Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Shafer Contracting Mineral Extraction Permit Change Request, 06-40-MEITEM: Case 06 -40 -ME Shafer Contracting Mineral Extraction Permit Change Request AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP; Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 9a ATTACHMENTS: Location Map, Revised Mineral Extraction Permit, Phasing Plan, Haul Back Cross Section, American Engineering Testing, Inc. Letters, December 20, 2005 City Council Executive Summary for 2006 Permit, Reclamation Plan, Excerpt from the Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Amended 2006 Mineral Extraction Permit for Shafer Contracting with conditions. 4 ROSEMOUNT BACKGROUND Applicant and property owner: Location. Area m acres: Comp Plan Zoning: Extraction progress. Nature of request: CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: July 18, 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ISSUE Scott Spisak of Shafer Contracting has applied for a change to the 2006 Mineral Extraction Permit for their property located one mile north of 135 Street East and 1 /4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd. (County Road 71) The proposed change would allow for deeper mining and replacement of the extracted material with clean "haul- back" material from Mn /DOT projects. Shafer Contracting, Co. Inc. 1 /4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd 1 rule north of 135' Street East (County Road 38). 93 Site total area, 15 acres active in Phase 4 Agriculture Phase 4 out of 7 (approximately 50% complete). Change to the 2006 Mineral Extraction Permit On December 20, 2005, the City Council had approved a Mineral Extraction Permit through December 31, 2006 With that approval the permit specifically prohibits "haul- back There shall be no "haul- back" of materials from any other property or job site that would be imported to the property for fill or other purposes other than incidental concrete recycling as referred to in paragraphs 0, V and W; and topsoil imported for the purpose of re- estabhshmg turf as accepted by the City. Apparently when Shafer first took over the existing mining area, they had explored increasing the depth of the mine and bunging m fill material. The Council had some concerns as they were a new operator and specifically demed the ability to bring m "haul- back Shafer has operated the mine for several years and the City has not received complaints or had specific issues. SUMMARY Shafer is not allowed to mine below the approved grading plan in part because they are not allowed "haul back" material to fill in the aggregate they mine below the approved grade. Shafer beheves that they are not maximizing the usefulness of the site for two reasons. First, they are not mining all the aggregate available at the site. Second, then trucks are hauling material only one direction. Economically, Shafer would be more productive if they could mine all the aggregate available at the site and be able to have full trucks both to and from the site. Allowing Shafer to "haul- back" clean fill material would allow them to expand the producuvity of the site, as well as leave the site in the manner that was approved by the final grading plan Shafer has indicated that the fill material will come from MnDot projects only and that a testing and inspection process will be conducted to ensure that the "haul- back" material is clean, contains no organic or contaminated soils, and is deposited on the site in a manner that would allow redevelopment after the reclamation of the site is completed. American Engineering Testing, Inc., a professional geotechmcal firm, has developed the testing and inspection process and their recommendations have been included in the Revised 2006 Permit by reference. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION This item was brought before the Planning Commission at their June 27, 2006 meeting Commission members discussed who should administer testing of the haul back material. There was some interest in having the testing company contracted by the City with bills paid for by Shafer Ultimately the Commission decided that since all the testing results would be given to the City that the current arrangement proposed by the applicant was also satisfactory The permit condition relating to the testing has not been modified. During the pubhc hearing, Charles Koehnen, a property owner abutting the mine, requested that the stormwater pond located within the site be moved farther west, into Phase 4, due to concerns about interference with Mr. Koehnen's well. Staff has agreed to consider the movement of the stormwater pond during the review of the revised reclamation plan. Under the terms of the proposed permit, a revised reclamation plan will be required as part of the 2007 annual muting permit review. DISCUSSION If the City approves "haul- back" of material to the Shafer mining site, the one area of the original mining permit that should be reexamined is the reclamation plan. Within a aggregate mine with no "haul- back" activities, a reclamation plan is limited because of the amount of fill available on site to restore the property. With "haul- back" activities, additional aggregate can be mined without compromising the long term reclamation of the property. The additional haul -back allows regrading and contouring of the property which may not have been possible without the additional fill. Staff anticipates a reclamation plan that improves upon the existing approved plan given the ability to haul -back The current reclamation plan maximizes the removal of aggregate without "haul back This results m a 2 plan that has 25% slopes on all sides of the