HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.b. Request by Hardrives, Inc. to Amend their Interim Use Permit to Increase the Total Liquid Asphalt Storage Capacity at the Asphalt Cement Blending Plant Facility
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Regular Meeting: September 6, 2016
AGENDA ITEM: Request by Hardrives, Inc. to Amend
their Interim Use Permit to Increase the
Total Liquid Asphalt Storage Capacity at
the Asphalt Cement Blending Plant
Facility.
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 9.b.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution; Location Map; Plans as
approved with AUF; Application
Narrative; Site Plans (Phase 1 and 2);
Fire Marshall’s Memorandum dated May,
24, 2016; Environmental Assessment
Worksheet; MPCA Findings of Fact;
APPROVED BY: ddj
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution to amend Hardrives,
Incorporated’s Interim Use Permit to increase the total liquid asphalt storage capacity at the
asphalt cement blending plant facility.
SUMMARY
On November 18, 2014, Hardrives, Inc. received an Interim Use Permit to operate a seasonal asphalt and
blending plant within the Ancillary Use Facility of Dakota Aggregates Large Scale Mineral Extraction
operation. Due to changes in the composition of asphalt specified by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, the current blending plant design does not allow Hardrives to meet its internal asphalt
demands. Hardrives would like to amend the IUP to increase the total storage capacity to 4,126,444
gallons. The original approval allowed for a total storage capacity of 1,347,000 gallons. The increase also
takes into consideration storage expansion in the future. While the increase in gallons is significant, the site
plan is relatively similar to the previous representations. The conditions from the IUP approved in
November of 2014 are being carried forward on the attached resolution.
Applicant: Hardrives
Owner: Regents of the University of Minnesota
Location: Northwest corner of CSAH 46 and Akron Avenue
Net Acres: 17.35 Acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: AGR – Agricultural Research
Current Zoning: AG – Agriculture
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed amendment on May 24, 2016.
Commissioners asked for more information about the process to amend the IUP and whether this is
typical. Staff noted that there is no limit to the amount of amendments, but at a certain point the original
IUP is no longer valid and a new application would be required. The Commission also asked about the
containment basin for the new storage. When capacity is over one million gallons, secondary containment
110% of the storage capacity is required.
2
There were no public comments received by the Commission, but the applicant did respond to questions
about the need for additional storage on the site and the timeline for the second phase. The additional
storage will allow the applicant to meet the needs of all their plants and their largest customer, the State of
Minnesota, who has changed the design for asphalt MnDOT purchases. There are no plans to complete
phase two, but the applicant developed a plan to avoid completing multiple EAWs. An EAW was not
completed for the original application, but an EIS was done on the whole mining operation, including the
ancillary use area where the applicant’s facility is located.
Since approval by the Planning Commission, the applicant has completed the EAW process. This process,
and the need to receive the Findings of Fact prior to the City taking final action, caused the delay in
bringing this item to the City Council. The MCPA Findings of Fact are attached for the Council’s
information. The MPCA found that there are “no potential significant environmental effects reasonably
expected to occur from the Hardrives, Inc. Umore Park Expansion project and there is no need for an
Environmental Impact Statement.
Legal Authority
The interim use permit approval is a quasi-judicial action, meaning that if the application meets the City
Code and interim use permit regulations, then the interim use permit must be approved. Staff supports
approval of this interim use permit and finds that it is substantially in conformance with the approved
interim use permit regulations with recommended conditions. The detailed analysis of this finding is
provided below.
Site Plan and Layout
The 17.35 acre site is located within the designated ancillary use facility and is approximately 250 feet north
of CSAH 46, directly west of Akron Avenue and directly south of the private AUF access drive (158th Street
West). Within the 250 foot buffer between the plant and CSAH 46 there is a berm that is sixteen feet in
height as well as a stand of mature trees 125 feet in width which provide ample screening of the site. The
haul roads are all paved, and a 15 mile per hour speed limit is maintained on all unpaved areas in the AUF
site. A system is in place in the event a dust problem develops. It includes applying water and sweeping. So
far, there have been no complaints about the operations.
The proposed amendment to increase the total capacity includes three large above-ground storage tanks that
will be 40 feet in height and hold 1,217,000 gallons each. In addition to the storage tanks, the facility will
also feature two let-down tanks which will each hold 240,000 gallons as well as an additive tank, a wetting
tank, and two blending tanks all with capacities of 30,000 gallons. The original plan consisted of a liquid
asphalt storage tank, three let-down tanks, and two blending tanks.
The construction is planned to take place in two phases. Phase One proposes the construction of two of the
storage tanks, one of the let-down tanks, the two blending tanks, the additive tank, and the wetting tank
resulting in a capacity of 2,704,091 gallons. Phase Two is being proposed, but will not be constructed until
demand for the applicant’s products require the expansion. The second phase will add the third storage tank
and another let-down tank. This phase will contribute additional capacity of 1,422,353 gallons to the facility.
The resulting total capacity as proposed is 4,126,444 gallons, an increase of 2,779,444 gallons from the
1,347,000 gallons that was originally approved.
The decision by the applicant to request an amendment to their IUP came after meeting with their
engineering staff who determined the current blending plant design would not allow Hardrives to meet its
internal asphalt demands. The additive tank and wetting tank that are also being proposed in this application
will allow Hardrives, Inc. to meet all of the required specifications for products supplied to MnDOT. The
specifications have changed since the original application, and the revised plan will allow the applicant to
produce a wider variety of asphalt products.
3
Zoning
The Ancillary Use Facility falls under the General Industrial zoning standards. Hardrives’ facility as
originally approved was found to be compliant with the zoning requirements. At 40 feet tall, the largest
tanks proposed in the application fall well below the maximum height of 75 feet. Additionally, the required
setbacks and screening are maintained in the plan as proposed.
Hours of Operations
The hours of operations approved in the original IUP are twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.
These hours help the applicant meet the requirements of MnDOT and local Counties and Cities that
increasingly have construction projects take place at night and over the weekends.
Required Permits
The MPCA required the applicant to permit the facility for both phases of construction, even though the
second phase may not take place. The applicant has submitted an environmental assessment worksheet
(EAW) as part of the process of obtaining the required Major Facility Above-ground Storage Tank Permit.
The EAW was submitted in February, and the applicant expected the approval to come back in June. The
response from the MPCA took longer than expected, but the applicant ultimately received a negative
declaration by the MPCA for the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. The environmental review
of this project is now complete. A copy of the EAW and findings of fact are included in the attachments.
It was the applicant’s intent to have the blending plant covered under the same air permit as the existing
asphalt plant which itself was under Dakota Aggregates Option D Registration Air Permit. This request was
submitted along with the EAW. The MPCA determined that Dakota Aggregates and Hardrives are two
separate sources for the purposes of air permitting, and Hardrives will obtain its own Option D Registration
Permit. The permit requires the facility to report its emissions to the MPCA on an annual basis through an
Air Emission Inventory Report.
Finally, the facility is covered under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit held by
Dakota Aggregates for the entire site. The applicant is required by their lease agreement with Dakota
Aggregates to comply with all requirements of the permits for the AUF site. All stormwater and spill
procedures have been previously submitted in Dakota Aggregate’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
and its Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures plan. At this time there are no additional submittal
requirements to be met in accordance with the State Fire Code. If the amendment is approved, construction
permits and additional submittals will be required per the City Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the interim use permit to increase the total liquid asphalt
storage capacity allowed at the asphalt cement blending plant facility. This recommendation is based on the
information submitted by the applicant, findings made in this report and the comments detailed in the
attached memorandum.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2016-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO
INCREASE THE TOTAL LIQUID ASPHALT STORAGE CAPACITY AT AN ASPHALT
CEMENT BLENDING PLANT FACILITY
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received an application to amend an interim use permit to
increase the total liquid asphalt storage capacity at an asphalt cement blending plant facility by
Hardrives, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public
hearing to review the IUP amendment application from Hardrives, Inc. to increase the total liquid
asphalt storage capacity at its asphalt cement blending plant facility; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that the City Council
approve the amendment to Hardrives, Incorporated’s interim use permit; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2016, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission’s recommendation and the CUP application to construct a Combined Heat
and Power Plant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the IUP amendment to increase the total liquid asphalt storage capacity at the asphalt
cement blending plant facility with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the Interim Use Permit Application for the Primary Asphalt Plant dated
July 23, 2014.
2.Compliance with the Large Scale Mineral Extraction Permit for Dakota Aggregates
(Resolution 2012-105)
3. The Interim Use Permit expires on December 31, 2023.
4.Asphalt trucks shall access CSAH 46 either via the Station Trail Access or the Akron Avenue
access only. Asphalt trucks may not use Biscayne Avenue or any UMore roadway to access
CSAH 42.
5.Stockpiles associated with the facility cannot exceed 60 feet in height.
6.Conformance with the Fire Marshall’s Memorandum dated October 22, 2014.
7.Project is consistent with information submitted in the EAW.
ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 2016 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk
Hardrives
Hardrives, Inc. Site
To: Anthony Nemcek, City Planner
From: Rick Chase, Fire Marshal
Date: 5-24-2016
Scope: Hardrives IUP amendment
The Fire Marshal offers the following comments regarding the proposed IUP.
1.MPCA is currently reviewing submittals related to major facilities permit.
2.Contractor is in substantial completion of requested submittal documents related to the
4-18-2016 meeting with the City Fire Marshal.
At this time there are no additional submittal requirements to be met in accordance with the
State Fire Code. If the IUP is approved construction permits and additional submittals will be
required per the City of Rosemount Municipal Code.
Sincerely,
Rick Chase
Fire Marshal
page 1
July 2013 version
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the
Environmental Quality Board’s website at:
http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information
about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines
provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form.
Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be
addresses collectively under EAW Item 19.
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: Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project
2. Proposer: Hardrives, Inc. 3. RGU: MPCA
Contact person: Brian Knutson Contact person: Patrice Jensen
Title: EHS Director Title: Planner Principal, MPCA Env Review
Address: 14475 Quiram Dr Address: 520 Lafayette Road
City, State, ZIP: Rogers, MN 55374 City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 612‐490‐4097 Phone: 651‐757‐2465
Fax: Fax:
Email: BKnutson@Hardrivesinc.com Email: Patrice.jensen@state.mn.us
4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
Required: Discretionary:
EIS Scoping Citizen petition
X Mandatory EAW RGU discretion
Proposer initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):
Subp. 10. Storage facilities.
Items A to C designate the RGU for the type of project listed:
B. For construction of a facility on a single site designed for or capable of storing 1,000,000 gallons
or more of hazardous materials, the PCA shall be the RGU.
page 2
5.Project Location:
County:Dakota
City/Township:Rosemount
PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range):
Sections: 34 Township: 115N Range: 15W
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): 38 – Mississippi River‐Lake Pepin
GPS Coordinates: 44.719483, ‐93.089838
Tax Parcel Number: 34‐03400‐01‐020
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Project Location Map
Figure 3: Site Detail Map
Figure 4: Cover Types – Land Use and Zoning
Figure 5: FEMA Floodplain
Figure 6: Soils Map
Figure 7: Public Waters Inventory and National Wetland Inventory
Figure 8: Wellhead Protection Area and County Well Index
List of Tables
Table 1: Project Magnitude
Table 2: Proposed Additional Tanks
Table 3: Cover Types
Table 4: Permits Required
Table 5: Projected Screening Impact for Hardrives, Inc. Expansion Project
List of Attachments
Attachment 1: NHIS Query
Attachment 2: SHPO Query
6.Project Description:
a.Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50
words).
Hardrives, Inc. (Hardrives) is proposing to expand their operations with the addition of an
Asphalt Blending Plant at a hot mix asphalt production facility located at UMore Park in
Rosemount, Minnesota. The expansion would include the installation of the following eight
tanks: three liquid asphalt cement storage tanks, each capable of holding 1,217,000 gallons; two
letdown tanks, capable of storing 240,000 gallons; two blending tanks, each capable of storing
30,000 gallons; and a 30,000 gallon additive tank (Proposed Project). Hardrives has a lease
agreement with Dakota Aggregates for use of approximately 30 acres at their UMore Park site
(Project Site).
page 3
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including
infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility.
Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment
or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures,
and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
Hardrives, Incorporated (Hardrives) is proposing to expand operations with the addition of an
Asphalt Storage and Blending Plant at an existing hot‐mix asphalt production facility (Facility) in
Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota (Figure 1). The Project Site is located in the development
known as UMore Park (Figure 2), which is owned by the University of Minnesota (U of M).
In November 2010, an environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed by the U of M that
examined sand and gravel mining in UMore Park. The EIS evaluated the potential impacts of
sand and gravel mining in an approximately 1,700‐acre area of western UMore Park, including
operation of an ancillary use facility (AUF) site for concrete production, asphalt production,
precast products manufacturing, and processing of raw aggregate materials. The AUF site
comprises approximately 187 acres of the total Project Area evaluated in the EIS. Upon
completion of the EIS, the U of M signed a 40‐year lease agreement with Dakota Aggregates, LLC
to allow phased gavel mining in UMore Park. Dakota Aggregates, LLC (Dakota Aggregates) is a
partnership between Cemstone Products Company (Cemstone) and Ames Construction, Inc.
(Ames).
In addition to completion of an EIS for the sand and gravel mining in UMore Park, an Alternative
Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was completed in 2012 for the area. The AUAR evaluated the
potential impacts of several different development scenarios on the mining property and
surrounding UMore Park area. The end point of gravel mining in UMore Park was used as the
starting point for the AUAR analysis.
In 2012, the Rosemount City Council approved the Large Scale Mineral Extraction permit for
Dakota Aggregates to mine gravel over the next 25 years on approximately 600 acres of land
north of County Road 46 and east of Biscayne Avenue. The permit includes the use of the AUF
site for mining ancillary uses (aggregate processing, concrete production, asphalt production,
etc.) over the next 40 years.
Currently, the AUF site includes existing mining and asphalt production operations by Dakota
Aggregates and Hardrives. Hardrives has a lease agreement with Dakota Aggregates for use of
approximately 30 acres within the AUF site for operation of its existing asphalt plant, which
operates under an existing Option D Registration Air Permit (Air Emission Permit No. 03700377‐
001) issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and other local zoning permits. A
hot‐mix asphalt plant is also included in the Dakota Aggregates Total Facility Operating Permit
(Air Emission Permit No. 03700370‐001). Dakota Aggregates did not construct an asphalt plant,
but instead leased the space to Hardrives, who permitted and then constructed the plant.
Installation of the aboveground storage tanks requires an Aboveground Storage Tank (AST)
page 4
Major Facility Permit. In addition, a Facility Response Plan (FRP) and Spill Prevention, Control,
and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan will be prepared in accordance with federal rules (40 CFR 112)
and the Minnesota Spill Bill (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115E).
