HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.c. Draft Comments for scope of Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for mining of UMore PropertyAGENDA ITEM: Draft Comments for scope of
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) forGEI�IDA
mining of UMore property
SECTION:
-CC
PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator
AGENDA NO. 3.e,•
ATTACHMENTS: draft comments
APPROVED BY:
DAB
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review draft of proposed comments on scope of EIS for
proposed mining of UMore property
4 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session February 11, 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Draft comments on the scope of the EIS for proposed gravel mining on the western third of
the UMore property are due by February 17, 2009 to be officially considered by the University
and its consultants. Staff has prepared the attached draft comments for your review. We
anticipate that we will add or modify this further before the final draft is done. In particular, we
would like to know if any issues have not been addressed.
The City of Rosemount has reviewed the UMore Park Sand and Gravel Resources
Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Based on our review, we offer
the following comments:
1. The City completed an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the area
immediately north of the UMore Study Area. No references to this study or its
findings are included in the EAW. This should be included in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
2. Item 6, 13, and 17: The EAW states that water will be
of the mine to wash aggregate, clean equipment, etc.
groundwater will be used and its impact on the stud
areas, wells, water bodies, and mitigation areas
EAW states that an analysis will be completed,
importance of this analysis to be included.
m 8. The
lacement pl
U) for the W
ted with thi
3. Item 6: The mining area will excavate'
the groundwater quality and elevatio
wells should be included in the DEIS
Supply Plan and Wellhead P M ection P
and drinking water supply +r nt
adjacent to the UMore Study
Wellhead Protection Plan to in
wells, one which Q ed appr
Area It is an the D
Study Area
discuss at
aquifer vulne
c
ics.
5. Item 9:
Concern/p
to address the
c E, umed in the operation
ysis of how much
as well as surrounding
completed. While the
es to emphasize the
ow the groundwater to mpact to
the po tat impact on by City
ity's Comprehensive Water
Ian 6=` the location of existing wells
areas F ,SMAs) which are directly
ity is bps g 'ng an update of the
cted municipal supply
est of the UMore Study
or this ".1 will extend into the UMore
1 1 4 of the Wellhead Protection Plan
emount municipal wells related to
d issues related to surface soil
states that Dakota County will issue the wetland
pro 1 he City of Rosemount is the Local Government Unit
d Co ervation Act and would permit any wetland impact
oject within the City's boundaries.
pports the inclusion of the further evaluation of the Sites of
contamination areas in this DEIS along with the mitigation plan
e issues.
6. Item 9: The EAW alludes that the four -lane divided highway (CSAH 42)
provides adequate buffer between the proposed mining use and the existing and
future residential development to the north of the site. The City does not agree
that this provides adequate buffer and this should be further investigated in the
DEIS with a mitigation plan provided.
7. Item 12. This item discusses the status of the City's review of the wetland
delineation on the site. It should be noted that while the City reviewed the
delineation in the field, it was discussed with the field staff that no approvals of
the delineation would be forthcoming without the submittal of a delineation report
to the City. No delineation report has been submitted to the City to date. While
this information does not need to be included in the DEIS, it is provided here for
information.
8. Item 16: The NPDES Permit number is MNR100001, not 100000 as indicated in
this item.
m 17: Thi
traction withi
tes the Uni
n to keep
approv
9. Item 18: This item discusses the use of wash water ='ov ercolation of wash water.
As previously noted, based on the existing and expansion of the City's
DWSMAs into the UMore Study Area, the man ment s treatment of wash
water will need to be evaluated.
10. Item 19: This item states that there
of the UMore site. When the City ob
the Rich Valley area is a covered karst v
information from Dakota Co, qty in relatio
11. Item 21: The traffic study
City's traffic counts/analysis,
information. Ad o o y, the tr
potential deve ipated
12. Item 24:
residents an
be t _ed
st features Y E:.i nine miles
from Dakoounty that
EIS should evaluate the
UMore project location.
ed EIS needs to incorporate the
the County's
e into account the future
AUAR y north of the UMore site.
