Loading...
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 Staff noted that there is no limit to the amount of amendments, but at a certain point the original IUP is no longer valid and a new application would be required.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