mine except the extreme southeast corner. The southwest corner of the mine is the natural drainage outlet and is the location of a stormwater management pond and a gravity outlet for overflow from the pond. Once the 25% side slopes reach approximately the 990 elevation, the floor of the reclaimed mine is graded to a 1% slope from west to east to allow the reclaimed mine to dram completely to the stormwater pond The result of this reclamation plan is a former rmne site with steep slopes and a flat basin floor This plan would result in a site that would be difficult to develop for any other use than agnculture without considerable re- grading, possibly including off -site grading. With "haul- back" activities, material could be brought in that would result in a reclaimed site that would more closely resemble the rolling topography of the surrounding properties, allow for the maximum productivity of the aggregate resources located at this site, and result m a reclamation plan that could be more easily developed into another use after mining activities cease Any City consideration of expanding activities at the Shafer amine to include "haul- back" activities should include revisions to the reclamation plan. Staff is not expecting a revised reclamation plan with the current application but will expect a revised plan as part of the 2007 annual mining permit review The Plan should include not only reclamation of the additional mining area but also improve upon the existing reclamation plan to provide a site that is more consistent with the intended future use. JULY 11, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEETING During the open forum portion of the Council meeting on July 11, 2006 a resident expressed concern that the Shafer request would allow inappropriate material to be brought into the site. He expressed concern that east Rosemount is becoming a "dumping site" for hazardous or other undesirable matenal from other communities The following information should address the concerns expressed. The haul -back matenal will be clean fill soil only; not concrete, asphalt, or any other form of construction debris. The haul -back matenal will come from only Mn /DOT projects that have conducted Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA). Mn /Dot construction projects require that the native soils at site be removed to form a trench under the future roadway, sometimes four or more feet deep, to allow the placement of approved and compacted sub -base material. This material removed to form this trench is the material that would be hauled back to the Shafer site Additional tesung, including laboratory analysis and field screening with a photoronization detector (PID) will be conducted when the ESAs indicate any concerns. Haul -back material shall not contam any contammanon or hazardous material. Haul -back material shall not contain any debris, refuse, or other deleterious material. Organic soil would only be used for berms or green areas. Shafer will supply a quarterly report of all haul -back actives based on the testing conducted as described m the approved protocol Shafer will report to the City, within three days, any occurrence of testing that identifies any contamination or prohibited matenals. The City will be able to ensure that the prohibited haul -back material is removed from the site. The American Engineering Testing, Inc. protocol and the conditions within the Revised Mineral Extraction Pernut spell out clearly that only clean fill soil from Mn /DOT sites that have had environmental testing will be allowed, as well as spell out how this will be monitored. The submitted reports will be pubhc information and any resident can request to review them if they are concerned. 3 CONCLUSION The apphcant currently is permitted to mine the site and has an approved reclamation plan The current application is to amend the one condition relating to the haul -back provision. Staff believes there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the material brought into the site is acceptable for fill and future development on the site. The restriction that the fill come from MnDot projects and the testing proposed by the apphcant addresses this concern For the most part, staff expects the fill to come from the area excavated within the road base. For construction certain materials are required, primarily sand, and clay materials would not be allowed. However, more clay soils would be acceptable for fill in a developing site. Because the permit is annually reviewed, the City has the opportunity to reevaluate this issue every year. If there is concern that the operation isn't working, or the testing information is unacceptable, or there are other off -site impacts not initially foreseen, the haul -back provision could be deleted in the future. Representatives from Shafer will be in attendance at the meeting to address concerns the Council or members of the pubhc might have. RECOMMENDATION Approve the revised mining permit with new conditions. 4 ShL_Jr Contracting Location ap I b (35 71.4 57 Copyright 2006, Dakota County Map Date June 21, 2006 Mineral Extraction Permit 2006 Conditions for Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal SHAFER CONTRACTING COMPANY, INCORPORATED A. Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. (hereinafter "the Property Owner signs a written consent to these conditions binding itself and its successors, heirs or assigns to the conditions of said permit. B. This permit is granted for the area designated as the western half of Phase 3 (6.5 acres) and Phase 4 (13 acres), on Exhibit A (drawing 5 of 7 dated April 6, 1999), which is attached hereto as one of the exhibits. Haul -back activities from Mn/DOT projects are permitted only within the northern 500 feet of Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4 (13 acres), on Exhibit A (drawing 5 of 7 dated April 6, 1999). C. The term of the permit shall extend from December 20, 2005 until December 31, 2006 unless revoked prior to that for failure to comply with the permit requirements. D. All required permits from the State of Minnesota, County of Dakota and City of Rosemount (hereinafter "City or any of their agencies shall be obtained and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the permit. Failure by the Property Owner to comply with the terms and conditions of any of the permits required under this paragraph shall be grounds for the City to terminate said mining permit. E. The final grading for the permit area shall be completed in accordance with the grading plan labeled Exhibit B (drawing 7 of 7 dated April 6, 1999), which is attached hereto, or as approved by the City Engineer, and any other conditions as may be imposed by the City from time to time. F. All gravel trucks and other mining related traffic shall enter and exit the mining area from Rich Valley Boulevard. It shall be the Property Owner's responsibility to obtain any access permits or easements necessary for ingress and egress. The location of the accesses and/or easements for ingress and egress shall be subject to approval by the City, as well as the County Highway Department or the Minnesota Department of Transportation if applicable or if any changes occur relative to the mining process. The current location of the access driveway is indicated on the Phasing Plan, Exhibit A. A stop sign shall be installed at the driveway entrance to County Road 71, in accordance with standards on file with the City or County Highway Department Warning signs including "Trucks Hauling" shall be installed at the Property Owner's expense as needed in accordance with Dakota County requirements. G. A plan for dust control shall be submitted to and subject to approval by the City. The Property Owner shall clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from extraction or hauling operations related to the Mineral Extraction Permit. After the 2006 Mining Permit Shafer Contracting 2 of 6 Property Owner has received 24 -hour verbal notice, the City will complete or contract to complete the clean-up at the Property Owner's expense. In the event of a traffic hazard as determined by the City Administrator (or the Administrator's designee) or Rosemount Police Department, the City may proceed immediately to complete or contract cleanup at Property Owner's expense without prior notification. H. The surface water drainage of the mining area shall not be altered so as to interfere, contaminate, or otherwise affect the natural drainage of adjacent property. I. No topsoil shall be removed from the site and the Property Owner shall take necessary measures to prevent erosion of the stockpiled topsoil. The location of the stockpiled topsoil shall be indicated on Exhibit A, the Phasing Plan. J. Any costs incurred now or in the future in changing the location of existing public or private utilities including but not limited to pipelines, transmission structures and sewer infrastructure located within the permit area shall be the sole obligation and expense of the Property Owner. K. All costs of processing the permit, including but not limited to planning fees, engineering fees and legal fees, shall be paid by the Property Owner prior to the issuance of the permit. The Property Owner shall reimburse the City for the cost of periodic inspections by the City Administrator or any other City employee for the purpose of insuring that conditions of the permit are being satisfied. The Property Owner agrees to reimburse the City for any other costs incurred as a result of the granting or enforcing of the permit. L. The daily hours of operation for the mining area shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., subject, however, to being changed by the City Council. M. The Property Owner shall deposit with the Planning Department a surety bond or cash deposit in the amount of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars per acre ($7,500.00 /acre) for any active phase in favor of the City for the cost of restoration, regrading and/or revegetating land disturbed by mining activities and to ensure performance of all requirements of this agreement and City ordinances by Property Owner. The required surety bonds must be: (1) With good and sufficient surety by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. (2) Satisfactory to the City Attorney in form and substance. (3) Conditioned that the Property Owner will faithfully comply with all the terms, conditions and requirements of the permit, all rules, regulations and requirements pursuant to the permit and as required by the City and all 2006 Mining Permit Shafer Contracting 3 of 6 Q. reasonable requirements of the City Administrator (or the Administrator's designee) or any other City officials. (4) Conditioned that the Property Owner will secure the City and its officers harmless against any and all claims, for which the City, the Council or any City officer may be made liable by reason of any accident or injury to persons or property through the fault of the Property Owner. (5) The surety bond or cash escrow shall remain in effect from December 20, 2005 until July 31, 2007. Upon thirty (30) days notice to the permit holder and surety company, the City may reduce or increase the amount of the bond or cash deposit during the term of this permit in order to insure that the City is adequately protected. N. The Property Owner shall furnish