'se and vibration impact on existing
'ning operations. These issues need to
t the Rosemount City Code does not allow mineral
stu ea. The City's draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan
ity pr erty as AGR Agricultural Research. It is the City's
designation until the property is re- guided to a use consistent
evelopment proposal. The Comprehensive Plan does
g may be considered as an interim use prior to development,
gnizes that this type of use may be incompatible with adjacent
borhoods. The City will look to the final EIS for aggregate mining to
int
with
acknow
although alg
residential neig
assist in determining the potential impacts of on -site mining upon existing residential
neighborhoods.
The City's zoning ordinance does not allow for aggregate mining west of Akron
Avenue which is the entire area covered by the Scoping EAW. An amendment to the
ordinance would be necessary to carry out that interim use, which is recognized in
the Scoping EAW language. However, the City does not agree that aggregate mining
on the UMore property is consistent with the University's mission of education,
research and outreach which would preclude local land use authority. The City's
position is that any mining activity on the property must comply with all municipal
land use controls currently in place or as amended in the future.
14. Item 28: This item states that the MCES sewer line is located within the right -of-
way of Biscayne Avenue and is not likely to require realignment. It should be
noted that within the City of Rosemount, the MCES system is located within
MCES easement on UMore property and is outside of Biscayne Avenue right -of-
way.
C a1,F:u
ork on the
/ice csj die f.;
tratr ie Retina n e Ilgve'lopm,r..�rr
eoisultaticn am��rg Univ
or a r oon
W
a t tel to that as key t t;na for tic
009
re ri
Mayor,
City ':ofR
2575 1
::.s otmt,,
As you .acw
UMore Pk }?rc
iJ uiversity `cif I
ppmval of the
Droste
-4997
bear gill,
J. am looking f r a tta: rt i you arr eagu Dkvight Johnson and Kin
.ir d� lutst :�a m m b o e c f tour c of les ti tic -work rettarrdi ng the UN1ore Park
property. One issue: in pattac.u1ar requires detailed discussion here I wish to provide so
background.
o. g e
hits fn tIi
eFt:rrle lfe:' r;:xa ;:iurt:r<r Ctsr:te'�
2; JO Oak Sovcr
zirr 450
Office: 61.? -A=4
F:a- :612_62 _t
t Board nesoBoard f Regents. With die gravel Lis w d way and
ncept master plan last ttionth, we.are poised to proceed with :ssse'i
:nprelientiive
Office
pkn amendment and .related next steps,..:
ft Univve€sity had, from the earliest planning stages, anticipated an AUAR for the entire
acres, as you know. Our previous discussions occ-trrred under the assrunptiotl that if
the University. were to proceed with an AU AR for the 5,(}0O acres, the City ..of Rosemount
could serve as the RGU with the c neurrence of Empire Township. You are also aware,
Bill. that the haas been considerable discussion internal to the University regarding this
step, as it relates to the gravel EIS, an anticipated 600 -acre Phase I'plan, the Gopher
Ord' fame Works and iur sdietion l: Following internal discussions, the
tlni versify concluded that we should proceed with an EIS for Phase 1 rather than an A UAR
o 1 h entire 5,000 acres. The decision to focus tin the Phase 1: plan at this time is based on
several: factors, including the loflowin
market: conditions related to Mousing, co nun ercial development and gravel
a ction: continue in a downturn_
th e state budget shortfall significantly affects the University as well as local
urisdictions sate agencies encies aloe others.
I federal budget situation has delayed the next round of testing of the Gopher
Ordnance Works s site to determine the extent of any remethation and responsible
parties
.scpyer
t. fict::..:1 be
eiivironrucnta1 r
atly appreciate the stl port and co
teat tso
so
I im..Li.qui
Ken Tyra
v
jaw:
e erience cis RGU an
o costs; the; assuran
xpenditun is a key
not stn
2 �vocrlcl have probably been the tiic:. st rppropr:i i
f 5,090 ±a4. 1• .s due to i nn.in a.nd antic pa
uists.. However, r noted above .render the project- specific EIS a far better ft for
.t i•Pha.se l approach: The Office of the •General Counsel (OGC) also informs .ine that
t;r mini. LQ1:3 thanes to the AL AR_prpcfz 4!:x6 essentially remove :most of the a<I� it�ag University that an;AU:AR: could prof:•idr: over Dui LIS. Changes•that are
expected: to become effective in Summer 009 would increa. the L required TO
omplete an AC.UAR. in add t on; Q13: changes would increase t:hc togd. of alternate es. to
be examined rrtl in the.•geographi.e• area of an ;.1 fi.. making the res4Oirer .tints fbr process
ttt airnc as those for an CNN.
