HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. SKB Interim Use Permit, Case 08-18-IUPAGENDA ITEM: SKB Interim Use Permit (Case 08 -18-
IUP)
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber; Senior Planner
AGENDA NO. 4. a
ATTACHMENTS: Site Map; Resolutions; Interim Use
Permit; Development Commitment;
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW); EAW Findings of Fact; EAW
Comments from the Vermillion River
Watershed Joint Powers Organization,
the Metropolitan Council, the Department
of Natural Resources, and the
Department of Transportation; Response
Memorandum to the EAW Comments;
Notice of Wetland Conservation Act
Decision /Findings and Conclusions; WSB
Memorandum Wetland Mitigation
Review dated August 19, 2008; WSB
Memorandum TEP Meeting Notes
dated June 23, 2008; Introduction to the
November 2007 Existing Permit
Reissuance; Major Modification Drawings
for SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste
Facility SW -383; Regional Cross
Sections; Excerpt from the July 22
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes;
Excerpt from the August 13 City Council
Work Session Minutes; Excerpt from the
August 26 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes; Excerpt from the September 10
City Council Work Session Minutes;
Letters in support of SKB Expansion.
APPROVED BY: DOJ
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the interim use permit
and attachments including the Development Commitment to SKB Environmental, Inc. for
the operation of a waste facility.
-and
Motion to adopt a resolution issuing a negative declaration of need for an Environmental
Impact Statement at the SKB industrial waste facility.
4 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Meeting: October 7, 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-and-
Motion to approve the Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision /Findings and
Conclusions.
ISSUE
SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) is requesting a revision to their Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow an
expansion to their facility at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard from 112 acres of disposal area to 151 acres of
disposal area. The proposal includes an expansion in total disposal volume from about 15 million cubic
yards to almost 27 million cubic yards, representing a 73% increase, and also includes an increase in the
finish height of the landfill by 40 feet.
SKB has agreed to process an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for review of their proposed
expansion. The City received four comments regarding the EAW, none of which would result in changes to
the design proposed within this executive summary Staff recommends that the City Council find a negative
declaration for the need of additional environmental review.
BACKGROUND
In 1992, Union Pacific Railroad USPCI) was approved to construct and operate an industrial solid waste
land disposal facility (landfill). The landfill was designed with ten containment cells with a total capacity of
2,520,000 cubic yards. In 1995, USPCI sold the landfill to Laidlaw, Inc. and in 1998 Laidlaw combined
with Safety Kleen Corporation. In 1997, municipal solid waste (MSW) ash from the Hennepin County
incinerator was permitted to be accepted at the landfill. In 2000, SKB purchased the landfill from Safety
Kleen. At that time, the landfill was permitted to accept industrial waste and MSW ash with a total landfill
capacity of 6,037,983 cubic yards covering approximately 70 acres of area with a permitted finish grade to
the 930 foot elevation (100 feet measured from 140 Street East).
In 2003, SKB requested and was approved for an expansion of their facility to add construction and
demolition debris to their approved fill material and an additional 9,320,608 cubic yards of waste (154%
increase) for a total permitted capacity of 15,358,591 cubic yards of waste. The approved expansion
permitted a total disposal area of 112 acres (60% increase) and finish grade to the 970 foot elevation (40%
increase).
The current SKB expansion request would increase the disposal capacity by 11,515,512 cubic yards (73%
increase) to a total capacity of 26,874,103 cubic yards. The expansion will also increase the permitted
disposal area to 151 acres (35% increase) and a finish grade of 1,010 foot elevation (29% increase). The
currently approved finish grade is approximately the height of the high tension power lines running
through the site. The proposed finish elevation is 40 feet taller than the power lines and 80 feet taller than
the approved finish grade when they bought the site in 2000.
Surrounding Land Uses:
Planned Land Uses:
North: General Industrial (Spectro Alloys and Endres)
East: Agriculture
South: Agriculture
West: Public /Institutional (Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant) and
Agriculture
North: General Industrial
East: Light Industrial
South: Light Industrial
West: Public /Institutional and General Industrial
2
Existing Zoning District:
Site Area:
Approved Disposal Area:
Proposed Disposal Area:
Approved Disposal Capacity:
Proposed Disposal Capacity:
Approved Height:
Proposed Height:
WM: Waste Management
236 Acres
112 Acres
151 Acres
15,358,591 Cubic Yards
26,874,103 Cubic Yards
970 foot elevation (140 feet, measured from 140 Street East)
1010 foot elevation (180 feet, measured from 140 Street East)
JULY 22 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Commission discussed if the wetland fill could be avoided, if the wetland mitigation should
occur on site or off site, the wetland buffer requirement, the future expansion of 140 Street, and the
proposed height of the landfill. The Planning Commission indicated that they believe that filling the
smaller landfill may be appropriate provided the mitigation occur on site, that the full 50 foot wide buffer
would be required, and asked that landscaping be designed to buffer the height of the landfill as best as it
can. Also, it was requested that all grading and structures proposed within this expansion be moved
outside of the future 100 foot wide right -of -way for 140 Street.
