 115.
All spills at the Facility will be contained by on site containment and reported according to regulations.
In the event a containment measure fails, actions will be taken to minimize the impact of the spill and
expedite any clean -up required. Details on procedures and spill response are outlined in the Facility
SPCC Plan.
21. Traffic. Parking spaces added: 0
Existing spaces (if project involves expansion):20
Estimated total average daily traffic generated: 672 total trips per day, with 336 entering trips and
336 existing trips
Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence: 83 trips during a.m.
peak hour (7:00 — 8:00 a.m.) and 83 trips during p.m. peak hour (4:00 — 5:00 p.m.)
Indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates. Data from the project owner
regarding existing truck, employee, and visitor usage
If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic
impact study must be prepared as part of the EA W. Using the format and procedures described in
the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Traffic Impact Study Guidance (available at:
http: / /rvrvay.oian dot. state. mn. us /access /id s /ChaBter %205. or a similar local guidance, provide
an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic
improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project's impact on the regional
transportation system.
The proposed project is not expected to increase the existing number of trips generated by the facility.
The proposed expansion increases the disposal capacity of the facility but does not add any additional
services. It is expected that the current level of traffic would continue for a longer period into the
future.
The existing facility accommodates approximately 1,725 trucks per week, which averages to 314
trucks per day. The site is open 5.5 days per week. There are 17 full time employees on site each day.
There are approximately two deliveries and visitors that visit the site on an average weekday. Based
on this information, the site is estimated to generate 672 trips per day, with 336 entering and 336
exiting trips. During the weekday peak hours, the site is estimated to generate 83 trips during a.m.
peak hour (7:00 — 8:00 a.m.) and 83 trips during p.m. peak hour (4:00 — 5:00 p.m.). As stated above,
the proposed project is not expected to increase these numbers.
The vast majority of trips generated access the site via TH 55. The predominant movement is to and
from the west on TH 55. The site also has access to 140th Street on the south side of the site, but use
of this access is very minor.
Data from MnDOT shows the current volume on TH 55 at 14,000 vehicles per day. This volume
includes the existing trips generated by the site. Since the project is not expected to increase the
number of trips generated, the proposed project will not impact the volume on TH 55.
In addition, MnDOT has a long -range plan to eliminate the current TH 52/TH 55 interchange and
relocate TH 55 south to the current Highway 42 alignment. This future project would create a new full
interchange at the existing TH 52/Highway 42 interchange location. After this relocation is complete,
the traffic volumes on Courthouse Boulevard on the north side of the landfill would be significantly
reduced.
Overall, the proposed project is not expected to increase the number of trips generated by the proposed
facility. Therefore, the proposed project will have minimal impact on the traffic operations of the
surrounding roadway system.
22. Vehicle - related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality,
including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation
measures on air quality impacts.
Existing operations at the Facility include the use of dozers, loaders, and similar equipment for
material processing, placement, and compaction. Because operations for the proposed Project are
expected to be similar to current operations, no significant changes in vehicle related emissions are
expected. The effect on local and regional air quality resulting from vehicle related air emissions
associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts.
23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust
sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any
greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone - depleting
chemicals (chloro- fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride).
Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control
devices. Describe the impacts on air quality.
Dust control for the Facility is performed by maintaining pavement on many of the access roads to the
waste disposal cells. Those roads which are not paved are watered regularly during dry weather to
prevent dust generation. Due to the nature of the waste, the potential to create landfill gas (methane) is
minimal. The Environmental Monitoring Plan approved by the MPCA included installing monitoring
points around the Facility to monitor for methane gas. The monitoring points are sampled three times
per year. To date, methane has not been found to be present in any of the perimeter monitoring probes.
24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or
during operation? _X Yes _No
If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed
measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and
estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note:
fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.)
X 1"
Industrial waste and ash landfills do not typically generate significant odors because there is very little
organic material present in the waste stream. The Facility has been in operation since 1992 and odor
has not been a problem.
NOISE
The current landfill operations generate noise from trucks and heavy equipment used to haul and move
waste. The facility currently uses the following motorized equipment: 4 cy front -end loader,
Caterpillar Motor Grader, 4000 gal. water Truck, 15 ton compactor and a skid loader. The number of
vehicles on site will change with the proposed project. Noise is also currently generated by trucks
hauling waste to the Facility. These vehicles produce noise from their engines, back -up warning
devices, and tailgates. The expansion is not anticipated to increase vehicle traffic at the Facility.
Therefore significant increases in noise levels are not expected.
1111131
Existing operations at the Facility include the use of dozers, loaders, and similar equipment for
material processing, placement, and compaction. Because operations for the proposed Project are
expected to be similar to current operations, no significant changes in dust emissions are expected.