ter, :Bill, the as determined t a
RGU :fix.a project-specific EIS, g,iven ion's
:xisiing knowledge of the property. With heightened sensi tl
the University would directly manage a the project and related
for ntir ':mstitut on .to in the R(I) determination.
is ucs t3 1 •fin arixiOtiS to di hiss with )'ou and your colleagues at your
st convenience. The i font ttiOr here provides but a brief outline o the.key issues
•that can sere as the basis for ur ttextcon%e ation. .livaddition;t to further
hscttss: the tranSpOrtittion study Shen we. meet..
ent to r era e llat rati l i th: ua
)fou: and .colleagues at the City of Rosen t t :have pa viu .di. ring these past vat
development of a new commumty..on the UMore.Park property is a complex :proj
easy one. I am s: rfident that our shared V siotn of the future Nvif.1 continue to help us
navi together the challenges we meet along the way.
April 15, 2008
Kenneth A. Larson
Associate General Counsel and Director
Transactional Law Services Group
Office of the General Counsel
University of Minnesota
360 McNamara Alumni Center
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Dear Mr. Larson,
This letter is in response to your letter to Charles LeFevere dated March 24, 2008 relating to the
University of Minnesota's intent to proceed as the responsible governmental unit (RGI) for
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for nonmetallic mineral mining on
property owned by the University within the City of Rosemount and Empire Township.
The City of Rosemount finds it acceptable for the Universityto act as the RGU for the required
EIS in consideration that the EIS will address only the impacts associated with mining
operations and the post mining restoration and not address any potential environmental impacts
of post-restoration land use for the property. The Qty's acceptance of this action is for this
particular environmental review only. Further, the City Council expects that the University will
engage appropriate City staff throughout the preparation and review of the EIS.
The City Council anticipates that future environmental reviews relating to post mining
development, most likely an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), should be carried out
with the City being the RGU. Similar to the current situation, the City would expect that the
University would be substantially involved in the development and review process for this future
document.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at 651- 322 -2020.
Sincerely,
Kim Lindquist,
Acting City Administrator
Cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Charlie LeFevere, City Attorney
February 12, 2009
Mr. Steven Lott
University of Minnesota
UMore Park
1605 West 160 Street
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Mr. Lott:
1. The City completed an Alte
immediately north of the
findings are included in the EA
Environmental Impact Statemen
2. Item 6, 13, and 17: The EAW state
the mine to wash aggregate, clean eq
groundwater will be used and its impac
fu
to
use plan.
3.C.
E7{II�o�
yvowxscswv'
Re: City of Rosemount Review Comments
University of Minnesota UMore Park Sand and G vel Resources
Scoping Environmental Assessment Workshe
Decision Document, January 2009
d Draft Scoping
The City of Rosemount has reviewed the UMore Park Sand and Grave urces Scoping
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping Decisio cument
dated January 2009. Based on our review of this document, we offer the fo
comments:
rban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the area
a. No references to this study or its
be included in the Draft
water will be consumed in the operation of
ent, etc. An analysis of how much
the study area as well as surrounding
as needs to be completed. While the
areas, wells, water bodies, and mitigation
t an analysis will be completed, the City wishes to emphasize the
analysis to be included.
tes that the mined materials will be shipped to sites outside of
es not mention evaluating the soil materials for use in the
ent site. The proposed mining plan and end use plan need
serving enough material to adequately anticipate the find end
4. Item 6: The E W states that the mining area will excavate below the groundwater
table. Impact to the groundwater quality and elevations and the potential impact on
nearby City wells should be included in the DEIS analysis. The City's
Comprehensive Water Supply Plan and Wellhead Protection Plan identify the
location of existing wells and drinking water supply management areas (DWSMAs)
which are directly adjacent to the UMore Study Area. The City is beginning an
update of the Wellhead Protection Plan to incorporate recently constructed
municipal supply wells, one which is located approximately 3 A miles west of the
UMore Study Area. It is anticipated that the DWSMA for this well will extend into
3
4
the UMore' Study Area. Further, Sections 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 of the Wellhead Protection
'lain discuss at length the vulnerability of Rosemount municipal wells related to
aquifer vulnerability assessment results and issues related to surface soil
characteristics.