During the public hearing, two residents spoke. Brenda Sugii, a neighbor to the SKB landfill, stated her
frustration with the landfill because of the repeated requests to expand. Ms. Sugii stated that the original
request in 1992 was for a landfill that would operate for 20 to 30 years and that the current expansion
request projects a lifespan that exceeds 40 years. Myron Napper spoke against an expansion of the landfill
that would require filling of the wetlands Mr. Napper was supportive of landscaping being installed at the
base of the landfill.
AUGUST 13 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Staff discussed the SKB proposal and the July 22" Planning Commission discussion with the City Council at
the August 13 work session. The City Council discussion and their recommendations were essentially the
same as the Planning Commission's. The City Council can support the proposed wetland filling if the
wetland mitigation occurs on site and if the wetland mitigation is at least two acres for each one acre filled.
The City Council also recommended that the 50 foot wetland buffer be established, that the stormwater
management be revised to allow the most surface water as possible to flow into the site wetlands, to revise
the grading plan to remove any of the landfill or other grading to within the 17 additional feet that would be
required for future 140 Street East right -of -way, and requested additional information on the landscaping
that would be planted on the base of the landfill to mitigate the height of the landfill.
AUGUST 26 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Commission reviewed the revised plans that filled the smaller wetland and a small part of the
larger wetland, the on site wetland mitigation, the wetland buffer, and the landscape plan. The Planning
Commission was supportive of the wetland filling, the wetland mitigation, and the wetland buffer, but
there was some disagreement between the staff recommendation and the Planning Commission
recommendation on the retaining wall creating the wetland buffer, the landscape plan, and the building
materials of the recycling /transfer facility.
Staff had request the design of the retaining wall be provide with this approval, but Planning Commission
recommended that staff and SKB can work together to come up with the retaining wall design at the time
of building permit. Staff had recommended that 70% of the landscaping provided should have a mature
height of 75 feet or higher, while the proposed plan only showed 25 SKB requested that the Planning
Commission allow SKB to maintain the proposed plan of 25% of the trees over 75 feet and the Planning
3
Commission agreed. Since then, SKB has chosen to revise the landscape plan to provide 70% of the trees
over 75 feet as staff had recommended.
SKB is proposing a recycling /transfer facility on its western boundary along the railroad tracks. Staff had
requested that the western facade of the building be 100% masonry since the property to the west will
likely develop in the future with additional public right -of -way, while SKB requested that the lower 40%
masonry be allowed because that is the General Industrial design standard for buildings that do not face a
public right -of -way. The Planning Commission agreed with SKB's request and recommended the 40%
standard. The 40% masonry standard is included in the conditions of the IUP.
During the public hearing, Myron Napper spoke in support of the expansion. Mr. Napper stated that he
had taken a tour of the facility and after seeing how the wetland mitigation would work, he is now in
support of the application.
SEPTEMBER 10 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
The September 10, 2008 City Council work session was set for discussion of the financial arrangements with
SKB, particularly relating to the Trust Fund. The Council expressed an interest in capping the fund and
regulating the annual distribution from the fund after the fund reaches a particular cap. Much of the
discussion centered on what the cap and distribution amount should be and also what types of services
should receive grants from the Trust. The concern by Council members was that some grant recipients were
also taxing entities.
After much discussion and review of a financial forecast supplied by SKB, the Council determined that the
cap should be 1.5 million. That cap would allow approximately $62,000 to be generated through interest
earnings, therefore allowing an annual distribution through the Trust of $62,000. Any monies above that
distribution amount or above the cap would be given to the City. Staff was directed to modify the
Development Commitment, the Trust Fund and the IUP as appropriate to implement these changes.
Additional direction included modifying the name of the Trust and deleting any restrictions on the use of
funds given to the City.
SUMMARY
Horizontal Proposed Expansion /Wetland Filling
To facilitate the 39 acre expansion, SKB is proposing to develop the southwestern comer of their
property. The area is currently occupied by high tension power lines, a pipeline that leads to the Flint Hills
Refinery, a number of trees, and two wetlands. To construct their landfill cells, SKB is proposing to move
the power lines to the south of their expansion, move the pipeline to within the earthen berm at the base
of their expansion, remove the trees, and fill one of the wetlands and a portion of the other.