Hardrives operates a Facility at the Project Site. The Facility accepts raw materials, produces
asphalt, and then either stores or loads the asphalt into trucks. The Facility consists of four
30,000 gallon tanks at the HMA plant. The existing facility also includes a propane‐fired drum
dryer routed to a fabric filter, aggregate storage bins, and three HMA storage silos.
Proposed Project
The Proposed Project will expand the Hardrives existing Facility by installing an Asphalt Blending
Plant (Figure 3) which will consist of eight tanks: three liquid asphalt cement tanks each capable
of holding 1,217,000 gallons; two letdown tanks, each capable of storing 240,000 gallons; two
blending tanks, each capable of storing 30,000 gallons; and a 30,000 gallon additive tank. The
tanks will be placed on the existing, disturbed Project Site and will not create new disturbed
areas. The tanks will allow Hardrives to purchase asphalt in the winter and store it until needed
in the summer. The Asphalt Blending Plant will also include a polymer blending operation to
allow for the production of varying grades of asphalt.
Construction of the Asphalt Blending Plant is estimated to take four months. All new tanks will
be placed on land currently used for aggregate storage. The aggregate storage piles either have
already been moved or are in the process of being moved. Less than one acre will be excavated
for the poured ring‐wall concrete foundations for the tank construction. The Project Site will be
returned to existing grades and elevations using native materials. Prior work at the Project Site,
including grading, drainage, and stabilization, previously completed by Dakota Aggregates will
remain intact.
c. Project magnitude:
The Proposed Project does not involve construction or alterations of buildings or structures.
Table 1: Project Magnitude
Total proposed project area acreage: 30 acres
Linear proposed project length: NA
Number and type of residential units: NA
Commercial building area (in square feet) NA
Industrial building area (in square feet) 120,000 ‐ Hot‐Mix Processing Area
Institutional building area (in square feet) NA
Other uses – specify (in square feet) 490,000 ‐ Aggregate Storage Piles
Structure height(s) 40 feet
d. 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.
page 5
The Proposed Project will expand the existing Hardrives Facility by installing the following eight
tanks:
Table 2: Proposed Additional Tanks
Tank Type Gallons (per tank) Quantity Total Capacity (gallons)
Liquid Asphalt Cement 1,217,000 3 3,651,000
Letdown 240,000 2 480,000
Blending/Additive 30,000 3 90,000
Total 8 4,221,000
The additional tanks will allow Hardrives to purchase asphalt in the winter and store the product
onsite until summer production season. Additionally, the Proposed Project will construct a
polymer blending operation that will allow Hardrives to produce different grades of asphalt
cement as specified by Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) and other Proposed
Project owners.
e. 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.
f. 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.
In November 2010, an EIS was completed by the U of M that examined sand and gravel mining
in UMore Park. The EIS evaluated the potential impacts of sand and gravel mining in an
approximately 1,700‐acre area of western UMore Park, including operation of an AUF site for
concrete production, asphalt production, precast products manufacturing, and processing of
raw aggregate materials. The AUF site comprises approximately 187 acres of the total area
evaluated in the EIS. Upon completion of the EIS, the U of M signed a 40‐year lease agreement
with Dakota Aggregates, LLC to allow phased gavel mining in UMore Park.
In addition to completion of an EIS for the sand and gravel mining in UMore Park, an AUAR was
completed in 2012 for the area. The AUAR evaluated the potential impacts of several different
development scenarios on the mining property and surrounding UMore Park area. The end
point of gravel mining in UMore Park was used as the starting point for the AUAR analysis.
In 2012, the Rosemount City Council approved the Large Scale Mineral Extraction permit for
Dakota Aggregates to mine gravel over the next 25 years on approximately 600 acres of land
north of County Road 46 and east of Biscayne Avenue. The permit includes the use of the AUF
site for mining ancillary uses (aggregate processing, concrete production, asphalt production,
etc.) over the next 40 years.
page 6
Currently, the AUF site includes existing mining and asphalt production operations by Dakota
Aggregates and Hardrives. Hardrives has a lease agreement with Dakota Aggregates for use of
approximately 30 acres within the AUF site for operation of its existing Facility, which operates
under an existing Option D Registration Air Permit (Air Emission Permit No. 03700377‐001)
issued by the MPCA and other local zoning permits. Installation of the ASTs requires an AST
Major Facility Permit, which includes an SPCC plan.
Hardrives operates a Facility at the Project Site. To operate the Facility, Hardrives received an
Interim Use Permit (IUP) from the City of Rosemount on November 18, 2014. The IUP will expire
on December 31, 2023. The Facility accepts raw materials, produces asphalt, and then either
stores or loads the asphalt into trucks. The Facility consists of four 30,000 gallon asphalt cement
tanks placed on concrete floors with thirty‐six inch containment walls and are located south of
the hot‐mix asphalt plant.
7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
Table 3: Cover Types
Before After Before After
Types 1‐8 wetlands 0 0 Lawn/landscaping 5.8 5.8
Shrubland/Wooded/
Forest
4.4 4.4 Impervious surfaces (road) 19.8 19.8
Brush/Grassland 0 0 Sediment Pond 0 0
Cropland 0 0 Other 0 0
TOTAL 30 ac 30 ac
Source: Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS)
8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals,
certifications 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.
Table 4: Permits Required
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Option D Registration Permit Currently held
NPDES Industrial Stormwater
Permit
Held by Dakota Aggregates; to
be updated as needed
Temporary Wastewater
Discharge Permit
To be obtained
AST Major Facility Permit To be obtained
page 7
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Facility Response Plan
SPCC Plan
To be prepared
City of Rosemount Interim Use Permit Resolution 2014‐117, Adopted
Nov. 18, 2014;
To be updated as needed
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item
Nos. 9‐18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19. If
addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in
EAW Item No. 19
9. Land use:
a. Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks,
trails, prime or unique farmlands.
The Project Site is an existing seasonal hot‐mix asphalt plant (Facility) approximately 30
acres in size, operated by Hardrives, Inc. It is located directly north of 160th Street W
(County Road 46) east of Rosemount, Minnesota. The Project Site is within UMore Park
and is currently owned by the U of M and has been under their ownership since the late
1940s. Dakota Aggregates operates an aggregate processing facility approximately one‐
half mile to the west of the Project Site. The surrounding property to the north, east, and
south is part of the UMore Park site owned by the U of M. UMore Park is an
approximately 1,722 acre site that includes gravel mining operations and ancillary
operations buildings located throughout the entire property.
Dakota Aggregates, LLC entered into a Mining Lease Agreement with the U of M on June
8, 2011, for 40 years. Hardrives entered into a sublease with Dakota Aggregates on
October 8, 2014 to operate the existing Facility on the Project Site. Hardrives applied for
an IUP with the City of Rosemount to operate a Facility on the Project Site and was
granted the IUP on November 18, 2014. The IUP expires on December 31, 2023.
The Project Site is divided into three areas: the eastern third is the seasonal hot‐mix
asphalt plant, the northwest portion is the raw aggregate storage area, and the southwest
portion is the recycled asphalt storage area. The eight additional tanks would be located
on the on the southwestern side of the asphalt plant facility (Figure 3).
South of the Project Site is the U of M‐owned agricultural research station. The majority of
the surrounding areas to the west and south are rural residential and agricultural land use.
The remainder of UMore Park to the north and east contains the remnants of the former
Gopher Ordnance Works (GOW) munitions facility from the 1940s. There are no parks,
trails, or recreation areas on the Project Site or within the greater UMore Park site.
Vermillion Highlands Research Recreation and Wildlife Management Area is the closest
recreation area to the Project Site, located approximately two miles directly south.
page 8
ii.Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any
other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional,
state, or federal agency.
The Project Site is included in the area of the UMore Park AUAR and is within the 1,700
acres which was proposed for gravel mining in the 2010 University of Minnesota – UMore
Park Sand and Gravel Resources Project EIS.
The City of Rosemount adopted an official Comprehensive Plan in November 2009 to
guide the development of the City through 2030 (2030 Comp Plan). The Project Site is
zoned in the 2030 Comp Plan as PO Existing Parks/Open Space; however, the Project Site
is not recognized as a natural area within the 2030 Comp Plan. Parks and Open Space are
valued within the Comp Plan to provide areas of open space for activities ranging from
ball fields to nature preserves. The Proposed Project is compatible with the 2030 Comp
Plan due to the conditions of Hardrives’ sublease and the terms of the IUP issued by the
City of Rosemont.
iii.Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic
rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The Project Site is incorporated in the City of Rosemount in Empire Township, Dakota
County. The City of Rosemount Planning and Zoning Department has identified the Project
Site as agricultural district (AG). According to the City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance,
districts zoned AG are “primarily established to encourage the long term continuation of
agricultural and related uses in the city in areas which are both suitable for agriculture and
are not planned for urban development” (Ord. B, 9‐19‐1989). Under this ordinance,
permitted conditional uses for agricultural districts include “Large scale mineral extraction
ancillary uses and large scale mineral extraction and related accessory uses within the
large scale mineral extraction overly district”. The area is also recognized by Empire
Township as a “Mineral Extraction Overlay Area” (AUAR). The Proposed Project is
compatible with current zoning. There are no shoreland or floodplain areas, wild and
scenic rivers, or other critical areas within the Project Site.
b.Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a
above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
The Project Site is identified as an agricultural district under the City of Rosemount zoning
ordinance and shown as open space within the 2030 Comp Plan. However, the Proposed Project
is located within UMore Park which was evaluated under an EIS in 2010 exploring sand, gravel
and aggregate mining operations within the park. An AUAR has also been completed for UMore
Park which examined a variety of development scenarios related sand and aggregate mining and
the associated operations such as concrete or asphalt production. The proposed liquid asphalt
storage tanks were not specifically evaluated within the prior environmental reviews that have
been conducted for the overall UMore Park, which includes the Project Site. However, the
storage tanks are consistent with the operations associated with asphalt processing and
page 9
production and with the overall evaluations conducted for UMore Park under prior
environmental review. The City of Rosemont issued an IUP to Hardrives to cover the operation
of the seasonal hot‐mix asphalt plant and an asphalt storage facility.
c.Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential
incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.
None needed
10.Geology, soils and topography/land forms:
a.Geology ‐ Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible
geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers,
or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the
project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to
address effects to geologic features.
Project Site geology consists of the St. Peter Sandstone and Prairie du Chien group. The St. Peter
Sandstone consists of fine‐ to medium‐grained quartzose sandstone and the Prairie‐Du Chien
group consists of dolostone with thin beds of sandstone and chert. Dolostone of the Prairie du
Chien group can be susceptible to karst topography. The principal aquifers of Prairie du Chien,
St. Peter, and Jordan bedrock are contained within this bedrock geology, which consist of
alluvium underlain by glacial outwash and carbonate rock. These principal aquifers are typically
confined (USGS National Geologic Map Database).
The Prairie du Chien group is susceptible to the development of karst features, as described
above, which occurs through the dissolution of the carbonate bedrock. Bedrock at the Project
Site is not exposed and is currently protected by “glaciofluvial sediments over outwash” (NRCS
Web Soil Survey) and there are no known karst features located on the Project Site.
b.Soils and topography ‐ Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly
permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading.
Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational
activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project
construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other
measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in
response to Item 11.b.ii.
NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing
the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create
an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water.
Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must
be consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects
described in EAW Item 10.
page 10
As described above, soils on the Project Site consist of glaciofluvial sediments over outwash
parent material and consist of silt loam, loamy sand, and gravelly sand. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey identified three soil series on the Project Site;
Waukegan silt loam, Wadena loam, and Urban Land‐Waukegan complex. The dominant series
is the Urban Land‐Waukegan complex. Soils on the Project Site are well to excessively drained
and have a high to very high capacity to transmit water (NRCS Web Soil Survey). According to
the NRCS Web Soil Survey, soils on the Project Site exhibit a low susceptibility to wind erosion
(Wind Erodibility Group rating of 6) and a medium susceptibility to sheet or rill erosion due to
water (K factor ratings from 0.20 to 0.32).
The topography of the Project Site is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from 938 to 946
feet above mean seal level (MSL). A portion of the Project Site, less than one acre, will be
excavated and prepared as needed for the construction of the ring‐wall poured concrete
foundations for tank construction. Large scale site grading or earth work will not be needed to
support construction of the new storage tanks. Proposed Project related features will be
added to the Project Site using native materials with minimal changes to existing grades and
elevations. Project Site work including grading, drainage, and stabilization, previously
completed by Dakota Aggregates will remain intact.
11. Water resources:
a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below.
i. Surface water ‐ lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial
ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake,
wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value
water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current
MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project. Include DNR
Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
The Project Site is approximately 30 acres and mainly consists of an existing asphalt
plant operation with disturbed ground surfaces and some native vegetation. No Public
Water Inventory (PWI) waterbodies are located within the Project Site. There is one
unnamed stream located approximately 1,200 feet southwest of the Project Site
boundary, south of 160th St. East (Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters
Inventory Number M‐049‐006) (see Figure 7). No other PWI waterbodies are located
within a one‐mile radius of the Project Site (determined using PWI GIS data).
A review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) shows that there are no NWI
wetlands located on the Project Site. The NWI indicates that there are 9 wetlands
located within a one mile radius of the Project Site. The nearest wetlands to the Project
Site are over 4,000 feet away. Based on site plans, water will flow across the Project Site
from the southwest to the northeast, into an existing ditch and designed holding ponds,
away from potential indirect impacts to wetlands located north and west of the Project
Site. Some runoff will also flow towards the unnamed stream to the southwest. Wetland
page 11
delineations were performed in 2008, 2009, and 2010 and no wetlands were identified
within the Project Site (UMore Park EIS)
There are no lakes, trout streams, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding lakes, or
outstanding resource value waters within the Project Site or a one‐mile radius.
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is
within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells,
including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or
nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
1) Depth to groundwater:
According to the UMore Park EIS, groundwater flow on the Project Site is generally
southwest to northeast, with groundwater depths at approximate elevations of 875 feet
to 885 feet, which is approximately 60 to 70 feet below ground surface. Groundwater
flows to the east in the area around the Project Site and ultimately discharges into
Mississippi River. The principal aquifer located below the Project Site includes the Prairie
du Chien, St. Peter, and Jordan bedrock aquifers, which consist of alluvium underlain by
glacial outwash and carbonate rock (UMore Park EIS).
2) Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) wellhead protection area:
No MDH wellhead protection areas are located on the Project Site. Portions of the
Rosemount Wellhead Protection area are located within a one‐mile radius of the Project
Site boundary (MDH data). The Project Site is located approximately 3,700 feet south of
the Rosemount WPA.