5. Item 6: The EIS should discuss the proposed depths of the mining operations.
6. Item 6: On page 4 in the Tw paragraph, it appears that the project may include a
concrete plant on -site. If this is the case, the EIS should include all the roles and
processes associated with the mining activities within the study area.
7. Item 6: The ancillary manufacturing uses stated as "manufacture and transport of
various asphalt products" and "manufacture, stockpiling, warehousing and
transporting of concrete block, concrete pavers, concrete pipe, concrete plank,
etc." are not allowed within a mineral extract ermit or in the AG-Agriculture
zoning district.
8. Item 6: The AG-Agriculture zoning only allo eral extraction east of US
Hwy 52 and within one half (1/2) mile o
9. Item 6: The City would be concerned about th r sorting of "peaty" or other
organic soils that are not suitable for compaction one to settlement.
10. Item 8. The list of
replacement p
(LGU) for th
associated
11. Item 9: The
Concern/possib
to address these iss
rmits states -that Dakota County issue the wetland
The City of Rosemount is the Local Government Unit
ervation Act and would permit any wetland impact
'thin the City's boundaries.
of the further evaluation of the Sites of
tion this DEIS along with the mitigation plan
12. Item 9: The EAW indica t the four -lane divided highway (CSAH 42) provides
adequate buffer between the proposed mining use and the existing and future
residential development to the north of the site. The City does not agree that this
provides adequate buffer and this should be further investigated in the DEIS with a
mitigation plan provided.
13. Item 9: The EAW states that the EIS will address existing land uses within the site
within a 0.5 mile area. The intent of the use of 0.5 miles as an arbitrary boundary is
unclear. How was this width determined? It is likely, especially with groundwater,
noise, odors, and traffic that impacts may occur further than 0.5 miles from the study
area.
14. Item 10: The proposed mining plan referenced in the EAW needs to be developed
in conjunction with the Qty, Township, and County.
15. Item 12. This item discusses the status of the City's review of the wetland
delineation on the site. It should be noted that while the City reviewed the
delineation in the field, it was discussed with the field staff that no approvals of the
delineation would be forthcoming without the submittal of a delineation report to
the City. No delineation report has been submitted to the City to date. While this
information does not need to be included in the DEIS, it is provided here for
information.
16. Item 13: This item needs to show that the City's Drinking Water Supply
Management Area (DWSMA) is located within the UMore iroperty just east of the
study area. The EIS also needs to evaluate how the s groundwater
pumping operations will affect the City's existing we d north of CSAH 42.
Additionally, there are three more proposed wells t. ted north of CSAH 42
(see Akron/CSAH 42 AUAR and Qty's Water S
17. Item 16: The NPDES Permit number is MNR100001, not 10 dicated in
this item.
18. Item 16: Why is the acreage to be graded or excavated "to be determined With the
gravel study that has been c. ��c.t ;d, shouldn't there be an estimated amount to be
excavated, or at least a range.
19. Item 17: The EIS should evalua
activities on the surface flow and
20. Item 17: States that the approximate
seems to be in conflict with the elevation
on listed in Item 19.
m18:This
previously no
MAs into the
need to
ow and impact of dewatering
table is 875 feet. Is this correct? This
Cobblestone Lake at about 907 feet and
discusses the use of wash water and percolation of wash water.
based on the existing and anticipated expansion of the City's
ore Study Area, the management and treatment of wash
aluated.
22. Item 19 tates that there are no known karst features within nine miles of
the UMore F en the Qty obtained information from Dakota County that the
Rich Valley area is a covered karst valley. The DEIS should evaluate the information
from Dakota County in relation to the UMore project location.