There are two wetlands located on the site, the first is approximately 0.5 acres and the second is
approximately 9.3 acres in size. The applicant is proposing to fill the smaller wetland entirely and .3 acres
of the larger, southwestern wetland for a combined proposed impact of 0.81 acres. As part of the City
process to review and permit wetland impacts, the City administers wetland permits in accordance with the
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) rules. The WCA rules stipulate the completion of a sequencing process
to evaluate options associated with the proposed impacts. The sequencing process requires as a first step
the evaluation of the feasibility of developing a project without impact to the wetland, or "avoid
If it is determined that complete avoidance of wetland impacts is not feasible, the sequencing process then
requires the evaluation of options to minimize to the greatest extent possible the impact to the wetland.
This step includes a review of the proposed project and consideration of feasible modification to the plan
4
to minimize wetland impacts.
The City of Rosemount does not have a lot of wetlands, primarily due to its sandy soils. For this reason
the City updated the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (CWMP) in December 2005. This update
included the development of wetland management and protection goals and strategies. The attached table
IX highlights the wetland management class and strategy. In the city's wetland management plan, the
smaller wetland is a Manage II which means it is the most degraded and has the second worst ranking
recognized in the City's program. The larger wetland in the south, which has a small amount of fill
proposed is a Manage I, which means it is more desirable from a floral diversity, water quality, and wildlife
habitat standpoint. All of the City wetlands were evaluated with the same criteria and given a specific
number and then placed in one of the four categories. In the City's adopted wetland management plan the
Management Strategy for Manage I is to "sequencing is applicable" and for Manage II to "apply some
sequencing flexibility".
The Planning Commission has found that the wetland filling cannot be avoided and has recommended
that wetland mitigation occur on site to replace the wetlands being filled. The two to one replacement
criteria requires that 1.62 acres of wetland be created for 0.81 acres of wetland to be filled.
Wetland Mrtrgation /StormwaterManagement
SKB has proposed to create two wetland mitigation areas, one east of the Manage I wetland and one west
of the wetland. The eastern mitigation area is 0.70 acres in area and the western wetland is 0.92 acres for a
total of 1.62 acres of wetland mitigation area. The design of the wetland mitigation areas is integrated with
the stormwater design.
The wetland mitigation areas are located adjacent to two stormwater basins, Basin #6 next to the western
wetland and Basin #7 next to eastern wetland. The basins are designed to control the rate (speed) of the
stormwater entering the wetland and to improve the quality of the wetland by removing sediment from the
stormwater, but the basins are also designed to provide the greatest amount (volume) of stormwater into
the wetland mitigation areas. The basins are designed to dump their stormwater directly into the wetland
mitigation areas and then the mitigation areas are designed to overflow into the existing wetland.
The current wetland complex has a watershed of 51 acres, while the proposed stormwater design provides
a watershed of approximately 66 acres. This increase in watershed is needed to establish the wetland
mitigation areas and supporting the existing wetland The wetland mitigation areas are designed with a clay
liner under them to allow the water to be retained as long as possible to help the wetland plants establish.
SKB will be required to have a multiple year (five year minimum) monitoring program to ensure that the
wetland mitigation areas will be successful. SKB will be required to improve and maintain the mitigation
areas if any of the monitoring indicate that the wetlands are not establishing as they should.
The wetland mitigation approval conditions are found within the Notice of Wetland Conservation Act
Decision /Findings and Conclusions document that is attached to this executive summary.
Wetland Buffer
SKB has prepared a grading plan to provide the required 50 foot wetland buffer at a grade of no more
than 1 foot of rise for every 10 feet of run. To accomplish this buffer, SKB has proposed retaining walls
that may be as tall as 16 feet in height. These walls will be clearly visible from 140 Street East and likely
would be visible from County Road 42. SKB has not provided a detail showing the design of the walls.
The Planning Commission did not recommend any specific design criteria for the retaining wall but
instructed staff to review the design at the time that a building permit is requested for the wall. SKB has
5
committed to add some decorative components to the wall and stated that they will work with staff on that
design when the building permit is applied for.
Vertical Expansion
The landfill that was originally proposed by USPCI had a finish elevation of the 930 feet, which is
approximately 100 feet above 140 Street East. The original design had ten individual cells that were all
pyramid shaped that ended at the 930 foot elevation. When SKB purchased the landfill, some expansion
had been approved although the permitted height had remained at the 930 foot.