a certificate of comprehensive general liability insurance issued by insurers duly licensed within the State of Minnesota in an amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand and no /100 ($500,000.00) Dollars for injury or death of any one person in any one occurrence, and at least One Million and no /100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for injury or death of more than one person arising out of any one occurrence and damage liability in an amount of at least Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and no /100 ($250,000.00) Dollars arising out of any one occurrence. The policy of insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and shall remain in effect from December 20, 2005 until July 31, 2007 O. No processing or mixing of materials shall occur on the site, except as approved by the Dakota County Environmental Health Department as incidental to a sand and gravel mining operation at which time such activities will be enclosed with snow, or cyclone fencing or as approved by City staff. Construction of any ponding areas, wash plants or other processing or equipment brought to the site shall require additional City Council approval and notification of adjacent property owners. P. The Property Owner shall hold the City harmless from all claims or causes of action that may result from the granting of the permit. The Property Owner shall indemnify the City for all costs, damages or expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees that the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims The Property Owner shall comply with such other requirements of the City Council as it shall from time to time deem proper and necessary for the protection of the citizens and general welfare of the community. R. Complete mining and reclamation is required in all phases before any additional mining is authorized. Modifications or expansion of the mining areas must be approved in writing to the City. Property Owner shall submit to the City semi- 2006 Mining Permit Shafer Contracting 4of6 annually a written report indicating the amount of material extracted from the site for the prior six -month period. S. The Property Owner shall incorporate best management practices for controlling erosion and storm water runoff as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. T. The Property Owner must have a copy of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District mining application completed and on file with the City of Rosemount Planning Department prior to the approval of the Mineral Extraction Permit. U. Reclamation requires the replacement of the entire stockpile of topsoil to the mined area. reseeding and mulching necessary to re- establish vegetative cover for permanent slope stabilization and erosion control, provided also that the minimum depth of topsoil shall not be less than two inches after reclamation. Topsoil for reclamation shall conform to specifications on file with the City. No restored slopes may exceed a gradient of 25% or four to 1 (4:1). V. The Property Owner must show how materials stockpiled for recycling will be processed and inform the City of all stockpiled materials. W. All recycling must be completed with the completion of the current phase. No recycling processes shall be allowed to continue into subsequent phases. X. The Property Owner may not assign this permit without written approval of the City. The Property Owner will be responsible for all requirements of this permit and all City ordinances on the licensed premises for the permit penod unless the Property Owner gives sixty (60) days prior written notice to the City of termination and surrenders permit to the City. The Property Owner shall identify all Operators prior to their commencement of mineral extraction- related activities in the pit area. The City shall have the authority to cause all mineral extraction activities to cease at any time there is an apparent breach of the terms of this Permit. Y. The Property Owner shall install and maintain a "stock" gate (or equivalent) at the entrance to the property where the mining operation is located. The gate must be secured at 7:00 p.m. and at any time the pit is not in use. Z. There shall be no "haul- back" of materials from any other property or job site that would be imported to the property for fill or other purposes other than incidental concrete recycling as referred to in paragraphs 0, V and W; and topsoil imported for the purpose of re- establishing turf as accepted by the City; and earthen fill materials from Mn/DOT projects that further meets the requirements of testing in documents by American Engineering Testing, Inc., and which is used to replace sand and gravel mined below approved finish grades 2006 Mining Permit Shafer Contracting 5 of 6 AA. No mining activity will occur below the elevation of 840 feet above mean sea level. In no instance shall any mining activity occur within a groundwater aquifer. BB. Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. shall submit quarterly to the City documentation of the American Engineering Testing Inc. (or other City approved geotechnical testing firm) environmental and geotechnical testing with documentation verifying the source and quantity of Mn/DOT generated "haul- back" material. These reports shall be provided within 14 days after the end of the quarter. CC. Shafer Contracting Co., Inc shall submit an incidence report to the City within three days of any testing that fails for contamination or hazardous materials, or will not produce a normal moisture- density relationship for compaction. DD Shafer Contracting Co., Inc shall compact the entire reclamation site to a minimum compaction of 95% of maximum dry density. EE. Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. shall provide a revised reclamation plan with the 2007 Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal application that provides a redevelopable reclamation site and considers relocating the stormwater pond to the west of its current location. The revised reclamation plan shall be submitted by September 1, 2006 to allow City staff to review and comment on the revisions. FF. Truck operators within the pit area shall not engage in practices involving slamming tailgates, vibrating boxes, using of "jake" or engine brakes (except in emergency situations) or other such activities that result in excessive noise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. the Property Owner, hereby consents and agrees to the foregoing conditions of said mining permit this day of 2006. STATE OF MINNESOTA ss COUNTY OF Notary Public Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. By: George Mattson, Its President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2006, by George Mattson, President of Shafer Contracting Company, Inc., the Property Owner, on behalf of the Corporation. A AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC, October 28, 2005 Mr. Scott Spisak Shafer Contracting Co., Inc P 0. Box 128 Shafer, Minnesota 55074 Dear Mr. Spisak: Shafer Contracting RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2005 Job Func Cost RE. Environmental Testing of Haul -Back Soils to Shafer Pit in Rosemount, Minnesota This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc 550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55114 651- 659 -9001 Fax 651-659-1379 Duluth Manicato Marshall Rochester Vausau Rapid Qty P erre Sioux Falls AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIOI AND EQUAI. OFPOP,TUN ITV E'v'PLCY ER CONSULTANTS GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS ENVIRONMENTAL Following is in response to your request for information pertaining to procedures to use to ensure the placement of clean soils within the Shafer sand and gravel pit near the Flint Hills Resources site in Rosemount, Minnesota. Background Information It is our understanding that only earthen materials from MnDOT projects would be used for haul back soils into the pit. Additionally, it has been our experience that MnDOT generally conducts a thorough environmental investigation to include Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessements (ESAs) prior to the start of a MnDOT project The Phase I ESA would identify any recognized environmental conditions and the Phase Il ESA would perform subsurface testing to determine if the identified recognized environmental conditions have any impact to the soil. Suggested Procedures The haul -back soils will originate from MnDOT projects only AET will review available Phase I ESA, Phase II ESA or other environmental documentation pertaining to the MnDOT project soils prior to designating the soils for haul -back use. This review will include a determination of the existence of any recognized environmental conditions and whether soils from the MnDOT project site have been nnpacted. Should this review provide inconclusive information pertaining to the environmental condition of the soils planned for haul -back use, additional testing to include laboratory analysis and field screening with a photoionization detector (PID) of soil samples collected from the MnDOT project site will be performed to determine whether the soil has been environmentally impacted This additional testing will be in accordance with the attached General Environmental Sampling Methods Shafer Contracting October 27, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Closure We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to you on this project If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this report, or if we can be of additional service, please contact me at (651) 659 -1308 or Rich Lowe at (651) 659 -1316 Sincerely, eric s Engineering Testing, Inc. Robert A Kaiser Vice President, Environmental Division Attachments General Environmental Sampling Methods A AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. November 1, 2005 Mr. Scott Spisak, Project Engineer Schafer Contracting Co, Inc PO Box 123 Schafer, MN 55074 Subj: Borrow Pit Reclamation Protocol Rosemount, Minnesota Dear Mr. Spisak: In accordance with our telephone conversation of November 1, 2005, American Engineering Testing, Inc (AET) is forwarding to you four originals of the quality assurance /control protocol proposed for the on -going mining and reclamation of your Rich Valley Boulevard facility. Under separate cover, AET has sent you correspondence detailing the approach our enviromnental division will undertake to screen "haul- back" matenals, which will be derived from Mn/DOT projects and will be used as controlled fill during the site reclamation process. AET understands these documents will be provided to the City of Rosemount along with other submittals pro \aded by you to complete the permitting process AET trusts these documents will meet the needs of you and the City of Rosemount. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. Very truly yours, American Engineering T;sting, Inc. Terry E. Sfror, Presiden Phone: (651) 659 -1330 Fax: (651) 659-1379 tswor @amengtest.com TES /ck This document shah not be reproduced, except in full, without waken approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc 550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55114 651 659 -9001 Fax 651 659 -1379 Duluth Mankato Marshall Roches'er VJausaJ Rapid City Pierre Sioux Falls AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPDRTUTrTV EMPLOYER CONSULTANTS GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA ITEM: Case 05 -54 -ME Shafer Contracting Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal AGENDA SECTION: Consent PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Draft operating conditions for 2006, Draft 11/22/2005 PC Minutes, Location map, Phasing plan APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the renewal of the mineral extraction permit for Shafer Contracting subject to the attached conditions for 2006. 