3) Wells on property or nearby:
According to the Minnesota Well Index, there are no wells located on the Project Site
(Figure 8). However, nine wells were identified within a one‐mile radius of the Project
Site boundaries. The well closest to the Project Site was approximately 600 feet south of
the site (Unique Number 00207605) and two wells were located within 1,700 feet of the
property, directly west of the Project Site (Unique Numbers 0000208402 and
0000208405). While not located directly within the Project Site boundaries, these three
wells are located on UMore Park property (MWI 2015).
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or
mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater ‐ For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and
composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or
treated at the site.
page 12
Currently, onsite wastewater sources are sanitary (domestic) sources from
employees and the corresponding infrastructure. There is no industrial process
water or wastewater produced at the Project Site. When the existing tanks are
cleaned it is conducted during cold weather months when material has hardened
and can be scraped away in chunks. This process is done without the use of water.
There is one small plastic water‐holding tank on site (approximately 500 gallons)
where water is used in the asphalt production process. This water is consumed by
the production process and evaporation and does not result in an industrial
wastewater stream.
The Proposed Project will expand the existing Facility with the addition of an asphalt
blending plant which consists of constructing eight aboveground storage tanks.
Hydrostatic testing will be conducted when the tanks are first built, which will be
done prior to adding asphalt cement or industrial materials. Hardrives will obtain a
temporary discharge permit or authorization letter from the MPCA to dispose of the
water from the hydrostatic testing. After the initial testing, water will not be used or
stored in the tanks.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and
waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
wastewater infrastructure.
There are no current wastewater discharges from the Facility. The Proposed Project
will not add new wastewater discharges. There will be no wastewater discharged to
a public owned treatment facility from the Project Site.
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS),
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such
a system.
Wastewater will not be discharged to a subsurface sewage treatment system.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment
methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate
impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
Wastewater will not be discharged to surface waters.
ii. Stormwater ‐ Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to
and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the
site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters).
Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater
pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and
page 13
potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific
erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil
limitations during and after project construction.
Stormwater from the Project Site flows to a ditch on the south side of 158th Street,
through a culvert under 158th Street, and into a stormwater and infiltration pond. The
pond was designed and constructed specifically to handle all of the stormwater from the
Project Site. The Proposed Project will add eight new storage tanks to areas where large
aggregate storage piles previously existed.
iii. Water appropriation ‐ Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and
purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe
any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the
wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of,
municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation,
including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any
measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water
appropriation.
No water appropriation will occur as part of the Proposed Project. Water for the
hydrostatic testing will pumped from a well and delivered by hose to the largest tank.
The largest tank will be filled and tested first and the water from that tank will be used
to fill and test the next largest tank until all testing is complete.
a) Wetlands ‐ Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland
features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative
removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical
modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed
wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid
(e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate
environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory
wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or
major watershed, and identify those probable locations.
There are no wetlands present within the Project Site; thus, no direct impacts such
as draining, filling, or dredging will occur to wetlands due to the Proposed Project.
The nearest wetlands are over 4,000 feet from the Project Site. Based on the AUF
Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control plan for the Project Site, surface water flow
across the Project Site is from the southwest to the northeast, away from wetland
resources offsite. This will also direct overland flow into existing stormwater
treatment basins north of the Project Site.
b) Other surface waters‐ Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to
surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial
page 14
ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream
diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss
direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water
features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to
surface water features, including in‐water Best Management Practices that are
proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the
water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of
watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.
There are no surface waters present within the Project Site boundaries that will be
impacted by the Proposed Project. The two DNR PWI streams located southwest of
the Project Site will continue to be protected from stormwater runoff by the existing
infrastructure on site, including the system of berms on the south and east of the
Project Site. Stormwater runoff will continue to be directed into the containment
and infiltration system as described above.
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes:
a. Pre‐project site conditions ‐ Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards
on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination,
abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid
or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre‐project site conditions
that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures
to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential
environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.
The existing Project Site includes a Facility with four 30,000 gallon asphalt cement tanks used to
supply the hot‐mix asphalt plant. Prior to the construction of the existing Facility, the property
was in agricultural production for many years. Adjacent to the Project Site is the associated
gravel mining operation within the remainder of the UMore Park industrial development site
and Dakota Aggregates lease area. A review of the MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood tool
indicates three permitted sites located adjacent to but not within the Project Site: the UMore
Park area (active Superfund Project and active Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup), the
Rosemount Agricultural Experimental Dump (inactive State Assessment and inactive
Unpermitted Dump Site), and the U of M – Rosemount Agricultural research station (inactive
Leak Sites and inactive Tank Site).
The Project Site is located on property referred to as the “proposed AUF” in the UMore Park EIS.
This area is described as lacking areas of concern, but was investigated for past releases and
contamination. Many of the surrounding areas within the UMore Park mining complex have
been heavily investigated for contaminants since 2006. UMore Park is part of a superfund
project investigation and cleanup (MPCA #SR374) and voluntary investigation and cleanup (VIC #
VP22480). The Rosemount Agricultural research station south of 160th Street West has been the
site of several fuel tank leaks of gasoline and diesel. The Rosemount Agricultural Experimental
Dump is an inactive State Assessment Site (SA7409) that was investigated due to suspected
contamination and is an Unpermitted Dump Site (REM04940).
page 15
These areas are part of a larger scale, multi‐year, full site investigation at UMore Park. The
Project Site was specifically part of the GOW West Subarea in the investigation. Results of the
Remedial Investigation Report (Barr 2012) show that no release of hazardous substances or
petroleum products has been identified within GOW West Subarea.
b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes ‐ Describe solid wastes generated/stored
during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss
potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify
measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid
waste including source reduction and recycling.
Scrap metal and some limited waste insulation materials will be generated during tank
construction. Scrap metal will be recycled using Hardrives existing licensed contractor. Insulation
materials will be disposed of as general solid waste (i.e., landfilled). Tank hydro‐test water will
be generated one time prior to putting the tanks into service. Hardrives will obtain a one‐time
test water discharge permit from the MPCA for discharge of the water on‐site. The water will
not come into contact with or be treated with any industrial materials or chemicals.
Waste materials generated during operation of the facility include some small quantities of
general office waste. Waste asphalt cement materials routinely will be generated as part of
operations. This waste material is primarily generated in transfer areas and, following cleaning
activities, will be recycled in the adjacent Hardrives Facility and should not require off‐site
disposal.
c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials ‐ Describe chemicals/hazardous materials
used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage.
Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum
or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of
hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the
use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include
development of a spill prevention plan.
Liquid asphalt cement will be stored and used in the process and is considered by the MPCA to
be a hazardous material. The existing asphalt cement at the Facility is stored in aboveground
storage tanks with adequate secondary containment to prevent any spills/releases from getting
off site or impacting waters of the state. There is an existing 1,000 gallon diesel fuel tank onsite
which is used to fuel equipment at the site. This tank is located within the secondary
containment area on the Project Site. The new asphalt cement storage tanks that will be added
under the Proposed Project will also include secondary containment. Asphalt cement’s physical
and chemical properties render it a solid at atmospheric temperature and pressure.
Releases/spills of the material will solidify relatively quickly. If a spill were to occur, material
would be cleaned up using site equipment and processed in the Hardrives Facility.
The polymer used in the blending operations is a solid pellet. There may be other additives used
during the polymer modification process that will be located in a concrete secondary
page 16
containment structure when necessary. All chemicals and hazardous materials stored at the
Project Site are consumed as part of the asphalt production process. The facility will prepare a
Facility Response Plan (FRP) and SPCC Plan as required.
d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes ‐ Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of
disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and
disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the
generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
No hazardous wastes are expected to be generated during construction or operation of the
Proposed Project.
13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features):
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.
The Facility is an active seasonal hot‐mix asphalt plant with frequent traffic and altered landscape.
Current land cover is predominantly industrial, with a small portion of the Project Site occupied by
dense tree cover and mowed road right‐of‐way. Prior to the construction of the Facility and
development of the gravel mine west of the Project Site, the area was under agricultural cultivation,
like much of the adjacent properties in the vicinity. Currently, cultivated agricultural land is the
dominant land cover type in the general vicinity of the Project Site.
Due to the disturbed nature of the Project Site as a result of the current industrial land cover and
previous agricultural cultivation, there are no sensitive ecological resources or native habitat
remaining on site. The remaining tree line fragment parallels a high‐traffic road and is unlikely to
provide wildlife habitat, though it may temporarily support passerines, small mammals, and rodents
as a travel corridor to the undeveloped former munitions site to the east. This area to the east is
currently overgrown and abandoned and may provide some protection to wildlife in the area,
though it is not considered native or high‐quality habitat.
There are no water resources on or adjacent to the Project Site and therefore it would not support
fish or other aquatic or amphibious species. The Proposed Project would not impact fish, wildlife,
plant communities, or sensitive ecological resources.
page 17
b. Describe rare features such as state‐listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species,
native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and
other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license
agreement number (LA‐____) and/or correspondence number (ERDB #) from which the data were
obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or
species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
The nearest Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) Site of Biodiversity Significance is the
Empire 15 MCBS site, located approximately two miles south of the Project Site. The Vermillion
Highlands Research Recreation and WMA is located approximately two miles directly south of the
Project Site. There are no indirect or direct impacts anticipated for these sites. The Proposed Project
would add large storage tanks to the existing hot‐mix asphalt plant Project Site. The addition of the
tanks will not measurably alter site operations or land cover from a habitat or wildlife use
standpoint.
The DNR was contacted to determine if rare or endangered plant or animal species or sensitive
resources or habitats are present within a 1‐mile radius of the Project Site. A query request of
the National Heritage Information System (NHIS) was submitted to the DNR and results of the
NHIS query were received in March 2016 (see Attachment 1). The DNR response letter identified
known occurrences of one species, the loggerhead shrike, in the vicinity near the Project Site.
The loggerhead shrike is listed as endangered within Minnesota and is a robin sized bird that has
a distinct black mask across its eyes, grey back, light colored breast and a white patch on black
wings. The preferred habitat for the loggerhead shrike is open prairie, grassland or pasture areas
with scatted trees and shrubs. The trees are used as nesting and roosting sites as well as
perching sites for hunting insects, small amphibians, reptiles and mammals. The decline of the
loggerhead shrike in Minnesota is likely due to the encroachment of trees into grasslands and
intensive row‐cropping practices. Potential impacts to the loggerhead shrike would be the
disturbance of existing nesting sites or the disturbance and alteration of preferred grassland
habitats.
The Proposed Project includes the addition of a variety of storage tanks to an existing
operational asphalt plant. The construction of the additional tanks will not appreciably alter
operations at the Project Site. Habitats that may be utilized by the loggerhead shrike, including
grasslands and pastures, are not present on the Project Site and native habitats in the vicinity of
the Project Site will not be disturbed by construction or operation of the Proposed Project.
Construction of the Proposed Project would not result in tree or shrub removal within
loggerhead shrike habitat. The known records of the loggerhead shrike in Dakota County are
several miles to the east of the Project Site and these areas would not be disturbed by the
Proposed Project. Impacts to the loggerhead shrike from construction and operation of the
Proposed Project are not anticipated.
The DNR response also noted that the northern long‐eared bat is a species of special concern in
Minnesota and was listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act in 2015. Due
to the recent listing of this species, the DNR is noting the long‐eared bat on all NHIS query
letters. The Project Site is a disturbed industrial area that contains a stand of mature trees.
page 18
Construction of the Proposed Project will not result in the clearing of trees or removal of old
structures, both of which are utilized by the northern long‐eared bat for roosting and
hibernation. As a result, construction of the Proposed Project will not impact the northern long‐
eared bat. No other species or habitats were identified.
c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be
affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the
project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered
species.
There were no records of known federally‐listed threatened or endangered species identified within
the vicinity of the Project Site. There was one state listed endangered species identified, the
loggerhead shrike, near the Project Site, however this is no habitat for this species on the site and
preferred habitats in the vicinity of the Project Site that may be utilized by the species will not be
disturbed. The Proposed Project will not result in significant clearing of trees or removal of
structures that may contain the northern long‐eared bat. During construction, ground disturbance
will expose soil and subsoil, though these areas have been heavily disturbed previously and given
the agricultural history of the site are unlikely to contain a seed bed for noxious weeds.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
Areas of the Project Site that will be impacted by construction are previously disturbed
industrial areas. There are no anticipated adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, or
sensitive ecological resources.
14. Historic properties:
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in
close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3)
architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation.
Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic
properties.
The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted to identify any
archaeological and historic resources in the Project Area. A report generated by SHPO (Attachment
2) from a search conducted of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures
Inventory did not identify any historic structures or archaeological sites located within Township
115N, Range 15W, Section 34, the Project Site.
15. Visual:
Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual
effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from
the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
page 19
The existing Facility is approximately 250 feet from County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 46. Within the
250 feet is an approximately 125‐foot‐wide area of existing trees and a 16‐foot‐high berm. The trees
and berm aid in mitigating any visual impacts to vehicle traffic on CSAH. The tallest tanks included in
the Proposed Project will be approximately 40 feet high, making them visible above the berm and
behind trees. No vapor plumes are anticipated from the Proposed Project.
16. Air:
a. Stationary source emissions ‐ Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air
pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including
any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of
any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment.
Hardrives, Inc., currently operates under an Option D Registration Air Permit (Air Emission
Permit No. 03700377‐001) issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The
facility is required to annually report its emissions of criteria pollutants through an Air Emission
Inventory Report (AEIR).
The Proposed Project consists of eight liquid asphalt cement storage tanks, a loading and
unloading rack, and 8 million British Thermal Units per hour (MMBtu/hr) of propane fired
heating capacity to be used to heat the storage tanks. Fugitive dust will be generated by the
trucks traveling to and from the Facility. Emissions from the liquid asphalt storage tanks include
particulate aerosols, volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and air toxics
including hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Emissions from the storage tank heater are typical from
propane combustion and include criteria pollutants, greenhouse gas, and air toxics emissions.
The MN Lookup Tool spreadsheet from MPCA was used to determine the effects of potential
emissions from all stationary sources at the Proposed Project. Using the distance from the site
to the property line and the annual emissions, screening was completed to compare maximum
expected impacts of the Proposed Project to the Significant Impact Levels (SILs) for each of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards
(MAAQS). These pollutants include nitrogen oxides (NO2), particulate matter less than 10
microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, and
H2S. The following table shows results of the screening for the NAAQS and MAAQS pollutants.
Table 5: Projected Screening Impact for Hardrives, Inc. Expansion Project
Pollutant
Averaging
Period
Stack
Distance
from
Fence
(km)
Project
Emissions
(tpy)
Screening
Impact
(µg/m3)
SIL
(µg/m3)
Background
(µg/m3)
Total
Impact
(µg/m3)
NAAQS/
MAAQS
Threshold
(µg/m3)
Screen
Out?