The effect on local and regional air quality resulting from vehicle related air emissions associated with
the proposed project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts.
25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? _Yes _X—No
Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? Yes _X —No
Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? Yes _X —No
Scenic views and vistas? Yes X_No
Other unique resources? — Yes �_X_No
If yes, describe the resource and identify any project - related impacts on the resource. Describe
any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation?
Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from
cooling towers or exhaust stacks? Yes _X —No
If yes, explain.
The proposed expansion of the Facility will not create adverse visual impacts such as glare from lights,
plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks. Once the landfill is closed, it will be a tall, grassy hill;
which will mitigate the visual impact of exhaust stacks from nearby local industrial areas as viewed
from the south. The vertical expansion will be visually negligible compared to the currently permitted
height due to the relatively small vertical increase (50 feet) over a relatively wide horizon (4000 feet).
The final elevation of the vertical expansion will be 1060 feet, which is approximately 230 feet above
1401' Street and 170 feet above Minnesota Trunk Highway 55.
27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local
comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource
management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? _X Yes — No.
If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts
will be resolved. If no, explain.
The Facility is zoned as Waste Management District in the City of Rosemount's IUP. The Facility
maintains an MPCA, Dakota County and City of Rosemount solid waste operating permit.
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other
infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? _ _Yes X No.
If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure
that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW
Guidelines for details.)
No additional utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public service will be required to serve the project.
The previously approved expansion included relocating the power poles on site, but that was
previously reviewed and approved.
29. Cumulative potential effects. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the
RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when
determining the need for an environmental impact statement.
Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the
project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative potential effects. (Such
future projects would be those that are actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has
been laid.)
Describe the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental
effects due to these cumulative effects (or discuss each cumulative potential effect under
appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form).
No past, present or planned project is known that may interact with the proposed project to cause a
cumulative impact.
30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental
impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed
mitigation.
No other impacts are anticipated.
31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead,
address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW.
List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before
the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be
considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as
permit conditions.
None.
RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental
Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.)
I hereby certify that:
• The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
• The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components
other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected
actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60,
respectively.
• Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature
Title
Date
Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at
the Minnesota Department of Administration, Office of Geographic and Demographic Analysis. For
additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658
Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651 -201 -2492, or http: / /www.egb.state.mn.us
Ei
— nnafairwuuu
Lake Elmo
Lauderdale
Falcon
S,1
solders
Heights
I/alley Minneapolis
--- — -t -_
Eo RAMSEY CO.
Oakdale
N
N N EI A R
iz
0 12
0
5mi
St Louis Park
St Paul mi
H "
PVs
Woodbury
I,1ke St Croix ac's
Edina
ao
WASHINGTON CO.
HENNEPIN CO.
West St Paul
A,.n
Mendota —. South St P.
98 •IG11- at S
r
1tto'
Richfield
Heights 10 rr
52!N
77 �_
Suafieh _aku
A:woeo —_
.1 Pd 'lpgrt
"' f+ik 7
.4raMe4'
t
t Raul Park
,taa Inver Grove Cottage Glove
H eig htS
Bloomington ralyds
' 9a
'
FACILITY
LOCATION
"
PIERCE
CO.
13
LFBhIwoN HrLL$
Swage
23
Burnsville
f.•n r'y..r
38
E,7an -a,
Rich'+lallry
PfC C; r it
Apple Valley
Rosemount 42 '1 U.Sin.'Src
orsi d,.
tsars St w
56 .
ra
Gvd-
Coates
DAKOTA CO.
i
,Jrt River
hfw—
Vermillion IWO' }� E
-,4e
4
Lakeville
Empire
F
70 235th StAr
50 52
-- - Famlington
220th St E
SCOTT CO.
Gf
Eqg
•iampton
50 2ho0h St E Nuw t rior
Si
HyFwry G1
RNo
Eureka
as
Center
j m
Elko
WOlLh
E F
4
Castle Rock ?eoth st
6Vebs-e�
ume Waterford
ch,4,p
Northfield
RICE CO. thStE
h'' ?I5�•_Ia bvlldiS
a
o w t Uennlu Wd
MINNESOTA
MAP LOCATION
075704- 4000(028)GIS -SP001 FEB 28/2013
-.111 Falls 19 Vasa
H't3h —V,F�
GOODHUE CO.
57
Belle Creek
yn�dy
� l
u
figure 1
FACILITY LOCATION
SKB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL
WASTE FACILITY SW-383
Rosemount, Minnesota
Mile
823,
- ��- s
0 1000 2000 ft
V n1 Lake 7, 4 L-�_ 16
+k t CID �
Al
LE
90 J
a - -
I _
Uhf r rZa ii
Lj
' "4,1 w'ft�I \ � d!� �, \� � i � .' f � I � t{ i \`-"' f� •4��' �l.