In 2003, SKB received an expansion to the landfill to included filling the areas between the berms and
trapezoids (these areas are referred to as saddles), as well as building a new cell to the southeast for
construction and demolition debris. The result of this expansion was a finish grading plan that was
roughly pyramidal in shape with a finish elevation of 970 feet, a 40 foot increase in height. To soften the
aesthetic appearance of the finished landfill, the final grade included undulation to have ridges, valleys, and
trees planted on the sides of the landfill. Shortly after the 2003 approval, SKB requested and received a
modification to the finished grade to remove the undulation and the trees in exchange for a payment to
the City to plant trees in other locations within the City. The currently approved finish grade is a pyramid
with even sides that has a maximum height of 970 feet, which is approximately 140 feet above 140 Street
East and approximately equal to the height of the existing power lines on the south side of the site.
The requested expansion of the landfill would increase the height to the 1,010 foot elevation. This is 40
feet taller than the current approval and would result in a berm 180 feet higher than 140 Street East. This
would also be 40 feet taller than the existing power lines and 80 feet taller (an 80% increase) than the
landfill that was permitted for when SKB purchased the landfill in 2000. Some of the increase in height is
due to a change in the shape of the landfill. Instead of a pyramid with the peak in the center of the landfill
that slopes equally in all directions, the proposed landfill creates a ridge 180 feet tall along 140 Street East
that slopes over the entire landfill to the north. This design is significantly taller than a pyramid design
where the tallest part of the landfill would be at the center.
SKB has proposed a landscape plan that would buffer a significant portion of the landfill from the views
along County Road 42.
Landscaping /Tree Replacement
SKB is proposing to remove approximately 500 trees for a total of 4919 caliper inches of trees. The City
Code requires the planting of 2203 caliper inches of trees as replacement. SKB has submitted a landscape
plan that provides 204 deciduous trees at 2.5 calipers inches each and 565 evergreen trees at 6 feet tall or 3
caliper inches each. This proposed landscaping provides a total of 2205 caliper inches of replacement, two
inches more than is required.
Inches of Significant Trees Removed
Inches of Heritage Tree Removed
Total Inches of Trees Removed
Less 10% Removal Allowance
Require Inches to be Replaced
Significant Tree Replacement Requirement
Heritage Tree Replacement Requirement
Total Replacement Requirement
4879 Inches
40 Inches
4919 Inches
492 Inches
4427 Inches
4387 Inches times 0.5
40 Inches times 1
2163 Inches
40 Inches
2203 Inches
6
Deciduous Trees Proposed
Evergreen Trees Proposed
Total Trees Proposed
204 Trees times 2.5 Inches 510 Inches
565 Trees times 3 Inches 1695 Inches
769 Trees 2205 Inches
SKB has prepared the landscape plan to help buffer the height of the landfill, particularly when viewed
from County Road 42. Of the trees that SKB has proposed, six of the tree species have a maximum
height of 75 feet or less (Black Ash, Black Cherry, Cockspur Hawthorn, American Plum, Black Hills
Spruce, and Eastern Red Cedar), while the remaining five species have a maximum height between 75 and
100 feet (Red Maple, Common Hackberry, American Linden, Red Pine, and White Spruce). Of the total
number of trees proposed, over 70% of them have a maximum height of 75 feet or more.
The tree planted at SKB will occur between the 830 and 874 foot elevation. The maximum elevation that
SKB can plant their trees is the 874 elevation because that is the elevation where buried waste material
begins. Trees cannot be planted on top of the waste because it could puncture the top liner of the landfill.
Assuming that the trees are planted at the 874 elevation, 136 feet of landfill height remains to be buffered.
The proposed landscape plan will screen about 70% of the landfill height.
Grading /Future 14(f Street
The grading plan has been revised to remove the landfill berm, the wetland mitigation areas, and the
stormwater basin from the 17 foot wide area needed on the north side of 140 Street East that will be
need for future street expansion. The landfill area that was approved within the 2003 IUP approval is still
within the 17 foot area.
Letters of Support
Attached to this executive summary are a number of letters of support for the SKB landfill expansion.
The letters are generally from two sources, either fellow members of the Dakota County Regional
Chamber of Commerce or from individuals or organizations that have received donations from the SKB
trust.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
SKB has volunteered to conduct an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) in which the City of
Rosemount will be the responsible unit of government (RGU). SKB had preformed a voluntary EAW
during their 2003 expansion with the Minnesota Pollution Control Administration (PCA) serving as the
RGU.
An EAW is an environmental review process in which the impacts to the environment, transportation, and
land use from the proposed landfill expansion are described and distributed to all agencies that have
regulations in these areas, including Dakota County, the PCA, the DNR, the Department of
Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, and others. The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Power
Organization, the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of
Transportation respond and their comments are attached to the executive summary. Dakota County and
the Pollution Control Agency did not respond, but that is not surprising because SKB is requesting permit
from those two organizations.