H2S 30‐min 0.1 0.94 3.72 10 15 18.72 42 YES
NO2 1‐hr 0.14 1.09 3 7.52 80.84 83.84 188 YES
Annual 0.14 1.09 0.2 1 16.92 17.12 100 YES
page 20
PM10 24‐hr 0.1 0.34 0.4 5 49 49.4 150 YES
Annual 0.1 0.34 0.1 1 17 17.1 50 YES
PM2.5 24‐hr 0.1 0.36 0.5 1.2 22 22.5 35 YES
Annual 0.1 0.36 0.1 0.3 8.2 8.3 12 YES
CO 1‐hr 0.1 2.12 6.9 2000 770 776.9 40000 YES
8‐hr 0.1 2.12 4.8 500 550 554.8 10000 YES
SO2
1‐hr 0.14 0.02 0.1 7.83 14 14.1 196 YES
3‐hr 0.14 0.02 0.0 25 10 10 1300 YES
24‐hr 0.14 0.02 0.0 5 4 4 365 YES
Annual 0.14 0.02 0.0 1 0.7 0.7 60 YES
kilometers (km), tons per year (tpy), microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3), minute (min), hour (hr)
No limits are proposed for the facility. The total expected emissions are within the threshold
levels for Hardrives to operate under their existing Option D Permit.
An Air Emissions Risk Analysis (AERA) is not required for the Proposed Project since the
Proposed Project would not increase air emissions of a single criteria pollutant by 250 tons per
year or more. Air toxics emitted from the propane heater, tanks, and loading/unloading
activities have been quantified. MPCA’s Risk Assessment Screening Spreadsheet (RASS)
quantifies the potential acute health hazard and chronic health hazard and lifetime excess
cancer risk from the emissions from the facility. The RASS was completed using the default
DISPERSE air dispersion modeling parameters with the tank heights, a conservative distance of
200 meters, and emissions from the Proposed Project. The results show that there would be no
adverse effect on public health from the Proposed Project; acute, sub‐chronic, and chronic
results for carcinogenic risk and non‐carcinogenic hazard are below MDH threshold levels. Note
that these are not the actual predicted risk and hazards from the Proposed Project but are
instead conservative, high‐end estimates of potential effects.
There are no sensitive receptors near the Project Site. The Project Site is located in the middle of
UMore Park. The nearest public access area is CSAH 46 which is a road rated at 12,300 vehicles
per day. There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings on CSAH 46 near the Project Site. The
closest residence is approximately one mile northwest of the Project Site.
b. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
Hardrives will sweep paved roads as needed to reduce fugitive emissions from truck traffic. No
additional air emissions control equipment is anticipated for the Proposed Project. Combustion
pollutants are reduced from published emission rates based on the proposed burner design.
c. Vehicle emissions ‐ Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions.
Discuss the project’s vehicle‐related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g.
traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize
or mitigate vehicle‐related emissions.
page 21
Hardrives will sweep paved roads as needed to reduce fugitive emissions from truck traffic.
There are no nearby receptors and an idling minimization plan is not necessary.
d. Dust and odors ‐ Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and
odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed
under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including
nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or
mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
A small amount of particulate aerosols are generated by the liquid asphalt cement storage
tanks. Particulate emissions are also generated by the storage tank heater. Hardrives will sweep
paved roads as needed to reduce fugitive emissions from truck traffic. The screening for H2S
indicates that the Proposed Project will not cause odors. There are no sensitive receptors near
the Proposed Project and no negative impact on quality of life for the closest residences.
17. Noise:
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during
project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including
1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state
noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate
the effects of noise.
1) Existing noise levels/sources in the area:
Existing sources of noise generation at and near the Project Site are the existing hot‐mix asphalt
plant as well as the existing gravel mine located to the west of the Project Site. Hardrives’
existing hot‐mix asphalt plant includes noise control and mitigation equipment such as mufflers
and noise silencers.
2) Nearby sensitive receptors:
The Project Site is located within the UMore Park, which is currently developed and utilized for
mining of aggregate resources and associated production facilities. There are no residences
within the UMore Park or adjacent to the Project Site. The nearest sensitive receptor (a
residence) is located approximately one mile northwest of the Project Site. There have been no
noise complaints received by Hardrives due to operation of the existing Facility.
The Proposed Project would include the construction of new liquid asphalt cement tanks and an
asphalt blending facility. Noise sources associated with the operations of this new facility would
mainly include truck traffic as well as load‐in/load‐out of asphalt cement and other materials.
These operations would be similar to the truck traffic at the existing Facility and would produce
less noise than the existing hot‐mix plant or the adjacent aggregate mine. Additionally, the
existing Facility is surrounded by earthen berms (16 feet in height) which help to limit and
mitigate the levels of noise leaving the Project Site.
page 22
3) Quality of life:
Due to the existing noise levels on and near the Project Site including the hot‐mix plant and the
adjacent to the gravel mining operation, the distance to residential noise receptors and the
existing berms surrounding the Facility, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to have an
impact to noise levels or the quality of life near the Project Site.
18. Transportation:
a. Describe traffic‐related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and
proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3)
estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of
trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative
transportation modes.
1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces:
There are 12 existing car parking spaces for employees and deliveries. There are also 16
semi‐truck spaces at the Facility. New parking spaces will not be added to the Facility for the
Proposed Project.
2) estimated total average daily traffic generated:
The Project Site is located on the north site of CSAH 46. The site is accessed off of Akron
Avenue. The 2013 AADT per the MNDOT for CSAH 46 is 12,300 vehicles per day. Turn‐lanes
are present in both directions on CSAH 46 at the intersection of Akron Avenue, including
center left turn lanes as well as right turn lanes, providing a smooth flow of traffic.
Normal operation for the Facility is from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM Monday through Saturday.
The Facility is closed on Sundays. Asphalt production at the Facility will not change as a
result of the Proposed Project. The average number of asphalt trucks during normal
operations is 80 per day. These trucks are spread out across the day and average six to eight
per hour. There is no specific time of traffic concentration during normal operations.
The Proposed Project will add new large liquid asphalt cement storage tanks to the Facility.
Overall, these new tanks will not change the amount of asphalt production at the Facility
during normal operations. The large storage tanks will be filled during the winter months
when asphalt cement prices are low. During this time, the hot‐mix asphalt plant will not be
operating. Therefore the trucks hauling asphalt cement to the Project Site for storage in the
new tanks will not add to the existing site traffic when they are being filled.
The material stored in the new tanks will be used at the Facility and will also be trucked to
other Hardrives production facilities for use in those plants. When asphalt cement from the
page 23
new tanks is loaded out and shipped offsite it will add two to three trucks per hour. This
volume of traffic is limited by the time it takes to fill a truck.
The truck traffic to and from the Project Site with the addition of the new asphalt cement
storage facility can be handled by the existing CSAH 46 alignment. No changes or
improvements to traffic patterns will be required to support the Proposed Project.
3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence:
In general, the normal operations of the Facility evenly spread truck traffic throughout the
day. There are no specific peak times of operation that result in increased traffic levels
during morning or evening commute periods. The average amount of trucks at the facility is
six to eight per hour (up to 80 total per day) with an expected average increase of two to
three per hour (up to 30 per day) added from the Proposed Project. The maximum facility
operation during large asphalt paving jobs has been approximately 325 asphalt trucks
spread‐out across a 10 to 12 hour work day, which averages to 27 to 32 trucks per hour.
This is not a typical operating condition and typically only occurs for one to several days
during the duration of that paving job. There have been no traffic related issues at the
Project Site from these prior short term maximum operating events. If future maximum
events were to also include load‐out from the new asphalt storage tanks this would only
add two to three trucks per hour to the operations, up to an average of 30 to 35 trucks. This
would again be a temporary maximum condition, would not be spread out across the work
day, and could be accommodated by the existing interesting and local roadway.
4) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes:
No alternative transportation modes would be available or needed. Traffic improvements to
the local roadways or intersections would not be required to support the Proposed Project.
b. Discuss the effect 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.
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 EAW. Use the format and procedures
described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual,
Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a
similar local guidance.
Traffic currently enters the Project Site from CSAH 46, turning north onto Akron Avenue. Traffic
follows the road north which then curves to the left and becomes 158th Street W Trail. Traffic
can then enter the Project Site off of 158th Street W by turning left into the paved plant area.
This traffic pattern is anticipated to remain the same with the addition of the Proposed Project.
There is no appreciable negative effect on traffic congestion and no traffic improvements are
necessary for the implementation of the Proposed Project.
page 24
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation
effects.
The Project Site is located along CSAH 46 which has adequate capacity to handle traffic for the
existing Facility and the Proposed Project, as well as the traffic from the UMore park area. No
traffic mitigation or improvement measures are needed to support the Proposed Project.
19. Cumulative potential effects:
(Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the
applicable EAW Items)
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that
could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
Dakota Aggregates has a 40 year Mining Lease Agreement with the U of M for the Project Site.
Hardrives has a sub‐lease from Dakota Aggregates which expires on June 30, 2039 with an
option to extend to June 30, 2045 and an IUP from the City of Rosemount which expires on
December 31, 2023. Dakota Aggregates operation site is located approximately one‐half mile to
the west of the Project Site.
Hardrives operates a hot‐mix asphalt production facility (Facility) at the Project Site. The Facility
accepts raw materials, produces asphalt, and then either stores or loads the asphalt into trucks.
The Proposed Project will expand the Hardrives existing Facility by installing an Asphalt Blending
Plant which will consist of eight new tanks. The tanks will be placed on the existing, disturbed
Project Site and will not create new disturbed areas. The tanks will allow Hardrives to purchase
asphalt in the winter and store it until needed in the summer. The Asphalt Blending Plant will
also include a polymer blending operation to allow for the production of varying grades of
asphalt. Construction of the Asphalt Blending Plant is estimated to take four months. All new
tanks will be placed on land currently used for aggregate storage. The aggregate storage piles
are in the process of being moved. Less than one acre will be excavated for the poured ring‐wall
concrete foundations for the tank construction. The Project Site will be returned to existing
grades and elevations using native materials. Prior work at the Project Site, including grading,
drainage, and stabilization, previously completed by Dakota Aggregate will remain intact.
b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been
laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic
scales and timeframes identified above.
No other reasonably foreseeable future projects were identified.
c. Discuss 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.
page 25
Minimal environmental effects will occur as a result of the Proposed Project. The Asphalt
Blending Plant would add a new function to the Project Site, but overall activities would remain
the same. Existing operations in terms of cover types, land use, and noise would remain the
same. Potential cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project are discussed below.
Groundwater
The Proposed Project will not appropriate or consume groundwater and will not contribute to
groundwater supply issues in the area. Portions of the Project Area are within a one‐mile radius
of the Rosemount Wellhead Protection Area, however no cumulative impacts are anticipated as
there is no process water or wastewater generated by the Proposed Project that would require
continued use of groundwater. Hydrostatic testing of the tanks will occur when they are
constructed and Hardrives will obtain a temporary discharge permit or an authorization letter
from the MPCA. Water for the hydrostatic testing will be obtained from a nearby groundwater
well but this one time use of water would not result in short or long term impacts to
groundwater supply in the area. Since there is no process water or wastewater generated by the
Proposed Project cumulative groundwater quality effects are not anticipated.
Surface Water
Effects to surface water near the Project Area are not anticipated. There are no erosion
concerns in the area. Other nearby sources of stormwater runoff in the area is the Dakota
Aggregates mine adjacent to the Project Site. Stormwater runoff from the Dakota Aggregates
site and from the Project Site runs to the northeast, off the sites through culverts under 158th
Street into stormwater and infiltration ponds. These ponds were created for these sites and
have adequate storage for the sites. Dakota Aggregates holds the NPDES Industrial Stormwater
Permit for the sites and will update the permit as needed. The Industrial Stormwater Permit
includes appropriate monitoring requirements for water quality parameters such as total
suspended solids (TSS) to ensure downstream receiving waters are protected from stormwater
runoff. The Proposed Project will not add impervious areas to the site or change the quantity,
quality, or flow direction of surface water runoff from the Project Site.
Land Use
No adverse environmental impacts to surrounding land use are anticipated as the Proposed
Project will be place within the existing Hardrives developed site. The Proposed Project is
compliant with the City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. The terms of the lease require that the
Project Site will be restored and reclaimed as set forth in the Dakota Aggregates Operations
Plan, UMore Park EIS, and permits. No cumulative effects are anticipated with these measures in
place.
Air Quality
The emissions from the Proposed Project will not contribute to negative cumulative effects. The
screening demonstration based on conservative dispersion assumptions and annual emissions
showed that the high‐end concentrations of criteria pollutants are less than the Significant
Impact Levels. Since potential emissions do not cause exceedances of the SILs, the Proposed
page 26
Project has an insignificant effect on air quality. The NAAQS and MAAQS will continue to be met
after the development of the Proposed Project.
The nearest residence is approximately one mile from the Project Site; quantified air toxics risk
and hazard results are one to two orders of magnitude below MDH threshold levels and are not
expected to contribute to adverse effects to human health or the environment. The Project Site
is located within UMore Park and not near residences or sensitive receptors. The Proposed
Project will not contribute to adverse air quality effects when considered with nearby activities
and sources.
20. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental
effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment
will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.
None expected.
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 9c and 60,
respectively.
Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature ________________________________ Date _______________________________
Title ________________________________
Attachment 1
NHIS Query
www.mndnr.gov
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
March 1, 2016 Correspondence # ERDB 20160292
Ms. Alicia Dowdy
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center, PO Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359
RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Hardrives Umore Park Expansion,
T115N R19W Section 34; Dakota County
Dear Ms. Dowdy,
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 (for details, see the enclosed database reports; please visit the Rare
Species Guide at http://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 loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a state‐listed endangered bird, has been
documented in the vicinity of the project site. Loggerhead shrikes use grasslands that
contain short grass and scattered perching sites such as hedgerows, shrubs, or small trees.
They can be found in native prairie, pastures, shelterbelts, old fields or orchards,
cemeteries, grassy roadsides, and farmyards. If the project boundary contains suitable
habitat, then it is possible that these birds may breed in the area. Recommendations to
minimize potential impacts include the following:
Avoid tree and shrub removal within suitable habitat during the breeding season,
typically April through July,
Report any loggerhead shrike sightings to the DNR,
Please reference the attached fact sheet and the DNR Rare Species Guide for
additional recommendations.