-- SITE
2.
" 660 0
>348 .: j� �%H
0 arse Zy
54
_ y .
r,
� 9
J Lw -
r- RQSEMO
6so
897 `l
91` u '
SOURCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADS - INVER GROVE HEIGHTS; ST. PAUL PARK; COATES; VERMILLION �•
075704- 4000(028)GIS -SP002 FEB 28/2013
figure
SITE LOCATION
SKB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL
WASTE FACILITY SW -383
Rosemount, Minnesota
- h
01
ice....
0
DAKOTA CO.
SITE LOCATION
075704- 4000(028)GIS -SP003 FEB 28/2013
'A
N
0 400 800 ft
t k
1 4
C. ,r 55
MkL • -'
figure 3
PROJECT LOCATION
SKB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL
WASTE FACILITY SW -383
Rosemount, Minnesota
Document Path: K:A 01916 -9 1 ps \Fig4_NaturalF q,tu
N
0 2,000 Feet
4
Q
U Rich u.,n >,
G"11 r 10.
145th yl L
Significance Score
Outstanding ecological score
High ecological score
- 0 Moderate ecological score
----------- - - - - -I
SOURCE: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES
Alk
WSB
MINNESOTA
PROJECT LOCATION
fh�N
S
192ntl t
4
W-01
CO
rth"" EN" 55
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2012
figure 4
NATURAL FEATURES
SKB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL
WASTE FACILITY SW-383
Rosemount, Minnesota
j /
Z
p
W
f
¢
o
U
H J
Q
Z O
U
?
o cn Z
w
O
W
'
O�
z p O
o
IF
_
N000z
O
¢ Z
z
o
-
9�e '
Z
z
W
O
3
j /
—
W
F
V
_
o
PU
W
o
a W
w m
w
�
-- - - z-
-
zo
o co
_
0
C,e
Ll
O
y
\ a
o
v -
\ MW i'
cz
j
0
m _ ,
m
-i .
r
-
W
F
V
_
o
U
W Z
W
C
IF
- - z
z o
o aU
- - -
_p
=
0
O
y
U p
Q6)
�NJ
�w
p U /
Al, \�
c
J � �
cl
U Z /
ip i
W �-
%6�
�z
�U -
w
w\ ,
U ❑
rvJ m
I
U)
J cn I
U ❑
m
rt �J I II III
J �
fn _
W �
m
—
a
W
F
_
o
U
W
=
W
z o
p
K
U N
IF
J
fr
LU
O Q
C
O
O H
e
<a
zO
I
oa
N
C,e
O
y
LLLJ
/
m
y
m°
Ju
A, i
�I
l <
h
o
a \ � �� • jam, \ i ��° � �)) � i
o
a
v� '
WALBON
FLINT HILLS RESOURCES
N
RTNERSHIP
PINE. BEND LLC
JAMES
NDUSTRIES INC
N
w
QUIST
-FLINT HILLS RESOURCES
JAMES
_ PINE BENDLLCM"
QUIST
LLC
RAHN FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNER
TECHNICAL EREC
P INE BENI
LAND CO
�.I SPECTRO UNION PACIFIC
ALLOWS
O�G I RAILROAD _
CORP
oG
sF„
e <Lo
PRE�OURCES NT HILLS FL HILLS
RESOURCES
P BEND LLC PANE BEND LLC ROSEMOUNTI ENDRES
,5 HnI nINC;SidIr6: PROPERTIES
GREAT RIVER
ENERGY
LEGEND
- WM - WASTE MANAGEMENT
AG - AGRICULTURAL
GI - GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
- HI - HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
PI - PUBLIC /INSTITUTIONAL
075704- 4000(028)GIS -SP004 FEB 28/2013
GREAT RIVER
ENERGY
GREAT RIVER
ENERGY
�A
N
0 500
100011
NDUSTRIES INC
N
w
LL �
U in
BONNIE
TROSKA
MASAHII
SUGII
BURGER FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
N
W
O
N
2
a
w
N
R
'BURGER
FAMILY
LIMITED
PARTNER-
SHIP
AGRE
GREAT
RIVER
ENERGY
figure 9
ZONING MAP
SKB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL
WASTE FACILITY SW -383
Rosemount, Minnesota
t
r -
LEGEND
PROPOSED WETLAND
TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED STORMWATER
POND
075704- 4000(028)GIS -SP005 FEB 28/2013
F
1"A
s �
,r a
'A
N
0 400 800 ft
iii --
ft. • -'
figure 10
PROPOSED WETLAND REMOVAL
SKB ROSEMOUNT INDUSTRIAL
WASTE FACILITY SW -383
Rosemount, Minnesota
N } Q W o
C7
_ _
� N
m o o
O cn cn c
C7
w w w
z ❑ ❑
o
W
°e
�
0 2 U U
Q Q
z
O
m
�
Q~ V O
z Q
_ L
�iZ
J O ON H H
LL
Ow o
Ln w
a
m
V)
f
-
1
�r
z
1 • l
r"
+"
F
1
m
W
a
N
m }Qw
C7 0
0
z z 0 Ln L/)
U _
o U U o
o a a m OzQ
z a
Z Q w J Il N
C7 a o Q w vl
ui
o u m W I
o�
CO
Y
N
w �r
O •-
IF! dl .