None of the comments received require changes to plans attached to this executive summary. Since none
of the comments need further investigation, staff recommends that the City Council find a negative
declaration of need for further environmental review. A finding of facts memorandum with the reasons
that further investigation is not needed and the resolution of negative declaration are attached to the
executive summary.
7
Recycling /Transfer Facility
During the 2003 expansion, SKB had received approval within the IUP to construct a recycling /transfer
facility on the site. The facility does not exist today, but staff has had discussions with SKB regarding the
possible construction of the facility in the near future. In reviewing the IUP submittal, staff believes there
are additional conditions that shall be required of the facility.
The recycling facility will allow a number of waste products to be brought into the site that have valuable
recycling products be removed from the waste and the remaining wastes be disposed of. The waste
products to be recycled include waste approved to be disposed within the landfill, such as construction and
demolition waste, industrial waste, and ash. The waste products to be recycled also included waste that
cannot be disposed of on site, such as mixed municipal waste (MSW). MSW is a different waste product
than the others because it includes food wastes that can attract rats, insects, birds, or other vermin that the
other waste products do not attract.
To address the vermin attraction issue, staff has provided two conditions within the IUP. First, any MSW
brought to the facility shall be stored indoors during the entire time that it is on site. Second, that a
vermin control plan is prepared and approved by City staff that may include the plan being prepared by a
pest and vermin control professional with periodic inspections of the facility.
The final issue of the transfer facility is the exterior building material. The proposed plans show
completely metal building, while the existing office and lab building on the site is constructed of
approximately 60% masonry and 40% metal. While the property is zoned waste management, the
surrounding land uses are proposed to be industrial. The General Industrial (GI) zoning district requires
that building that do not face the public right -of -way must be constructed of a minimum of 40% masonry,
while the remaining 60% may be metaL The Planning Commission recommended that this 40% masonry
requirement be used in the construction of the recycling /transfer facility and that condition has been
placed within the IUP.
Financial Modi fications
The Council along with SKB representatives have met to discuss changes to the Development
Commitment and the Trust Fund documents. These two agreements relate to the payments made to the
City in recognition of lost tax revenues associated with potential development of the site. The
Development Commitment has been modified to recognize that 50% of the funds going into the Trust
fund will be given to the City starting in 2009, without being sent first to the Trust. The Commitment also
notes that after the Trust Fund reaches $1,500,000 the City will receive all payments initially allocated to
the Trust in the original agreement. The document also recognizes that this arrangement will be reviewed
again in 2011. The Development Commitment is an attachment of the IUP and therefore by approval of
the IUP, the City Council is approving the Development Commitment.
The Trust Fund agreement has also been modified to reflect the changes discussed between SKB and the
City. The Trust agreement is a document that must be approved by the Trust Board, which has three city
representatives and two SKB representatives. It is anticipated that the Board will have a meeting to
consider the amendment Trust agreement prior to the City Council meeting on the 7`''. Most of the
changes in the Trust agreement are found within section 4. Use of the Trust. This section lays out how the
Trust will grow it's assets to $1,500,000 and will be able to distribute $62,000 annually. After 2011, the
agreement does not allow any distribution to occur until the Trust has a value in excess of $1,500,000.
Additionally, if there are excess funds they will be forwarded to the City. Likewise if the Fund assets are in
excess of $1,525,000 on December 31 on any given year (after 2011), the excess will be forwarded to the
City. The Fund documents also anticipates a ratcheting down of the distributions between 2008 and 2011;
8
going from $123,000 to $100,000 to $80,000.
Both of the documents have been updated to the present, including previous amendments and adding
clarifying language where previous requirements have been met. The City attorney drafted both of the
document amendments and SKB has agreed with the language changes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the interim use permit, adopt the
resolution of negative declaration for further environmental review, and approve a motion adopting the
notice of wetland conservation act decision /findings and conclusions.
9
SKB Environmental
R04-
42.
Copyright 2008, Dakota County Map Date: July 7, 2008
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2008
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INTERIM USE PERMIT AND ATTACHMENTS
INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT TO SKB ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
FOR THE OPERATION OF A WASTE FACILITY.