If any tree or shrub removal will occur during the breeding season, the DNR may request
that a survey for active nests be conducted prior to construction. Please contact me before
any survey work is initiated, as the DNR would like the opportunity to provide feedback on
surveyor qualifications and survey protocol in order to prevent any potential project delays.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Box 25
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4025
Phone: (651) 259-5091 E-mail: samantha.bump@state.mn.us
Hardrives UMore Park Expansion
Natural Heritage Review
March 1, 2016
Page 2 of 3
The northern long‐eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), federally listed as threatened and
state‐listed as special concern, can be found throughout Minnesota. During the winter this
species hibernates in caves and mines, and during the active season (approximately April‐
October) it roosts underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees.
Pup rearing is during June and July. Activities that may impact this species include, but are
not limited to, wind farm operation, any disturbance to hibernacula, and
destruction/degradation of habitat (including tree removal).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has published a final 4(d) rule that identifies
prohibited take. To determine whether you need to contact the USFWS, please refer to the
USFWS Key to the Northern Long‐Eared Bat 4(d) Rule (see links below). Please note that the
NHIS does not contain any known occurrences of northern long‐eared bat roosts or
hibernacula within an approximate one‐mile radius of the proposed project.
The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should address whether the proposed project
has the potential to adversely affect the above rare features and, if so, it should identify
specific measures that will be taken to avoid or minimize disturbance.
Please include a copy of this letter in any DNR license or permit application.
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 and a Detailed Report of records in the Rare
Features Database, the main database of the NHIS. To control the release of specific location
information, which might result in the destruction of a rare feature, both reports are copyrighted.
The Index Report provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be
reprinted, unaltered, in an 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.
The Detailed Report is for your personal use only as it may include specific location information that is
considered nonpublic data under Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0872, subd. 2. If you wish to reprint
or publish the Detailed Report for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission.
For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one
year; the results 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 for an updated
review if construction has not occurred within one year.
The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of
Natural Resources as a whole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features
and potential effects to these rare features. To determine whether there are other natural resource
concerns associated with the proposed project, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental
Hardrives UMore Park Expansion
Natural Heritage Review
March 1, 2016
Page 3 of 3
Assessment Ecologist (contact information available at
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_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,
Samantha Bump
Natural Heritage Review Specialist
enc. Rare Features Database: Index Report
Rare Features Database: Detailed Report
Rare Features Database Reports: An Explanation of Fields
Loggerhead Shrike Fact Sheet
Links: USFWS Key to the Northern Long‐Eared Bat 4(d) Rule for Non‐Federal Activities
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/KeyFinal4dNLEB.html
USFWS Key to the Northern Long‐Eared Bat 4(d) Rule for Federal Actions
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/KeyFinal4dNLEBFedProjects.html
USFWS Northern Long‐eared Bat Website
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/index.html
USFWS Northern Long‐eared Bat Fact Sheet
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nlebFactSheet.html
cc: Leslie Parris
Jaime Edwards
Attachment 2
SHPO Query
From:Thomas Cinadr
To:Alicia G. Dowdy
Subject:Re: MN Historical or Architectural Resources Query request
Date:Monday, January 11, 2016 6:58:31 AM
THIS EMAIL IS NOT A PROJECT CLEARANCE.
This message simply reports the results of the cultural
resources database search you requested. The
database search produced results for only previously
known archaeological sites and historic properties.
Please read the note below carefully.
No archaeological sites or historic structures were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological
Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for the search area requested.
The result of this database search provides a listing of recorded archaeological sites and historic architectural
properties that are included in the current SHPO databases. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state
and many historic architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or structures may exist within the
search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field
survey, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties.
If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic
architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with
a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in Review and Compliance @ 651-259-3455 or by email at
kelly.graggjohnson@mnhs.org.
The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata and Contractor Lists can be found at
http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/inventories.htm
Tom Cinadr
Survey and Information Management Coordinator
Minnesota Historic Preservation Office
Minnesota Historical Society
345 Kellogg Blvd. West
St. Paul, MN 55102
651-259-3453
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Alicia G. Dowdy <adowdy@wenck.com> wrote:
Mr. Cinadr,
Attached is a MN Historical or Architectural Resources Query request for the Hardrives,
Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Alicia
Alicia Dowdy, Environmental Scientist
Wenck Associates Inc., 1800 Pioneer Creek Ctr., P.O. Box 249, Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249
www.wenck.com | adowdy@wenck.com | C 320.250.0305 |
Attachment 3
RASS Results
Emissions (start here)
Inputs may be made in yellow cells
RASS version number = 2015-04 Screening Date:
AQ Facility ID No.:
AQ File No.:
Facility Name:
Facility Location:
SIC Code (Required):
Emissions type (PTE, Future Actual):
CAS # or
MPCA #Chemical Name HAP
Total Annual
Emissions
(tpy)Hourly
Emissions
(lb/hr)
Annual
Emissions (tpy)
Hourly
Emissions
(lb/hr)
Annual
Emissions (tpy)
Hourly
Emissions
(lb/hr)
Annual
Emissions (tpy)
7440-38-2 Arsenic YES 0.000007
71-43-2 Benzene YES 0.001080 1.47E-04 1.75E-04 1.47E-04 1.75E-04 1.47E-04 1.75E-04
56-55-3 Benzo[a]anthracene YES 0.000045 1.98E-05 9.59E-06 1.98E-05 9.59E-06 1.98E-05 9.59E-06
7440-43-9 Cadmium YES 0.000038
75-15-0 Carbon disulfide YES 0.000504 7.34E-05 8.73E-05 7.34E-05 8.73E-05 7.34E-05 8.73E-05
630-08-0 Carbon Monoxide NO 1.671246 1.64E-01 7.96E-02 1.64E-01 7.96E-02 1.64E-01 7.96E-02
7440-47-3 Chromium YES 0.000048
218-01-9
Chrysene
(Benzo(a)phenanthrene) YES 0.000169 7.42E-05 3.59E-05 7.42E-05 3.59E-05 7.42E-05 3.59E-05
7440-50-8 Copper NO 0.000029
25321-22-6 Dichlorobenzenes Some 0.000041
57-97-6
Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene,
7,12- YES 0.000001
100-41-4 Ethyl benzene YES 0.001196 1.74E-04 2.07E-04 1.74E-04 2.07E-04 1.74E-04 2.07E-04
75-00-3
Ethyl chloride
(Chloroethane) YES 0.000126 1.83E-05 2.18E-05 1.83E-05 2.18E-05 1.83E-05 2.18E-05
206-44-0 Fluoranthene YES 0.000121 5.30E-05 2.57E-05 5.30E-05 2.57E-05 5.30E-05 2.57E-05
50-00-0 Formaldehyde YES 0.024299 3.17E-03 3.76E-03 3.17E-03 3.76E-03 3.17E-03 3.76E-03
110-54-3 Hexane NO 0.061835
7783-06-4 Hydrogen sulfide NO 0.295855 1.02E-01 4.92E-02 1.02E-01 4.92E-02 1.02E-01 4.92E-02
7439-92-1 Lead YES 0.000017
7439-97-6 Mercury (elemental) YES 0.000009
74-83-9
Methyl bromide
(Bromomethane) YES 0.000154 2.25E-05 2.67E-05 2.25E-05 2.67E-05 2.25E-05 2.67E-05
74-87-3
Methyl chloride
(Chloromethane) YES 0.000724 1.06E-04 1.25E-04 1.06E-04 1.25E-04 1.06E-04 1.25E-04
78-93-3
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-
Butanone) NO 0.001228 1.79E-04 2.13E-04 1.79E-04 2.13E-04 1.79E-04 2.13E-04
75-09-2
Methylene chloride
(Dichloromethane) YES 0.000009 1.24E-06 1.47E-06 1.24E-06 1.47E-06 1.24E-06 1.47E-06
91-20-3 Naphthalene YES 0.001489 6.43E-04 3.12E-04 6.43E-04 3.12E-04 6.43E-04 3.12E-04
7440-02-0 Nickel YES 0.000072
10102-44-0 Nitrogen oxide (NO2) NO 1.086240
85-01-8 Phenanthrene YES 0.001452 6.36E-04 3.08E-04 6.36E-04 3.08E-04 6.36E-04 3.08E-04
00-01-7
Polycyclic Organic Matter
(POM) YES 0.000144
7782-49-2 Selenium YES 0.000001
100-42-5 Styrene YES 0.000170 2.48E-05 2.94E-05 2.48E-05 2.94E-05 2.48E-05 2.94E-05
108-88-3 Toluene YES 0.000117
1330-20-7 Xylenes YES 0.006296 9.17E-04 1.09E-03 9.17E-04 1.09E-03 9.17E-04 1.09E-03
95-47-6 Xylenes, o- YES 0.001794 2.61E-04 3.11E-04 2.61E-04 3.11E-04 2.61E-04 3.11E-04
29
3700377
2/1/2016
Rosemount, MN
PTE
Hardrives, Inc
TK005 TK006 TK007
Stack(s)#1 Stack(s)#2 Stack(s)#3
Ethanol Specific
C:\Users\LunKR0455\Documents\Wenck\Hardrives\Hardrives_RASS_aq9-22_unprotected-December20151 of 8 2/8/2016 1:18 PM
Emissions (start here)
Inputs may be made in yellow cells
RASS version number = 2015-04
CAS # or
MPCA #Chemical Name
7440-38-2 Arsenic
71-43-2 Benzene
56-55-3 Benzo[a]anthracene
7440-43-9 Cadmium
75-15-0 Carbon disulfide
630-08-0 Carbon Monoxide
7440-47-3 Chromium
218-01-9
Chrysene
(Benzo(a)phenanthrene)
7440-50-8 Copper
25321-22-6 Dichlorobenzenes
57-97-6
Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene,
7,12-
100-41-4 Ethyl benzene
75-00-3
Ethyl chloride
(Chloroethane)
206-44-0 Fluoranthene
50-00-0 Formaldehyde
110-54-3 Hexane
7783-06-4 Hydrogen sulfide
7439-92-1 Lead
7439-97-6 Mercury (elemental)
74-83-9
Methyl bromide
(Bromomethane)
74-87-3
Methyl chloride
(Chloromethane)
78-93-3
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-
Butanone)
75-09-2
Methylene chloride
(Dichloromethane)
91-20-3 Naphthalene
7440-02-0 Nickel
10102-44-0 Nitrogen oxide (NO2)
85-01-8 Phenanthrene
00-01-7
Polycyclic Organic Matter
(POM)
7782-49-2 Selenium
100-42-5 Styrene
108-88-3 Toluene
1330-20-7 Xylenes
95-47-6 Xylenes, o-
Ethanol Specific
Hourly
Emissions
(lb/hr)
Annual
Emissions (tpy)
Hourly
Emissions
(lb/hr)
Annual
Emissions (tpy)
Hourly
Emissions
(lb/hr)
Annual
Emissions (tpy)
Hourly
Emissions
(lb/hr)
Annual
Emissions (tpy)
7.71E-05 1.04E-04 7.71E-05 1.04E-04 6.22E-05 3.85E-05 6.22E-05 3.85E-05
1.35E-04 2.73E-06 1.35E-04 2.73E-06 5.64E-06 2.73E-06 5.64E-06 2.73E-06
3.86E-05 5.20E-05 3.86E-05 5.20E-05 3.11E-05 1.93E-05 3.11E-05 1.93E-05
4.68E-02 2.27E-02 4.68E-02 2.27E-02 4.68E-02 2.27E-02 4.68E-02 2.27E-02
5.06E-04 1.02E-05 5.06E-04 1.02E-05 2.11E-05 1.02E-05 2.11E-05 1.02E-05
9.16E-05 1.24E-04 9.16E-05 1.24E-04 7.38E-05 4.57E-05 7.38E-05 4.57E-05
9.64E-06 1.30E-05 9.64E-06 1.30E-05 7.77E-06 4.81E-06 7.77E-06 4.81E-06
3.62E-04 7.32E-06 3.62E-04 7.32E-06 1.51E-05 7.32E-06 1.51E-05 7.32E-06
1.66E-03 2.24E-03 1.66E-03 2.24E-03 1.34E-03 8.30E-04 1.34E-03 8.30E-04
1.02E-01 4.92E-02 1.02E-01 4.92E-02
1.18E-05 1.59E-05 1.18E-05 1.59E-05 9.52E-06 5.90E-06 9.52E-06 5.90E-06
5.54E-05 7.48E-05 5.54E-05 7.48E-05 4.47E-05 2.77E-05 4.47E-05 2.77E-05
9.40E-05 1.27E-04 9.40E-05 1.27E-04 7.58E-05 4.69E-05 7.58E-05 4.69E-05
6.51E-07 8.78E-07 6.51E-07 8.78E-07 5.24E-07 3.25E-07 5.24E-07 3.25E-07
4.39E-03 8.88E-05 4.39E-03 8.88E-05 1.83E-04 8.88E-05 1.83E-04 8.88E-05
4.34E-03 8.78E-05 4.34E-03 8.78E-05 1.81E-04 8.78E-05 1.81E-04 8.78E-05
1.30E-05 1.76E-05 1.30E-05 1.76E-05 1.05E-05 6.50E-06 1.05E-05 6.50E-06
4.82E-04 6.50E-04 4.82E-04 6.50E-04 3.88E-04 2.41E-04 3.88E-04 2.41E-04
1.37E-04 1.85E-04 1.37E-04 1.85E-04 1.11E-04 6.86E-05 1.11E-04 6.86E-05
Stack(s)#5 Stack(s)#6 Stack(s)#7
TK008
Stack(s)#4
TK009 TK010 TK011
C:\Users\LunKR0455\Documents\Wenck\Hardrives\Hardrives_RASS_aq9-22_unprotected-December20152 of 8 2/8/2016 1:18 PM
Emissions (start here)
Inputs may be made in yellow cells
RASS version number = 2015-04
CAS # or
MPCA #Chemical Name
7440-38-2 Arsenic
71-43-2 Benzene
56-55-3 Benzo[a]anthracene
7440-43-9 Cadmium
75-15-0 Carbon disulfide
630-08-0 Carbon Monoxide
7440-47-3 Chromium
218-01-9
Chrysene
(Benzo(a)phenanthrene)
7440-50-8 Copper
25321-22-6 Dichlorobenzenes
57-97-6
Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene,
7,12-
100-41-4 Ethyl benzene
75-00-3
Ethyl chloride
(Chloroethane)
206-44-0 Fluoranthene
50-00-0 Formaldehyde
110-54-3 Hexane
7783-06-4 Hydrogen sulfide
7439-92-1 Lead
7439-97-6 Mercury (elemental)
74-83-9
Methyl bromide
(Bromomethane)
74-87-3
Methyl chloride
(Chloromethane)
78-93-3
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-
Butanone)
75-09-2
Methylene chloride
(Dichloromethane)
91-20-3 Naphthalene
7440-02-0 Nickel
10102-44-0 Nitrogen oxide (NO2)
85-01-8 Phenanthrene
00-01-7
Polycyclic Organic Matter
(POM)
7782-49-2 Selenium
100-42-5 Styrene
108-88-3 Toluene
1330-20-7 Xylenes
95-47-6 Xylenes, o-
Ethanol Specific
Hourly
Emissions
(lb/hr)
Annual
Emissions (tpy)
Hourly
Emissions
(lb/hr)
Annual
Emissions (tpy)
Hourly
Emissions
(lb/hr)
Annual
Emissions (tpy)
1.57E-06 6.87E-06
6.22E-05 3.85E-05 1.55E-04 1.60E-04 1.65E-05 7.21E-05
5.64E-06 2.73E-06 5.64E-06 2.73E-06 1.41E-08 6.18E-08
8.63E-06 3.78E-05
3.11E-05 1.93E-05 7.73E-05 8.02E-05
4.68E-02 2.27E-02 4.68E-02 2.27E-02 2.96E-01 1.30E+00
1.10E-05 4.81E-05
2.11E-05 1.02E-05 2.11E-05 1.02E-05
6.67E-06 2.92E-05
9.41E-06 4.12E-05
1.25E-07 5.50E-07
7.38E-05 4.57E-05 1.84E-04 1.90E-04
7.77E-06 4.81E-06 1.93E-05 2.00E-05
1.51E-05 7.32E-06 1.51E-05 7.32E-06 2.35E-08 1.03E-07