4ROSEMO City Council Meeting• December 20, 2005 ISSUE Scott Spisak of Shafer Contracting has applied for the annual renewal of the mineral extraction permit for their property located one mile north of 135 Street East and 1/4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd (County Road 71). The pubhc hearing notice also anticipated a request to modify the permit; however, the permit modification request was withdrawn PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING On November 22, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the permit renewal. The neighboring property owner indicated no concerns about the permit renewal. The concern had to do with a separate application for modification of the permit conditions that had been withdrawn After receiving these comments, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the mineral extraction permit renewal. Subsequently, comments were received from the City Attorney recommending minor language changes to the 2006 conditions. Those changes are similar to those made for the Furlong and Total Construction permit approved on December 6, 2005. BACKGROUND Apphcant and property owner. Location: Area in acres: Comp Plan Zoning: Extraction progress: Planning Commission action. CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Shafer Contracting, Co. Inc. 1/4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd., 1 mile north of 135 Street East (County Road 38). 93 Site total area, 15 acres active in Phase 4 Agriculture Phase 4 out of 7 (approximately 50% complete). Recommendation of approval of the renewal (5 -0) Shafer Contracting has been the most active mining owner /operator in the City. As of the last quarter of this year, they extracted 172,444 cubic yards of mostly sand from the pit. Shafer has been working on the site since 1998 and owned the property since 2000 This requested renewal of the mineral extraction permit is similar to previous renewals with no change m the operating conditions. Originally, a request was made to allow haul -back of materials from MnDOT sites. That request has been withdrawn, although it may be made again m the future. Shafer's primacy customers are MnDOT and the Metropohtan Airports Commission. The police have indicated no complaints or concerns regarding the permit area or related truck traffic A AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC, SHAFER CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. BORROW PIT RECLAMATION PROTOCOL ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA CONSULTANTS GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS ENVIRONMENTAL Overview Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. (Shafer) is currently minmg granular materials from the property at 12500 Rich Valley Boulevard, and has submitted plans and details to the City of Rosemount specifying final or bottom elevations for the completed pit. Shafer recognizes that the City requires reclamation of the property, and sees ment in initiating this process such that the mining equipment can also be used to place "haul- back" earth matenals in a controlled fashion over time The materials that will be used to refill the borrow area will be restricted to soils taken from Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) projects. Materials taken from these projects have an excellent historical record of being free from "contamination or hazardous" materials and therefore are ideally suited for the reclamation process Given these conditions, Shafer desires to use "haul- back" materials from Mn/DOT projects as controlled fill to accommodate future light commercial construction. Protocol Guiding Principles Shafer's protocol involves the ongoing reclamation of the borrow pit with the end goal of creating prepared building pads for light commercial construction. To this end, the guiding principles included in the protocol presented to the City include the following: 1. All offsite fill materials will be evaluated for the presence of "contamination or hazardous materials which would be unacceptable to the City. 2. No offsite fill materials will include debris, refuse or other deleterious materials, which would be unacceptable to the City. 3. Organic soil will only be acceptable for designated berms or green areas. 4. Earth materials used as controlled fill will be comprised of soil types that lend themselves to the development of a normal moisture density relationship for compaction 5. Shafer recognizes that some conditioning of the haul -back soils may be required to facilitate compaction. A. The size of the borrow facility permits placing materials in thin lifts for aeration and compaction purposes. 6, Shafer will coordinate American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) services to obtain environmental screening and Standard Proctor samples prior to hauling any earthen materials to the site. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc 550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55114 651 659 9001 Fax 651 659 1379 Duluth tvlanrato Marshall Rochester Wausau Rapid City Flerre Sioux Fal's AN AFF Fh ATE. E ACTION AND EQUAL OF''OFTL V LOYEE Description Method of Test Standard Frequency Action Required (if failure) Standard Proctor moisture density test ASTM:D698 Test required in conjunction with field density test for determination of compaction levels 1 per soil type N/A Particle size ASTM D422 Test required to 1 per source or If soil tests as analysis document if certain change m soil being moisture soils are moisture sensitive or will not develop normal moisture density relationship type sensitive, materials will be restricted to non- structural areas A. Once approved for fill placement, Shafer will coordinate for site observations and compaction tests at representative intervals during the reclamation operations. 7. Based on plans submitted to the City, fill thicknesses will approach 45 feet. Page 2 of 4 A. The reclamation protocol will include additional site geotechnical evaluation of the completed fill sequence through the placement of soil borings or electnc piezocone soundings. B. This additional parcel specific information will be utilized to develop foundation plans /recommendations for commercial building purposes. Quality Assurance Fill Material Control 1. Shafer will retain AET to perform acceptance testing of haul -back material proposed for use in the borrow area. A. Representatives of AET will sample and perform screening tests on proposed fill materials in accordance with their letter to Shafer dated October 28, 2005. B. Shafer will provide AET with source of imported materials and contact name of their representative at that location to coordinate the screening activities. 2. In addition to environmental tests, the following pre qualification testing will be performed for each soil type. 3. AET will verbally advise owner of any material that fails screening for contamination or hazardous materials, or will not produce a normal moisture density relationship for compaction. 4 AET will provide soil test reports within three working days of testing for routine soil types. Some environmental screening may require longer lead times. Page 3 of 4 Quality Control Filling Placement Requirements 1. Pnor to any filling operations, Shafer will coordinate with AET that matenals being transferred to the site are free of contamination and/or hazardous materials, and these materials have been tested for optimum moisture- density relationship and gradation. A. Shafer will restrict earth materials to those free of debris, rubbish, frozen clumps, free of cobbles and boulders over 10" in diameter, organic soils, vegetation, or other materials. i. Organic materials will be stockpiled for utilization on embankments and organic slopes, as detailed in the plans submitted to the City. 2. Shafer will perform all fill, backfill, and compaction in accordance with the recommendations of the reclamation protocol. A. The bottom elevation of the borrow pit or the various fill layers should be graded such that standing water does not occur B. Fill surfaces should be maintained to keep areas free of water during placement and compaction. C. Shafer will not place backfill or fill materials on surfaces that are muddy, frozen, or that contain frost or ice. 3. Shafer will only use fill materials with moisture contents near optimum (OMC) based on the Standard Proctor moisture- density relationship test. A. Fill materials shall be conditioned. either dried or water added, in order to obtain moisture level near optimum C. Shafer will correct any soft or unstable areas by scarifying, wetting or drying and then subjecting to surface compaction procedures. Compaction Requirements 1. Shafer will not allow loose fill layers to exceed 1 foot in thickness. 2. Shafer will utilize skilled work persons and proper equipment in good working condition to perform the work to full completion in a satisfactory manner. 3. Fill compaction will meet the following requirements: Item Description Method of Test (Standard Proctor) Minimum of Maximum Dry Density Minimum No. of Tests per Unit Area per Lift General building pad area Structural areas beneath the building pad mcludmg a 1 oversize zone extending beyond the building footprint ASTM.D698 98% 1 per 2000 cubic yards or every 54,000 sq ft per lift Non- building pad areas External non- structural areas above; outside the 1.1 zone ASTM:D698 95% 1 per 2000 cubic yards or every 54,000 sq. ft. per lift Lawn or unpaved areas In embanlvnents or green areas ASTM.D698 90% 1 per 2000 cubic yards or every 54,000 sq ft. per lift 4. Fill materials that have been placed but found to be below specified density, shall be subjected to additional compaction and testing until the fill meets or exceeds specified density. Field Quality Control Coordination 1. Shafer will notify AET prior to the initiation of any control fill placement so independent testing laboratory can document that subgrade surface is acceptable for fill placement. 2. Shafer will arrange for AET to perform compaction testing as placement occurs. A. Tests will be performed to the frequencies required per lift. Page 4 of 4 3. Shafer will provide elevation and location control on site so independent testing laboratory can properly locate its tests and retests, as required. 4. Shafer will perform surveys on an ongoing basis or as a minimum at the end of every year's fill placement to develop as-built documents for subnussion to the City. A. AET will receive a copy of this document for its files. 5. Filling operations will not be performed during the winter months. B. Fill materials can be stockpiled, at designated areas on site, for fill placement when weather conditions are appropriate. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 27, 2006 5.d. 06 -40 -ME Shafer Contracting Mineral Extraction Permit Amendment. Senior Planner Zweber reviewed the staff report. Scott Spisak of Shafer Contracting has applied for a change to the 2006 Mineral Extraction Permit for their property located one mile north of 135t Street East and 1/4 mile west of Rich Valley Blvd (County Road 71). The proposed change would allow for deeper musing and replacement of the extracted material will clean "haul- back" material from Mn /DOT projects. Mr. Zweber reviewed the proposed changes to the existing mining perrnit relating to the haul -back provision Chairperson Messner asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Commissioner Palda questioned the testing by Shafer Contracting and inquired why the City couldn't be in control of the testing Mr. Zweber stated that testing would be paid by Shafer but would be done by American Enguieermg Testing. Project Engineer Dawley further explained about the testing that would be undertaken. Commissioner Palda further stated his concern that the City should control the testing, not Shafer. The City should do the hiring of the company to do the testing Chairperson Messner questioned Item E on the reclamation and final grading plan and whether it would be revised at this time to show proposed grade changes. Mr. Zweber stated the permit will be up for review in 2007 during the annual permit review process. A recommended condition of the permit requires a revised reclamation plan for the 2007 annual permit review. Commissioner Palda asked if the fill coming in would be strictly from MnDot only, and not from the Metropolitan Airport Commission. Mr. Zweber stated it is more specifically pointed out in the Amencan Testing Protocol that they've included, but it states in there that the fill would only come from MnDot projects. Chairperson Messner invited the applicant to come forward. Scott Spisak from Shafer Contracting Co Inc., stated that if approved, what they would accomplish between now and the renewal in December for next year would be basically a hole in the ground. They may haul some material in, but it will take some tune just to dig a hole. Staffs recommendation to do reclamation plan revisions at year end is timely because changes to any approved grades would not happen before that. Mr Spisak addressed Commissioner Palda's concerns on testing. He stated Shafer felt it wasn't the City's business to pay for something a private property owner would be doing Commissioner Palda restated the City would hue their own consulting firm with testing run through the City and billed back to Shafer as part of the permit process. Mr. Spisak stated they would leave it up to the City whether the City would be m charge of the testing process or Shafer. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. Charles Koehnen, 12255 Rich Valley Boulevard, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068. Mx. Koehnen owns the property adjoining the pit He has had numerous discussions with Scott Sptsak. Mr. Koehnen is concerned about tuning of the muting and would like the existing pond filled and relocated so there would be less chance of contamination to their well due to it not being very deep. Mr. Koehnen stated he has had no problems with Shafer musing, they've done a tremendous job compared to other companies. Mr Koehnen would hke to see the pond moved back into what would be Phase 4, as far away from his property as possible and any top soil on the property now could be used to fill the current pond. No other pubhc comment. MOTION by Howell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Palda Ayes: All. Nays. None. Motion approved. Chairperson Messner expressed concern about possible relocation of the pond. He questioned given the phasing of the project and initial intent and placement, would filling the pond and moving it require an immediate regrading of the site for runoff. Mr. Zweber indicated Shafer has moved into Phase 4. It would take a little time to move the pond, and in order to get the City's input on where to relocate the pond, it would be best to be part of the reclamation plan review in 2007. The City will work with Shafer when they revise the plan for next year's permit and will discuss moving the pond at that time. Chairperson Messner stated that on condition of approval, it is recommended to attach a condition of a revised grading plan as part of the 2007 renewal. Chairperson Messner addressed Comnussioner Palda's concern regarding testing and stated that it shouldn't matter who is doing the hiring and paying of the testing Chairperson Messner's preference is rather than put the City in the middle of it, let Shafer pay the bill. Commissioner Palda agreed that Shafer should pay the bill, but restated his concern that the City should control the testing. Chairperson Messner stated it was up to the City engineer. Project Engineer Dawley stated that copies of the reports would be coming as the testing is performed and if something appeared amiss then they would be able to address it at that tune. MOTION by Messner to recommend approval of the Revised 2006 Shafer Contracting, Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit to include "haul- back" activities with the condition that a revised Reclamation Plan is developed and approved as a part of the 2007 Shafer Contracting, Inc. Mineral Extraction Permit, subject to the above condition regarding the review of the reclamation plan in 2007. Second by Palda Ayes All Nays• None. Motion approved. Mr. Zweber stated the item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on July 18, 2006. Staff will be working with Shafer to redefine the 13 acres and meet various conditions. A review of the reclamation plan will be scheduled at the end of the year