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received an application from SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB)
for the approval of an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to expand their waste facility located at 13425
Courthouse Boulevard, Rosemount, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the IUP will allow the disposal of industrial waste, municipal solid waste (MSW)
incinerator ash, and construction and demolition debris and the operation of a recycling and transfer
facility handling the previously mentioned wastes along with MSW; and
WHEREAS, on July 22 and August 26, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
held a public hearing to review the IUP application from SKB to expand their waste facility; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that the City Council
approve the IUP for SKB subject to the conditions in the Interim Use Permit Reissuance to SKB,
Inc. Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, the City, serving as the responsible governmental unit (RGU), conducted an
environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) and determined that no addition environmental review
is need for the expansion of the waste facility; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission's recommendation, the EAW, and the IUP for SKB.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the IUP and attachments, including the Development Commitment, for SKB to expand
their waste facility located at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard, Rosemount, Minnesota, subject to the
conditions in the Interim Use Permit Reissuance to SKB, Inc. Minnesota Industrial Containment
Facility (Exhibit A).
ADOPTED this 7` day of October, 2008 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
William H. Droste, Mayor
RESOLUTION 2008-
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2008
A RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED FOR AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AT THE SKB INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY.
WHEREAS, the preparation of the SKB Industrial Waste Facility Expansion EAW and comments
received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed
project has the potential for significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects
exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and /or permits to
reasonably mitigate these impacts; and
WHEREAS, the SKB Industrial Waste Facility Expansion is expected to comply with all the City of
Rosemount and review agency standards; and
WHEREAS, based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have
the potential for significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the
potential for significant environmental impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Rosemount has determined that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
ADOPTED this 7 day of October, 2008 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
William H. Droste, Mayor
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
INTERIM USE PERMIT AGREEMENT
REISSUANCE to SKB, INC.
MINNESOTA INDUSTRIAL CONTAINMENT FACILITY
THIS AGREEMENT, is made this day of 2008 by and between SKB
Environmental Inc. (hereinafter "SKB and the City of Rosemount, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (hereinafter the "City
1. Interim Use Permit. SKB assumed the obligations of an Interim Use Permit
(IUP) originally granted by the City on March 19, 1992 (Resolution 2000 -29) for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility
(MICF). The execution of this Agreement by the parties shall constitute approval and reissuance
of the IUP by the City subject to the provision of this Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the
reissued IUP, as amended. Compliance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Permit No.
SW -383, dated May 8, 2008 (MPCA Permit) as renewed and amended, and Dakota County Solid
Waste License associated with SW -383 (DC License) as renewed and amended, which are
incorporated herein by reference, and conformance with the application of SKB to the City as
amended by the plan for finished design approved by the MPCA and Dakota County, are
conditions of the IUP. This IUP is issued by the City in accordance with Ordinance B, City of
Rosemount Zoning Ordinance, adopted September 19,1996, as amended, including Section 11.3.
2. Term. The MICF Permit Renewal Application for Permit No. 383
Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility, Rosemount, Minnesota Volumes I, II, III, and IV,
dated April 2008, (the "MICF Permit Application and revised plan sheets dated September 24,
2008 in response to the Planning Commission review, details the revised design, construction,
operation, closure, corrective actions, and revisions thereto, and financial assurances for a five
cell non hazardous industrial waste containment and construction and demolition facility, with an
anticipated operating life of forty one (41) years. Construction, operation, and closure of the
individual cells will be phased throughout the operating life of the facility. Consistent with the
term of MPCA Permit and the provisions of Ordinance B, this IUP is valid for five years from
October 7, 2008, or until terminated or amended by the City. Prior to expiration of the IUP, or to
apply for an amended IUP, SKB shall request that the City review and reissue the IUP. To avoid
possible termination of the IUP at the time the IUP expires, an application for reissuance of the
permit must be submitted no later than 180 calendar days before the expiration date of the permit.
The reissuance of the IUP may, at the option of the City, be approved without modification to this
Agreement, or the City may require SKB to modify this Agreement.
3. MICF Description. MICF is located on property legally described on
attached Exhibit A. The 236 -acre site is located between TH55 and 140 Street East, lying
easterly of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad. The location of MICF is illustrated on
attached Exhibit B.
MICF consists of five (5) containment cells, each occupying a surface area and
waste volume capacity as follows:
(a) Cell 1 contains 5.1 acres and 338,442 cubic yards;
(b) Cell 2 contains 17.1 acres and 1,422,199 cubic yards;
(c) Cell 3 contains 39.3 acres and 7,245,253 cubic yards; and
(d) Cell 4 contains 12.3 acres and 2,648,950 cubic yards; and
(e) Cell 5 contains 41.2 acres and 8,790,300 cubic yards; and
(0 Cell 6 contains 36.0 acres and 6,428,959 cubic yards.
The anticipated operating life of MICF is forty one (41) years based on a total capacity of
26,874,103 cubic yards. The facility also consists of an office/laboratory building, a container
management building, rail and truck unloading facilities, leachate storage tanks and on -site
stormwater retention areas. The general site plan is illustrated on attached Exhibit C.