1.34E-03 8.30E-04 3.34E-03 3.46E-03 5.88E-04 2.58E-03
1.41E-02 6.18E-02
1.02E-01 4.92E-02 1.26E-03 6.12E-04
3.92E-06 1.72E-05
2.04E-06 8.93E-06
9.52E-06 5.90E-06 2.37E-05 2.46E-05
4.47E-05 2.77E-05 1.11E-04 1.15E-04
7.58E-05 4.69E-05 1.89E-04 1.95E-04
5.24E-07 3.25E-07 1.31E-06 1.35E-06
1.83E-04 8.88E-05 1.83E-04 8.88E-05 4.78E-06 2.10E-05
1.65E-05 7.21E-05
2.48E-01 1.09E+00
1.81E-04 8.78E-05 1.81E-04 8.78E-05 1.33E-07 5.84E-07
3.29E-05 1.44E-04
1.88E-07 8.24E-07
1.05E-05 6.50E-06 2.61E-05 2.71E-05
2.67E-05 1.17E-04
3.88E-04 2.41E-04 9.67E-04 1.00E-03
1.11E-04 6.86E-05 2.76E-04 2.86E-04
Stack(s)#9Stack(s)#8
SV004TK012
Stack(s)#10
SV005
C:\Users\LunKR0455\Documents\Wenck\Hardrives\Hardrives_RASS_aq9-22_unprotected-December20153 of 8 2/8/2016 1:18 PM
StkDispInputs may be made in yellow cells*RASS version number = 2015-04TK005 TK006 TK007 TK008 TK009 TK010 TK011 TK012 SV004 SV005Lookup tablenotes Stack(s)#1 Stack(s)#2 Stack(s)#3 Stack(s)#4 Stack(s)#5 Stack(s)#6 Stack(s)#7 Stack(s)#8 Stack(s)#9 Stack(s)#10Stack height (m)required for lookup (1-99 m) 13.106 13.106 13.106 9.144 9.144 15.24 3.048 24.384 24.384 24.384Distance to property line or receptor (m)required for lookup (10-10000m) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 2001-hr dispersion value from Tableautomatic lookup 1070 0 0 0 1924 858 0 0 424 4243-hr dispersion value from Tableautomatic lookup 0 0 655 1240 0 516 0 0 244 2448-hr dispersion value from Tableautomatic lookup 0 0 395 629 0 0 0 171 171 17124-hr dispersion value from Tableautomatic lookup 0 0 132 224 0 0 754 0 65 65Monthly dispersion value from Tableautomatic lookup 23 0 0 32 0 0 0 12 12 12Annual dispersion value from Tableautomatic lookup 0 14 0 20 0 0 0 7 7 7Batch Process (or other)notes Stack(s)#1 Stack(s)#2 Stack(s)#3 Stack(s)#4 Stack(s)#5 Stack(s)#6 Stack(s)#7 Stack(s)#8 Stack(s)#9 Stack(s)#101-hr dispersion value from batch process or other air dispersion modelingenter dispersion values manually000 003-hr dispersion value from batch process or other air dispersion modelingenter dispersion values manually00 0 008-hr dispersion value from batch process or other air dispersion modelingenter dispersion values manually00 00024-hr dispersion value from batch process or other air dispersion modelingenter dispersion values manually00 00 0Monthly dispersion value from batch process or other air dispersion modelingenter dispersion values manually00 000Annual dispersion value from batch process or other air dispersion modelingenter dispersion values manually00000*Batch process (i.e., "Disperse") or other screening or refined air dispersion modeling is run separately and dispersion values are entered manually.If the the batch process cells are filled in they are used preferentially over the lookup table values.C:\Users\LunKR0455\Documents\Wenck\Hardrives\Hardrives_RASS_aq9-22_unprotected-December20154 of 82/8/2016 1:18 PM
SummaryRASS version number = 2015-04No Inputs Allowed on this PageScreening Date:AQ Facility ID No.:AQ File No.:Facility Name:Facility Location:SIC Code (Required):AcuteSubchronic NoncancerChronic NoncancerCancerFarmer NoncancerFarmer CancerUrban Gardener NoncancerUrban Gardener CancerResident NoncancerResident CancerFarmer NoncancerFarmer CancerUrban Gardener NoncancerUrban Gardener CancerResident Noncancer Resident Cancer3.E-01 9.E-03 2.E-02 4.E-08 1.E-07 4.E-09 3.E-09 2.E-02 2.E-07 2.E-02 4.E-08 2.E-02 4.E-08 Rounded value for final reporting1.E+00 1.E+00 1.E+00 1.E-05 1.E+00 1.E-05 1.E+00 1.E-05 1.E+00 1.E-05 1.E+00 1.E-05 1.E+00 1.E-05 1.E+00 1.E-05<<<Guidance LevelOK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK <<<OK or REFINE?2.8E-01 8.5E-03 1.5E-02 3.7E-08 1.5E-07 4.1E-09 3.1E-09 1.5E-02 1.8E-07 1.5E-02 4.1E-08 1.5E-02 4.0E-08 Calculated value for transparency and furEndpoint AcuteSubchronic NoncancerChronic NoncancerRespiratory 1.3E-02 8.5E-03 1.5E-02Reproductive/ developmental/ endocrine/ fetotoxicity6.7E-03 1.9E-08 2.5E-07Blood/ hematological0.0E+00 2.1E-06 5.7E-06Neurological 2.6E-01 3.3E-06 1.5E-05Eyes 7.7E-03 0.0E+00Digestive 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Bone & teeth 0.0E+00Cardiovascular 8.2E-04 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Kidney 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Liver 0.0E+00 3.4E-08 0.0E+00Skin 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Ethanol specific 0.0E+00 0.0E+009.9E-01 9.9E-01 9.9E-01<<<Guidance LevelOK OK OK<<<OK or REFINE?Rosemount, MN292/1/20163700377Hardrives, IncCeiling Values Exceeded?Total Inhalation Screening Hazard Indices and Cancer RisksPTETotal Indirect Pathway Screening Hazard Indices and Cancer Risks Many pollutants have more than a single endpoint and thus are included in multiple endpoints totalsAir Toxics ScreenNote: The hazard index (HI) against which facility risks are compared for acute, sub-chronic and chronic non-cancer risks is 1. The cancer risk against which facility risks are compared is 1 E-5 (or 1 chance in 100,000). These facility risk guidelines are risk management-based. They are not discrete indicators of observed adverse effect. If a risk estimate falls below facility risk guidelines, the MPCA may conclude that the assessed health effects from the proposed action are unlikely to occur, or will be negligible. A risk estimate that exceeds a guideline triggers further careful consideration. Air Toxics Endpoint RefinementTotal Inhalation Screening Hazard Indices and Cancer RisksTotal Multipathway Screening Hazard Indices and Cancer RisksEmissions type (PTE, Future Actual):C:\Users\LunKR0455\Documents\Wenck\Hardrives\Hardrives_RASS_aq9-22_unprotected-December20155 of 82/8/2016 1:18 PM
SummaryRASS version number = 2015-04No Inputs Allowed on this PageScreening Date:AQ Facility ID No.:AQ File No.:Facility Name:Facility Location:SIC Code (Required):Rosemount, MN292/1/20163700377Hardrives, IncBenzene noBromopropane, 1- noButadiene, 1,3- noCarbon disulfide noCellosolve Acetate noChloroform no2-ethoxyethanol noEthylbenzene noEthyl chloride no2-methoxyethanol noTrichloroethylene noArsenic noCarbon tetrachloride noMercury noPropylene oxide noC:\Users\LunKR0455\Documents\Wenck\Hardrives\Hardrives_RASS_aq9-22_unprotected-December20156 of 82/8/2016 1:18 PM
Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers
STATE OF MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION
ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED
HARDRIVES, INC. UMORE PARK EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ORDER
Pursuant to Minn. ch. 4410, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA”) staff prepared and
distributed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) for the proposed Hardrives, Inc. UMore
Park Expansion Project (“Project”). Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, the EAW,
comments and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of
the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Project Description
1. Hardrives’ existing facility (“Facility”) and the proposed Project are located in the development
known as UMore Park in Rosemount, Minnesota; UMore Park is owned by the University of
Minnesota (“U of M”).
2. Hardrives’ existing Facility accepts raw materials, produces asphalt and then stores or loads the hot
mix asphalt into trucks. The existing Facility has four 30,000 gallon asphalt cement aboveground
storage tanks (“ASTs”) placed on concrete floors with 36-inch containment walls; these are located
south of the hot-mix asphalt plant. The existing Facility also has a propane-fired drum dryer routed
to a fabric filter, aggregate storage bins, and three hot mix asphalt storage silos.
3. The Project includes the construction of eight new ASTs. The additional AST storage allows
Hardrives to purchase asphalt in the winter and store it until needed in the summer. The eight ASTs
contain a total of 4,221,000 gallons of new capacity for:
• three 1,217,000-gallon ASTs containing liquid asphalt cement (3,651,000 gallons);
• two letdown 240,000-gallon ASTs containing liquid asphalt cement (480,000 gallons);
• two blending 30,000-gallon ASTs where the liquid asphalt cement is blended with a modified
vegetable oil to create the polymer blend final product (60,000 gallons); and,
• a 30,000-gallon additive AST containing a modified vegetable oil.
4. Hardrives will field erect all of the ASTs with the exception of the 30,000-gallon ASTs; these ASTs are
prefabricated.
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Conclusions of Law
Rosemount, Minnesota And Order
2
5. The Project includes a polymer blending operation to allow for the production of varying grades of
asphalt cement as specified by Minnesota Department of Transportation (“MnDOT”) and other
Project owners. The polymer blending operation consists of the ASTs, pipe loading and unloading
racks and an eight-million British Thermal Units per hour propane fired heater used to heat the ASTs. The
infrastructure is described and evaluated in the emissions calculations.
6. Hardrives will construct the ASTs on the existing, disturbed area of the aggregate storage piles, and
will not create new disturbed areas. Hardrives has already either moved the existing aggregate
storage piles or is in the process of moving these. Hardrives will place the five largest ASTs on the
ground within the secondary containment earthen berms that currently exist around the Facility.
7. Any releases from the liquid asphalt cement ASTs will harden prior to exiting the Facility; Hardrives
will excavate and reuse this material in the mixing process.
8. Hardrives will place the two blending ASTs and the one additive AST in the concrete secondary
containment area that currently houses the four existing ASTs.
9. Hardrives will load product on and off trucks that arrive at the Facility in much the same way the
product is currently loaded and unloaded.
10. Project construction is estimated to take four months.
11. Hardrives will return the Facility to existing grades and elevations using native materials. Prior
grading, drainage, and stabilization at the Facility completed by Dakota Aggregates will remain
intact.
12. On February 8, 2016, the Proposer submitted an AST Major Facility permit application to the MPCA.
13. On March 11, 2016, Hardrives submitted an applicability determination request to the MPCA air
quality permit section concerning the air quality permit requirements for the Project. Hardrives
provided additional information for the applicability determination request on May 6, 2016, and
June 10, 2016.
14. On July 20, 2016, the MPCA air quality permit section determined that based on the information
provided in the applicability determination request submittal received on March 11, 2016, and the
additional information received, Dakota Aggregates and Hardrives are separate sources for the
purposes of air permitting at this time. Although the Dakota Aggregates and Hardrives operate
adjacent to each other at the UMore Park facility and are under common control, they do not have
the same SIC code and do not have a support facility relationship. Therefore, Hardrives will obtain
its own Option D Registration Permit.
15. In November 2010, the U of M completed an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) that examined
sand and gravel mining in UMore Park. The EIS evaluated the potential impacts of sand and gravel
mining in an approximately 1,700-acre area of western UMore Park, including operation of an ancillary
use facility (“AUF”) site for concrete production, asphalt production, precast products manufacturing,
and processing of raw aggregate materials. The AUF site comprises approximately 187 acres of the
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Conclusions of Law
Rosemount, Minnesota And Order
3
total project area evaluated in the EIS. Upon completion of the EIS, the U of M signed a 40-year lease
agreement with Dakota Aggregates to allow phased gravel mining in UMore Park. The EIS evaluation
included the area currently used by Hardrives for its existing operations and the acres for the Project.
16. In addition to completion of an EIS for the sand and gravel mining in UMore Park, the city of
Rosemount, Empire Township, and the U of M completed an Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(“AUAR”) for the 5,000-acre UMore Park in 2012. The AUAR evaluated the potential impacts of
several different development scenarios on the mining property and surrounding UMore Park area.
Procedural History
17. The Project will involve the construction of 1,000,000 gallons or more of hazardous materials
storage. Therefore, Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 10(B) requires the preparation of an EAW.
18. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp 10(B), MPCA staff prepared an EAW for the proposed Project.
Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1500, the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board
(“EQB”) mailing list and other interested parties on July 11, 2016.
19. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was
provided to media in Dakota County as well as other interested parties, on July 11, 2016. The notice
of the availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on July 11, 2016, and the EAW was
made available for review on the MPCA website at
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html.
20. The public comment period for the EAW began on July 11, 2016, and ended on August 10, 2016.
During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received comments from MnDOT, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Dakota County, the Metropolitan Council, and the Minnesota Historic
Preservation Office. No comments were received from citizens. A list of the comments received and
copies of the comments are included as Appendix A to these Findings.
21. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comment letters received during the 30-day public
comment period. The responses to the comments are included as Appendix A to these findings.