Jwt •-?
m
w
a
N
M' " "esoca Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Box 25
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 -4025
DEPARTMENT OF Phone: (651) 259 -5109 E -mail: lisa.joyal @state.mn.us
NATURALRESOURCES
April 18, 2013
Mr. Nathan Estrem
Conestoga- Rovers & Associates
1801 Old Highway 8 NW, Suite 114
St. Paul, MN 55112
Correspondence # ERDB 20130220
RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility (SW -383 Permit
Renewal Application), TI 15N RI 8W Sections 19 & 20, Dakota County
Dear Mr. Estrem,
As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if
any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile
radius of the proposed project. Based on this query, rare features have been documented within the search
area (see the enclosed database report; please visit the Rare Species Guide at
hiip: // www .dnr.state.mn.us /rsg /index.html for more information on the biology, habitat use, and conservation
measures of these rare species). Please note that the following rare features may be adversely affected by
the proposed project:
The proposed expansion site is within a Central Region Regionally Significant Ecological Area
(RSEA) that is ranked High. In particular, this RSEA contains a wetland that, at least in the past,
was used by a variety of birds. The DNR Central Region (in partnership with the Metropolitan
Council for the 7- county metro area), identified these ecologically significant terrestrial and
wetland areas by conducting a landscape -scale assessment based on the size and shape of the
ecological area, land cover within the ecological area, adjacent land cover /use, and connectivity
to other ecological areas. The purpose of the data is to inform regional scale land use decisions,
especially as it relates to balancing development and natural resource protection. A GIs
shapefile of this data layer can be downloaded from the DNR Data Deli at
http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us. Additional information, including pdf versions of the RSEA maps, is
available at http: // www. dnr.state.mn.us /rsea/index.html. If you would like help interpreting the
RSEA data, please contact Hannah Texler, Regional Plant Ecologist for DNR's Central Region,
at 651- 259 -5811 or hannah.texlerkstate.mn.us.
As noted in previous reviews, the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a state - listed
threatened bird, has been documented in the vicinity of the proposed project. SKB has taken
actions to maintain and improve habitat for shrikes within their property and in a 2008 EAW
noted that there had been evidence of shrike activity within the property. Please contact me if
the proposed project will involve any construction /disturbance within suitable nesting
habitat during the breeding season (April through July), as the DNR may request that a search
for loggerhead shrike nests take place immediately prior to any construction activity. The
purpose of the survey would be to avoid an inadvertent taking of a state - protected species.
www.mndnr.gov
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information
about Minnesota's rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources,
Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available,
and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant
communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not
represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features
for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available
regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary.
The enclosed results include an Index Report of records in the Rare Features Database, the main
database of the NHIS. To control the release of specific location data, the report is copyrighted and only
provides rare features locations to the nearest section. The Index Report may be reprinted, unaltered, in any
environmental review document (e.g., EAW or EIS), municipal natural resource plan, or report compiled by
your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the Index Report for any other purpose,
please contact me to request written permission.
For environmental review purposes, the Natural Heritage letter and database report are valid for one
year; they are only valid for the project location (noted above) and the project description provided on the
NHIS Data Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or if an updated review is needed.
Please note that locations of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), state - listed as special concern, and the
Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), federally - listed as threatened, are not currently tracked in the NHIS. As
such, the Natural Heritage Review does not address these species.
Furthermore, the Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department
of Natural Resources as awhole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and
potential effects to these rare features. Additional rare features for which we have no data may be present in
the project area, or there may be other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project. For
these concerns, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist (contact information
available at htip: / /www.dnr. state. mn. us /eco /ereview /ep2 regioncontacts.html). Please be aware that
additional site assessments or review may be required.
Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare
natural resources. An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover.
Sincerely,
iii _•��
Lisa Joyal
Endangered Species Review Coordinator
enc. Rare Features Database: Index Report