This Agreement allows for the construction and maintenance of all the roadways,
railways, buildings, leachate storage tanks, stormwater retention structures, sanitary sewer,
berming, landscaping, and other ancillary components of MICF. Such construction and
maintenance is subject to the provisions of this Agreement, compliance with City ordinances and
issuance of necessary permits. Subject to the provisions of Section 14, this Agreement also
allows for the construction, operation, closure and post closure care of cells 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
and all related earth work and excavation, subject to the provisions of this Agreement,
compliance with City ordinances and issuance of necessary permits.
4. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The City, as the
Responsible Unit of Government (RGU), conducted on EAW in accordance with State Rules for
the proposed landfill expansion to create Cell 6. On October 7, 2008, the City Council found that
the proposed expansion does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and
issued a negative declaration of need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
5. Design Plans and Specifications. SKB shall construct MICF in accordance
with plans, specifications and procedures approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA), Dakota County (DC) and the City. Landscaping shall be completed in accordance with
the plan for fmished design approved by the MPCA, DC and the City. Any exceptions to the
approved plans and specifications made during construction shall be listed in the Construction
Certification provided pursuant to Section 9. SKB shall not make any alteration or addition to
MICF that would materially alter the method or effect of disposal without first obtaining the
written approval of the City Administrator.
6. Tree Replacement. SKB has provided a landscape and tree replacement
plan that meets the Ordinance requirement of 769 replacement trees. The landscaping and tree
replacement plans are intended to serve as a guideline, not the exact location of all the
replacement trees. City staff will work with SKB to determine beneficial locations for the
replacement trees to be planted so long as the fmal replacement continues to meet ordinance
requirements. If significant modifications to the tree replacement plan are requested, fmal
approval by the City Council is required. SKB shall submit a financial security acceptable to the
City in the amount of $50,000 to guarantee that the trees will be planted and survive a one year
warranty period. The financial security will be released on a pro -rated basis as the trees are
installed.
7. Quality Assurance /Quality Control. SKB shall construct, operate, and
monitor MICF in accordance with the quality assurance /quality control plan(s) approved by
MPCA. Any modifications to the quality assurance /quality control plan(s) require the written
approval of the City Administrator.
8. Additional Construction Permits. SKB shall obtain all required
construction permits, such as grading, excavation, building, plumbing, heating, electrical, and
occupancy permits, in accordance with the adopted standards, procedures, and requirements of
the City. All construction permits for improvements identified in Section 3 and authorized by
Issuance of the IUP are administratively issued and administered.
9. Construction Inspection. SKB shall instruct its contractors and
subcontractors to contact the City at least two (2) working days in advance of routine inspections
(building, plumbing, electrical, etc.) required by the City. SKB shall contact the City at least ten
(10) working days in advance of the commencement of construction of liner installations, leachate
collection systems, and final cell cover. During hours of construction, SKB shall grant the City and
its agent, upon presentation of proper credentials, access to MICF for the purpose of inspections
and enforcement related to construction.
10. Sanitary Sewer Connection. MICF shall remain connected to the
Metropolitan Interceptor and the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant. SKB will be responsible
for all costs resulting from the sewer connection including, but not limited to, the City's
engineering, construction, permitting, easement, and legal costs.
11. Construction Certification. Within thirty (30) days of construction
completion, SKB shall submit to the City a copy of the construction certification as required by
MPCA.
12. Soil Protective Cover. The City acknowledges the ongoing nature of soil
cover placement and will not require notice for inspections. The City and its agents may make
random inspections throughout the life of MICF.
13. Operations and Maintenance. SKB shall operate and maintain MICF in
accordance with the "Operational Plans" (volume III, MICF Permit Application), MPCA Permit,
and DC License. No amendments may be made to the "Operational Plans" without the written
approval of the City Administrator.
14. Waste Acceptance. SKB shall accept reject, and manage wastes according
to the approved "Waste Acceptance Plan" (Volume II MICF Permit Application). SKB shall not
dispose of any wastes identified as unacceptable wastes in the "Waste Acceptance Plan", City
Zoning Ordinance, DC License or MPCA Permit. No amendments may be made to the "Waste
Acceptance Plan" without the written approval of the City Administrator.
A. Disposal of Ash/Conditions. Despite the provision of Section 12 above, SKB
may dispose of ash at MICF, but only pursuant to the following conditions:
1) SKB shall not use ash as cover over waste when fill heights exceed the height
of the perimeter berm at the MICF.
2) During transport of all ash to the MICF, trucks carrying ash must be covered
with tarpaulins adequate to limit dusting.