Criteria for Determining the Potential for
Significant Environmental Effects
22. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700, the MPCA must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for
significant environmental effects. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant
environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to
occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. The following
factors shall be considered:
A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.
B. Cumulative potential effects. The responsible governmental unit (RGU) shall consider the
following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Conclusions of Law
Rosemount, Minnesota And Order
4
contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions
to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved
mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the
efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.
C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that
can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the
project.
D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer,
including other EISs.
The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria
Are Set Forth Below
Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects
23. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for
significant environmental effects is the “type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects”
Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. A. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
24. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Project include the
following:
• Stormwater impacts;
• Surface water quality impacts;
• Groundwater quality impacts; and,
• Air quality impacts.
25. Written comments received during the comment period raised one additional issue, as follows:
• Water appropriation.
26. With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from
the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings.
Findings on stormwater impacts
27. Hardrives will construct and operate the Project under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System/State Disposal System (“NPDES/SDS”) General Industrial Stormwater Permit (MNG490289)
held by Dakota Aggregates.
28. Hardrives will use Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) during construction and operation of the
Project. These include:
• Good housekeeping practices;
• Minimizing exposure of potential pollutant sources to precipitation;
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Conclusions of Law
Rosemount, Minnesota And Order
5
• Using erosion and sediment control practices such as seeding, mulching, sodding, silt fences,
sediment ponds and stabilized entrance traps; and,
• Managing runoff through use of vegetative swales, collection stormwater, snow management,
and the existing stormwater and infiltration ponds.
29. Stormwater from the Facility flows to a ditch on the south side of 158th Street, through a culvert
under 158th Street, and into a stormwater pond (Nationwide Urban Runoff Program [NURP]) and
infiltration pond. The ponds were designed and constructed specifically to handle all of the
stormwater from the Facility.
30. Secondary containment for the asphalt cement ASTs is provided by an earthen berm so stormwater
will infiltrate the ground. The concrete secondary containment area for the additive AST includes
filter bags that remove product or sediment prior to pumping the stormwater out of the
containment area and allowing it to infiltrate. Hardrives will visually observe the stormwater in the
concrete containment area, and if it is contaminated, Hardrives will pump it out into a truck for
proper disposal by a third party.
31. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental
review record is adequate to address the concerns related to stormwater. The impacts on
stormwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered
during the review process and appropriate mitigation measures are available and will be required to
prevent significant adverse impacts.
32. If any adverse impacts occur, Hardrives can revise the BMPs or the MPCA can modify the permit to
require additional measures to address the impacts. Therefore, any impacts that may occur are
reversible.
33. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to stormwater
that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.
Findings on surface water quality impacts
34. There are no surface waters present within the Facility boundaries. Also, the Industrial Stormwater
Permit and BMPs will prevent stormwater from the Project from affecting any nearby surface
water; therefore, the MPCA does not expect the Project to affect surface waters.
35. Hardrives will continue to protect the two Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”)
Public Water Inventory streams located southwest of the Facility from stormwater runoff by
properly operating and maintaining the existing infrastructure on site, including the system of
berms on the south and east of the Facility. Stormwater runoff is directed into the containment and
infiltration system as described above.
36. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental
review record is adequate to address the concerns related to surface water. The impacts on surface
water that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Conclusions of Law
Rosemount, Minnesota And Order
6
during the review process and appropriate mitigation measures are available and will be required to
prevent significant adverse impacts.
37. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to surface
water that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.
Findings on groundwater quality impacts
38. According to the EIS, groundwater flow on the Facility is generally southwest to northeast, with
groundwater depths at approximate elevations of 875 feet to 885 feet, which is approximately 60
to 70 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flows to the east in the area around the Facility and
ultimately discharges into the Mississippi River. The principal aquifers located below the Facility
includes the Prairie du Chien, St. Peter, and Jordan bedrock aquifers, which consist of alluvium
underlain by glacial outwash and carbonate rock.
39. Any liquid asphalt releases from the large ASTs will solidify within a short timeframe, and Hardrives
will excavate and reuse the material in the asphalt mixing process. Additionally, the ASTs are
surrounded by earthen berms to retain any material within the Facility.
40. Hardrives will locate the smaller ASTs in a concrete containment area. Hardrives will visually inspect
any releases within the concrete containment area, and if it is contaminated, Hardrives will pump it
out into a truck for proper disposal by a third party company. Therefore, the MPCA does not
anticipate releases to groundwater from the Project.
41. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental
review record is adequate to address the concerns related to groundwater. The impacts on
groundwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been
considered during the review process and appropriate mitigation measures are available and will be
required to prevent significant adverse impacts.
42. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to
groundwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.
Findings on air quality impacts
43. Hardrives, Inc. has been operating its existing Facility under Dakota Aggregates Option D Registration Air
Permit (Air Emission Permit No. 03700377-001) issued by the MPCA. However, on July 20, 2016, the
MPCA air quality permit section determined that based on the information provided in the
applicability determination request submittal received on March 11, 2016, and the additional
information received on May 6, 2016, and June 10, 2016, Dakota Aggregates and Hardrives are
separate sources for the purposes of air permitting at this time. Although the Dakota Aggregates
and Hardrives operate adjacent to each other at the UMore Park facility and are under common
control, they do not have the same SIC code or have a support facility relationship. Therefore,
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Conclusions of Law
Rosemount, Minnesota And Order
7
Hardrives will obtain its own Option D Registration Permit. The Facility is required to report its
emissions of criteria pollutants to the MPCA on an annual basis through an Air Emission Inventory Report.
44. Hardrives used the Minnesota Lookup Tool spreadsheet developed by the MPCA to determine the
effects of potential emissions from all stationary sources at the Project. Using the distance from the
Facility to the property line and the annual emissions, screening was completed to compare maximum
expected impacts of the Project to the Significant Impact Levels (“SILs”) for each of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) and Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards (“MAAQS”). These
pollutants include nitrogen oxides (“NO2”), particulate matter less than 10 microns (“PM10”), particulate
matter less than 2.5 microns (“PM2.5”), sulfur dioxide (“SO2”), lead, and H2S.
45. No individual NAAQS permit limits are proposed for the Facility and the Project. The total expected
emissions are within the threshold levels for Hardrives to operate under an Option D Registration
Permit.
46. MPCA’s Risk Assessment Screening Spreadsheet (“RASS”) quantifies the potential acute health
hazard and chronic health hazard, and lifetime excess cancer risk from the emissions from the
Facility. The RASS was completed using the default DISPERSE air dispersion modeling parameters
with the AST heights, a conservative distance of 200 meters, and emissions from the Project (see
Attachment 3). The results show there are no adverse effects on public health from the Project;
acute, sub-chronic, and chronic results for carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic hazard are below
MDH threshold levels. Note that these are not the actual predicted risk and hazards from the
Project but are instead conservative, high-end estimates of potential effects.
47. There are no sensitive receptors near the Facility. The Facility is located in the middle of UMore
Park. The nearest public access area is CSAH 46 which is a road rated at 12,300 vehicles per day.
There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings on CSAH 46 near the Facility. The closest residence is
approximately one mile northwest of the Facility.
48. Hardrives conducted the RASS evaluation using conservative assumptions, such as that the tanks
were 100% full of asphalt, and that the asphalt contains compounds of interest that could be
emitted. The actual emissions from operations, even considering heating the polymer, are expected
to be lower than the conservative assumptions. Hardrives does not expect an increase in ambient
temperatures that would impact the public or environment.
49. The polymer (modified vegetable oil) Hardrives uses contains no hazardous air pollutants that
would have necessitated an evaluation. Safe handling of the polymer and/or additive is part of the
Facility’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) requirements for the site.
50. The air emissions from the Project will not contribute to negative cumulative effects. The screening
demonstration based on conservative dispersion assumptions and annual emissions showed that
the high-end concentrations of criteria pollutants are less than the SILs. Since potential emissions do
not cause exceedances of the SILs, the Project has an insignificant effect on air quality. Hardrives
will continue to meet the NAAQS and MAAQS after the development of the Project.
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Conclusions of Law
Rosemount, Minnesota And Order
8
51. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental
review record is adequate to address the concerns related to air quality. The impacts on air quality
that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the
review process and appropriate mitigation measures are available and will be required to prevent
significant adverse impacts.
52. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to air quality
that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.
Public Comments on Concerns Related to Water Appropriation
53. MPCA initially contacted the MDNR concerning water appropriations; MDNR’s response was that
they did not foresee any pending permit actions for the Project. However, further follow-up with
the MDNR was conducted. On August 11, 2016, the MDNR sent a letter to Hardrives informing them
of the need to obtain a MDNR Water Appropriation Permit when they exceed the thresholds of
10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year; Hardrives will apply for this permit.
54. The Project does not include well construction. During hydrostatic testing, Hardrives will pump
water from an existing well, and allow it to infiltrate the ground after testing is completed.
55. Under Minn. Stat. 103G.265, the MDNR is required to manage water resources to ensure an
adequate supply to meet long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, recreations,
fish and wildlife, navigation, power and quality control purposes.
56. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental
review record is adequate to address the concerns related to water appropriation. The impacts
from water appropriation that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have
been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts
have been developed.
57. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to water
appropriation that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.
Cumulative Potential Effects
58. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential
for significant environmental effects is the “cumulative potential effects.” In making this
determination, the MPCA must consider “whether the cumulative potential effect is significant;
whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other
contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with
approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and
the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.” Minn. R. 4410.1700
subp.7.b. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Conclusions of Law
Rosemount, Minnesota And Order
9
59. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or
anticipated future projects that may interact with this Project in such a way as to result in significant
cumulative potential environmental effects.
60. The EIS and AUAR previously prepared for UMore Park evaluated cumulative potential impacts. This
Project is consistent with development evaluated in the EIS and AUAR. Dakota Aggregates and
other anticipated development at UMore Park is not expected to interact in a way that may result
in significant cumulative potential effects. Therefore, the MPCA does not expect any cumulative
potential effects from the Project.
61. The EAW addressed the following areas for cumulative potential effects for the proposed project.
• Groundwater;
• Surface water;
• Land use; and,
• Air quality.
Groundwater
62. Portions of the Project area are within a one-mile radius of the Rosemount Wellhead Protection
Area; however, no cumulative impacts are anticipated, as there is no process water or wastewater
generated by the Project that would require continued use of groundwater.
63. Hardrives will conduct hydrostatic testing of the ASTs after construction, and will obtain a
temporary discharge permit or an authorization letter from the MPCA. Hardrives will also obtain a
water appropriations permit from the MDNR for this testing.
64. Hardrives will obtain water for the hydrostatic testing from a nearby groundwater well; however,
this one time use of water will not result in short or long term impacts to groundwater supply in the
area.
65. Since there is no process water or wastewater generated by the Project, the MPCA does not
anticipate any cumulative potential effects to groundwater quality from the Project.
66. Based on information on the proposed project presented in the EAW, and in consideration of
potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA does not expect any
significant cumulative potential effects to groundwater quality from this Project.
67. The MPCA finds that the Project does not have the potential for significant cumulative potential
environmental effects to groundwater quality.
Surface Water
68. There are no erosion concerns in the Project area.
69. Other nearby sources of stormwater runoff in the area include the Dakota Aggregates mine
adjacent to the Facility. Stormwater runoff from the Dakota Aggregates site and from the Facility
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Conclusions of Law
Rosemount, Minnesota And Order
10
runs to the northeast, off the sites through culverts under 158th Street into stormwater and
infiltration ponds. These ponds were created for these sites and have adequate storage for the
Project. Dakota Aggregates holds the NPDES/SDS General Industrial Stormwater Permit for the sites
and will update the permit as needed.
70. The NPDES/SDS General Industrial Stormwater Permit includes appropriate monitoring
requirements for water quality parameters such as total suspended solids to ensure the quality of
downstream receiving waters are protected from any cumulative potential effects from Project
stormwater runoff.
71. The Project will not add impervious areas to the Facility or change the quantity, quality, or flow
direction of surface water runoff from the Facility.
72. The MPCA finds that the Project does not have the potential for significant cumulative potential
effects to surface waters.
73. Based on information on the proposed Project presented in the EAW, and in consideration of
potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA does not expect any
significant potential cumulative effects from this Project.
Land Use
74. The Project is located within the existing Hardrives site which is already developed; therefore, the
MPCA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts to surrounding land.
75. The Project complies with the city of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance.
76. The terms of the sublease agreement between Hardrives and Dakota Aggregates require Hardrives
to restore and reclaim the Facility as set forth in the Dakota Aggregates Operations Plan, the EIS,
and permits. The MPCA does not anticipate any potential cumulative effects to land use with these
measures in place.
77. Based on information on the proposed Project presented in the EAW, and in consideration of
potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA finds that the Project does
not have the potential for significant cumulative potential effects to land use.
Air Quality
78. Hardrives will obtain its own Option D Registration Permit. The Facility is required to report its
emissions of criteria pollutants to the MPCA on an annual basis through an Air Emission Inventory Report.
Dakota Aggregates will continue to operate under its own Option D Registration Air Permit (Air Emission
Permit No. 03700377-001).
79. Based on information on the proposed Project presented in the EAW, and in consideration of
potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA finds that the Project does
not have the potential for significant cumulative potential effects to air quality.
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Conclusions of Law
Rosemount, Minnesota And Order
11
The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public
Regulatory Authority
80. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for
significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to
mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation
measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the
identified environmental impacts of the project." Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C. The MPCA
findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
81. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project:
Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required
MPCA Air Emission Option D Registration Permit
MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State
Disposal System (“NPDES/SDS”) General Industrial Stormwater
Permit (MNG490289)
MPCA NPDES/SDS Temporary Industrial Wastewater Discharge
Permit
MPCA AST Major Facility Permit
MDNR Water Appropriations Permit
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Facility Response Plan (“FRP”)
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (“SPCC”)
Plan
City of Rosemount Interim Use Permit
82. MPCA Air Emission Option D Registration Permit. Hardrives will obtain an Option D Registration
Permit which includes sources whose potential emissions exceed state or federal threshold levels,
but whose actual emissions are less than 50% of federal thresholds.
83. MPCA NPDES/SDS General Industrial Stormwater Permit. This permit addresses stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activity, as defined in this permit, for facilities that discharge
stormwater to waters of the state, including regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.
This permit also addresses stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity at facilities that
provide on-site infiltration of industrial stormwater discharges associated with the facility.
84. MPCA NPDES/SDS Temporary Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit. A NPDES/SDS Temporary
Permit is required for the Project for the discharges from secondary containment and hydrostatic
testing. The NPDES/SDS Temporary Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit is a one-time permit
that requires adherence to specific conditions for the Project, and for overall compliance with water
quality requirements.