23. Item 19: Depth to groundwater as a minim of 24 feet and an average of 60 feet
seems inconsistent with the 875 foot ground water elevation listed in Item 17. The
average ground elevation in the study area is about 950 feet which would mean that
the average groundwater elevation would be about 890 feet.
24. Item 20: This item states that a block operation would generate waste pallets. This
statement should be removed because concrete block manufacturing is not permit
within mineral extraction areas.
25. Item 21: The traffic study that is completed for the DEIS needs to incorporate the
City's traffic counts /analysis, which is more updated than the County's information.
Additionally, the traffic study needs to take into account the future potential
development anticipated in the AUAR study north of the UMore site.
26. Item 24: The City is concerned about noise and vibration
residents and future residents during the mining operatio
addressed in the DEIS.
27. Item 24: This item states that proposed operatio
processing. This statement should be removed because asp
allowed within mineral extraction areas.
28. Item 26: Equipment for concrete recycling operation and ready.mix -te
production should be included in the visual impacts. The mineral extrac on
standards prohibit equipment over 75 feet and height and there are performance
standards regarding minim ning of this equipment.
29. Item 27: This item states that City Code does not allow mineral
extraction within the study area e Ci 30 Comprehensive Plan
designates the Universityproperty :nc s. Research. It is the City's
intention to keep that designation property is re- guided to a use consistent
with a City approved development p al. The Comprehensive Plan does
acknowledge that mining maybe consi• -d as an interim use prior to development,
although also recognizes that this type o e may be incompatible with adjacent
re The City will look to the final EIS for aggregate mining to
the potential impacts of on-site mining upon existing residential
act on existing
ese issues need to be
lude asphalt
ufacturing is not
ce does not allow for aggregate mining west of Akron
Av :which is th tire area covered by the Scoping EAW. An amendment to the
ordin. uld cessary to carry out that interim use, which is recognized in
the Scop ge. However, the City does not agree that aggregate mining
on the UMo .pertyis consistent with the University's mission of education,
research and outreach which would preclude local land use authority. The City's
position is that any mining activity on the property must comply with all municipal
land use controls currently in place or as amended in the future.
30. Item 27: The AG-Agricultural zoning district limits mineral extraction operations to
lands located east of US Hwy 52 and within one half (1/2) mile of CSAH 42.
31. Item 27: Cement and concrete production is a conditional use within the mineral
extraction permit, but asphalt production or the manufacturing of concrete products,
such as pipes, blocks, and pavers, are uses that are not allowed with the mineral
extraction permit.
32. Item 27: The Dakota County 2030 Comprehensive Plan is available on the Dakota
County website.
33. Item 27: This item states that it anticipates zoning amendments following the
adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Zoning amendments to the mineral
extraction section assumes that the changes would not interfere with orderly
development, as stated within the Comprehensive Plan.
34. Item 28: This item states that the MCES sewer line is located within the right -of -way
of Biscayne Avenue and is not likely to require realignment. It should be noted that
within the City of Rosemount, the MCES system is located within MCES easement
on UMore property and is outside of Biscayn enue right-of-way
35. Item 28: The impact of dewatering an
existing and proposed wells should be
36. Item 28: Item 17 states that lakes may be c e post mining reclamation and
that the ground water elevation is 875 feet. c elopment of land near or below
the 900 foot is at the lower limit of Rosemount's water pressure zone.
Additional infrastructure may be required for the m a al water system to
accommodate devel. ment at or below the 900 foot e -p Lion.
37. Draft Scop
UMore
noted that a
particularly fo
reclamation wo
standards.
This concludes the City of Rosem r.'s comments for the UMore Park Sand and Gravel
Resources Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping
Decision Document dated January 2009.
We look forward to your response to these comments and coordination with the City of
Rosemount as the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared for the study
area.
Sincerely,
Dwight Johnson
City Administrator
Cc: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
ravel mining operation on the City's
min the EIS.
nt, page 4: This page states that the perimeter of the
laimed at a three to one slope or flatter. It should be
which is a 33% slope) is generally not developable,
hould be considered to state that the final
ors that do not exceed City street design
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Andy Brotzler, City Engineer