85. AST Major Facility Permit. In accordance with Minn. R. 7001.4205-4250, facilities with one or more
regulated ASTs with a total liquid substance storage capacity of one million gallons or more must
obtain an individual permit from the MPCA.
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Conclusions of Law
Rosemount, Minnesota And Order
12
86. FRP. The federal FRP rule requires certain facilities that store and use oil to prepare and submit an
FRP. An FRP demonstrates a facility's preparedness to respond to a worst case oil discharge. Animal
fats and vegetable oils are also included in this rule. Hardrives will prepare a FRP.
87. SPCC Plan. Under the authority of the Clean Water Act [40 CFR 112, Section 311(j)(1)(C)], the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulations include the prevention of, the preparedness for, and the response
to oil discharges at specific non-transportation related facilities. The goal is to prevent oil from
reaching navigable water and adjoining shorelines, and to contain discharges of oil. The regulations
require facilities to prepare and implement a SPCC Plan. Hardrives will prepare a SPCC Plan.
88. Interim Use Permit. Hardrives is required to obtain all required building and interim use permits
required by local units of government to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The interim use
permit will address local zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements that are
needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses.
89. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental
effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to
mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.
The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other
Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including
Other EISs
90. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is “the extent to which environmental effects can
be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by
public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs,” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(D). The
MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
91. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the environmental impact
analysis for the proposed Project.
• data presented in the EAW;
• permit application(s);
• other reports and analysis as appropriate; and,
• permits and environmental review of similar projects.
92. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the
project proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available
information obtained by staff.
93. The environmental effects of the project have been addressed by the design and permit
development processes, and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans. There are no
elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects
94. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies by public agencies or the
project proposer, and staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the
APPENDIX A
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
1. Karen Scheffing, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Electronic communication
received 7/20/2016.
2. Ryan Malterud, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Letter received 7/25/2016.
3. Steve Mielke, Dakota County. Letter received on 8/2/2016.
4. LisaBeth Barajas, Metropolitan Council. Letter received 8/8/16.
5. Sarah J. Beimers, Minnesota Historic Preservation Office. Letter received 8/10/16.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW
1. Comments by Karen Scheffing, MnDOT. Electronic communication received on 7/20/2015.
Comment 1-1: MnDOT stated they had reviewed the EAW and did not have any comments.
Response: The comment is noted.
2. Comments by Ryan Malterud, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Letter received on 7/25/2016.
Comment 2-1: The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers commented that based on available information, they
will not require a Department of Army (DA) permit.
Response: The comment is noted.
3. Comments by Steve Mielke, Dakota County. Letter received on 8/2/2016.
Comment 3-1: Dakota County commented that Hardrives will locate the Project on property owned by
the U of M. Dakota County questioned whether the U of M or Hardrives would be a potential
responsible party for future environmental issues on the property due to Hardrives’ operations.
Response: The U of M would not be a potential responsible party as agreed to in the lease between the
U of M and Dakota Aggregates, Article VI Section 6.2, the Lessee’s Indemnification clause.
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the
Rosemount, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
2
Comment 3-2: Dakota County had concerns regarding secondary containment for the new ASTs that are
part of the Project. The County suggested that it would be a prudent layer of protection to place all the
ASTs inside concrete containment.
Response: Hardrives will place the two smaller asphalt cement blending ASTs and the additive AST in a
new concrete secondary containment area. Hardrives has submitted a property gradient survey showing
that in a worse case release scenario (complete tank rupture) for any of the five larger asphalt cement
ASTs, the contents would flow overland and be held in the facility’s large stormwater retention basin. In
lieu of engineered berms, the MPCA generally will allow the facility itself to serve as containment only in
the case of viscous substances which will not percolate to shallow groundwater prior to remediation and
only if entire tank volumes would remain on the facility property and would not enter any surface water.
Any smaller asphalt releases would harden quickly for cleanup. While concrete might facilitate cleanup,
the MPCA does not project the waters of the state to be affected under any reasonable release scenario
for the Project’s containment design.
Comment 3-3: Dakota County stated that the use of an eight million BTU per hour propane fired heater
is discussed in the EAW, but there is no discussion on the propane management.
Response: Hardrives will manage the propane onsite with facility personnel and the propane supplier.
Hardrives will also work closely with the local fire department to ensure safety. Hardrives does not
expect any impacts to the public or the environment with the use of a propane tank and propane-fire
heaters.
Comment 3-4: Dakota County commented that Hardrives will heat the polymer modified asphalt to 3300
Fahrenheit in order to mix it with aggregate. They questioned what impact the heat and heating process
cause, and whether this increases ambient temperatures, carbon dioxide, aerosols and vapor emissions
at the Project site.
Response: Hardrives has evaluated the potential air quality impacts to human health and the
environment from the Project, including the tanks, and the results are found in Section 16 of the EAW.
Hardrives conducted the evaluation using conservative assumptions, such as that the tanks were 100%
full of asphalt, which contain compounds of interest. The actual emissions from operations, even
considering heating the polymer, are expected to be lower than the conservative assumptions.
Hardrives does not expect an increase in ambient temperatures that would impact the public or
environment.
Comment 3-5: Dakota County raised concerns about the environmental and health risks associated with
the polymers used in the blending process.
Response: The potential risks listed on the polymer material safety data sheets are a potential hazard
for those directly exposed to the polymer (modified vegetable oil). The polymer contains no hazardous
air pollutants that would have necessitated an evaluation. Safe handling of the polymer and/or additive
is part of the Facility’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) requirements for the
site. Hardrives does not expect any environmental or human health risks associated with the polymer, as
there is adequate secondary containment to prevent a release.
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the
Rosemount, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
3
Comment 3-6: Dakota County commented that heating could also cause a risk of combustion and emit
carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. They stated that environmental precautions include warnings not
to release into the environment and that Hardrives should prevent the material from reaching drains,
sewers or waterways.
Response: The maximum potential emissions associated with the Project are addressed in Section 16 of
the EAW, and are also addressed in the Option D Registration Air Permit (Air Emission Permit No.
03700377-001) issued by the MPCA for Dakota Aggregates. Hardrives will apply for their own Option D
Registration Air Permit. Hardrives will store all materials on site within adequate secondary containment.
Comment 3-7: Dakota County stated that the EAW should also include specific information on the
quantity and the storage methods for the potential additive(s) that Hardrives will use and/or store at the
site.
Response: As described in the EAW, the additive tank will be a UL142-lsited shop-fabricated 30,000-
gallon carbon steel AST that Hardrives will locate onsite within concrete secondary containment.
Comment 3-8: Dakota County commented that Hardrives should not use previous EIS and AUAR
documents as the primary basis for determining environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Response: Comment noted. The MPCA prepared an EAW for the Project to determine potential
environmental impacts.
Comment 3-9: Dakota County commented that the following permits should be added to Table 4 in the
EAW:
• Dakota County Environmental Resources Delegated Well Program – permits for water well
construction and sealing, permits for unused wells.
• MDNR – permits for water appropriations of more than 10,000 gallons per day.
Response: MPCA initially contacted the MDNR concerning water appropriations; MDNR’s response was
that they did not foresee any pending permit actions for the Project. However, further follow-up with
the MDNR was conducted. On August 11, 2016, the MDNR sent a letter to Hardrives informing them of
the need to obtain a MDNR Water Appropriation Permit when they exceed the thresholds of 10,000
gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year; Hardrives will apply for this permit.
The Project does not include well construction. During hydrostatic testing, Hardrives will pump water
from an existing well, and allow it to infiltrate the ground after testing is completed.
Comment 3-10: Dakota County commented that the EAW should address whether or not Hardrives will
update a letter of credit to cover the potential costs for removing the tanks.
Response: Hardrives will provide a letter of credit as required by the city of Rosemount for the
amended interim use permit (“IUP”). The City cannot act on permits, including the IUP, until
environmental review is complete.
Comment 3-11: Dakota County recommended adding a statement that the Project is not a silica sand
project.
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the
Rosemount, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
4
Response: The Project is not a silica sand project.
Comment 3-12: Dakota County commented that Hardrives should conduct a bedrock study to ensure
that karst, fractures or other features do not exist and are not a potential issue at the Project site.
Response: As described in Section 10 of the EAW, Hardrives will not disturb bedrock with the Project.
Hardrives conducted a Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey to evaluate conditions
at the site, and there are no known karst features located on the Project site. Further bedrock
investigation is not necessary.
Comment 3-13: Dakota County stated concerns about potential groundwater contamination from the
asphalt and polymers stored and used at the Project site.
Response: If there were a release at the Project site outside of concrete containment, such as from a
large AST or from aboveground piping (which are surrounded by an earthen berm) the asphalt would
quickly harden and not immediately infiltrate to groundwater, which is fairly deep at the Project
location. Hardrives is required by statute to remediate any material released to soil so that stormwater
infiltration would not carry leached contaminants to groundwater. Hardrvies will excavate these
materials and reuse these in the asphalt operation process. The tanks containing polymers are located
within a concrete containment system. The MPCA does not anticipate impacts to groundwater under
any release scenario.
Comment 3-14: Dakota County indicated that there are two bodies of water in close proximity to the
Project site that were not addressed in the EAW.
Response: Hardrives does not expect any surface water impacts from the Project site. Any large release
of asphalt outside of concrete containment would be directed to the retention basin and would quickly
cool and harden when exposed to the air. The tanks containing polymers are located within a concrete
containment system.
Stormwater from the facility flows northeast to the infiltration and stormwater basins. The drainage
ditch is south of 160th and west of the Project site, making it unlikely runoff from the Project site would
flow to that drainage ditch instead of the ditch and holding ponds to the northeast. The stormwater
basins are properly sized and the Project site conditions limit the amount of runoff that could go
southwest instead of to the stormwater and infiltration ponds. Given the distance and the sandy nature
of the soil, there are no expected impacts to downstream waters such as the Vermillion River.
There are no impaired waters within a mile of the Facility. The tributary connector and principal
connector are not considered impaired according to the MPCA Impaired Waters Viewer. The connectors
flow southeast and meet the Vermillion southeast of UMore Park near 190th Street E between Clayton
Avenue E and Donnelly Avenue, nearly five miles from the site, where the Vermillion is considered
impaired.
Comment 3-15: The Dakota County Environmental Resources Delegated Well Program indicates 27
active or presumably unsealed wells within a one-mile radius of the Project site.
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the
Rosemount, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
5
Response: None of these wells appear on the Project site. However, should Hardrives encounter an
abandoned, unsealed well during Project construction, Hardrives will notify Dakota County, and hire a
licensed well driller to properly seal the well in accordance with all local and state water well codes.
Comment 3-16: Dakota County felt that a groundwater appropriation permit is required for the Project.
Response: See the response to Comment 3-9.
Comment 3-17: Dakota County questioned the Material Safely Data Sheet for the ANOVA 1055 Modifier
polymer Hardrives will use in their operations.
Response: Hardrives will store the polymer additive in a concrete tank with concrete secondary
containment to prevent potential exposure to the public. Based on a review of the Material Safety Data
Sheet, the additive is not considered a hazardous material, is chemically stable, and not reactive under
normal conditions of use and storage.
Comment 3-18: Dakota County commented that the Project site is underlain by about 70 feet of
unsaturated sand. Dakota County raised concerns about how Hardrives will handle materials so these
materials will not infiltrate the water table.
Response: See the response to Comment 3-13.
Comment 3-19: Dakota County raised concerns about the former Gopher Ordinance Works (“GOW”)
and U of M disposal sites.
Response: The Project will occur on the site of an existing operating hot mix asphalt facility. The Project
will not disturb or impact the previously investigated GOW sites listed in the Environmental Audit
Report.
Comment 3-20: Dakota County requested the identification of investigative reports related specifically
to the Project site.
Response: Hardrives has a lease agreement for the Project site that allows for the operation of the
existing hot mix asphalt plant. The Project site and this area of UMore Park have been previously
investigated specifically for the use of hot mix asphalt plants in this area to support the aggregate
mining operations. Previous investigations have indicated there was no waste left behind at these sites.
As Hardrives is not the owner of the property, they have not completed additional environmental due
diligence beyond what was completed as part of the UMore Park development plan.
Comment 3-21: Dakota County raised concerns about potential impacts to groundwater caused by
releases and operations at the Project site.
Response: See the response to Comment 3-13.
Comment 3-22: Dakota County commented on the potential impacts on county roads as a result of the
Project, and stated that the Project does not affect the strategies and policies of the County’s
Transportation Plan.
Hardrives, Inc. UMore Park Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the
Rosemount, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
6
Response: The comment is noted.
4. Comments by LisaBeth Barajas, Metropolitan Council. Letter received on 8/8/16.
Comment 4-1: The Metropolitan Council commented that there is a planned trail located east of the
Project site on the opposite side of Akron Avenue. Metropolitan Council will call the trail the Vermillion
Highlands Greenway Regional Trail; Dakota County will develop the trail. Additionally, Whitetail Woods
Regional Park is located approximately one-mile south of the site and is adjacent to the Vermillion
Highland Wildlife Management Area.
Response: The comment is noted.
5. Comments by Sarah J. Beimers, Minnesota Historic Preservation Office. Letter received
8/10/16.
Comment 5-1: The Minnesota Historic Preservation Office concluded that there are no properties listed
in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological
properties in the Project area.
Response: The comment is noted.
From: Scheffing, Karen (DOT)
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 10:52 AM
To: Jensen, Patrice (MPCA)
Cc: Sherman, Tod (DOT); Corbett, Michael J (DOT)
Subject: UMore Park expansion project
Patrice
MnDOT has reviewed the EAW for the UMore Park expansion project and has no comments. Please contact me if you
have any questions.
Thanks
Karen
Karen Scheffing
Principal Planner
Minnesota Department of Transportation
1500 W County Road B2
Roseville MN 55113
651-234-7784
1
2
3
4
Minnesota
Historical Society
MINNESOTA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
August 10, 2016
Patrice Jensen
Planner Principal
MPCA
520 Lafayette Rd N
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
RE: EAW -Hard rives, Inc., UMore Park Expansion Project
T115 R15 534 SW
Rosemount, Dakota County
SHPO Number: 2016-3104
Dear Patrice Jensen:
Using the Power of History to Transform Lives
PRESERVING> SHARING> CONNECTING
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant
to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the
Minnesota Field Archaeology Act.
Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the
National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area
that will be affected by this project.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a
federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office by the responsible federal agency.
Please contact our Compliance Section at (651) 259-3455 if you have any questions regarding our review of
this project.
Sincerely,
Sarah J. Beimers, Manager
Government Programs and Compliance
Minnesota Historical Society, 34S Kellogg Boulevard West, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
651-259-3000 • 888-727-8386 • www.mnhs.org
5