3) SKB shall take adequate steps to prevent dust migration from ash disposal at
the MICF. SKB may utilize, but is not limited to, one or more of the following
methods for dust control: a) conditioning the ash by addition of moisture; b)
handling ash when wind conditions are calm; c) immediately covering ash with
cover materials. All methods utilized must be in conformance with all other
provisions of the permit.
4) Ash disposal at MICF must not result in leachate discharges to the Rosemount
Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) that fail to comply with Industrial
Discharge Permit requirements of the MWCC.
5) SKB shall submit with its annual report a summary of the quantity (in tons and
cubic yards), type and source of ash deposited into MICF and shall provide an
evaluation of the effects of ash on the chemical composition of leachate
discharged from the MICF to the Rosemount WWTP.
6) Any ash disposal that requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) shall not be permitted
under this permit without first securing approval by the City Council following
completion of the environmental review process.
15. Recycling/ Transfer Facility. SKB shall operate and maintain the
Recycling/Transfer Facility in accordance with Section 10, Volume I, MICF Permit Application,
subject to the following conditions:
A. Any MSW brought to the recycling and transfer facility shall be stored indoors
during the entire time that it is on site.
B. A vermin control plan for the recycling and transfer facility
shall be prepared and approved by City staff that may
include the plan being prepared by a pest and vermin control
professional and periodic inspections of the facility by a pest
or vermin control professional.
C. The recycling and transfer facility shall be constructed of a minimum of 40%
masonry for each side of the facility.
16. Wetland Mitigation. Wetland mitigation shall comply with the conditions
and standards Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Wetland Conservation Act
Decision/Findings and Conclusions dated September 16, 2008.
17. Personnel Training. All SKB personnel involved in the operations and
maintenance of MICF shall be trained, qualified, and certified as identified in the "Operational
Plans
18. Incident Reporting. For any incident during operations at MICF resulting
in emergency shutdown, personal injury, release, explosion or fire, SKB shall notify the City's
Police Department by telephone within two (2) hours of the detection of the incident;
emergencies shall require immediate notification. SKB shall promptly furnish the City with
written reports of the incident, as specified in the plans.
19. General inspections, Records, Reporting, Enforcement. SKB shall, during
normal operating hours, grant the City and its agents, upon presentation of proper credentials,
access to MICF for the purpose of inspections and enforcement of this agreement. Except for
information deemed privileged in accordance with state law, SKB shall allow the City to inspect
written documentation pertaining to compliance by SKB with the terms of this IUP. Records
pertaining to compliance at MICF shall include but are not limited to, operating records as
described in the "Operational Plans the "Corrective Action Plan", and MPCA Permit;
inspection records; monitoring, investigation and modeling data; personnel training records,
reports and plans required by regulatory agencies; correspondence with regulatory agencies; and
records and correspondence regarding waste characterization, evaluation, management,
inspection and acceptance /rejection. All information obtained during the course of inspections
shall be used solely by the City or its agents for matters pertaining to this IUP.
SKB shall simultaneously submit to the City a copy of all reports required to be
submitted to the MPCA, Dakota County, OSHA and any other governmental regulatory
agencies, unless such submission is waived in writing by the City Administrator.
Copies of all inspection or incident reports received by SKB from the MPCA, Dakota
County, OSHA and any other governmental regulatory agencies shall be forwarded to the City
within five working days of receipt by SKB, unless forwarding of such reports is waived in
writing by the City Administrator.
20. Contingency Actions. SKB shall implement contingency and/or corrective
actions as specified in the permit application and MPCA Permit and DC License. SKB shall
furnish the City with a copy of the remedial measures report or remedial measures plan,
according to the timetable specified in MPCA Permit. No amendments may be made to the
Corrective Action Plan" or the Postclosure Contingency Action Plan" without the written
approval of the City Administrator.
21. Monitoring/Reporting. SKB shall monitor MICF in accordance with
MPCA Permit. Nothing shall be construed to prevent SKB from exceeding MPCA Permit
requirements.
22. Closure. SKB shall close MICF in accordance with the Requirements of
MPCA Permit. SKB shall notify the City at least ten (10) working days prior to the date closure
activities for each cell are scheduled to begin. SKB shall notify the City at least ninety (90) days
prior to the date final closure activities for MICF are scheduled to begin. Upon completion of
closure of a cell or MICF, SKB shall notify the City to provide the opportunity for a final
inspection. A copy of the closure certification and supporting documentation that is required by
MPCA Permit shall be submitted to the City upon submittal to the MPCA. No amendment may
be made to the "Closure Plan" (Volume I, MICF Permit Application), as amended by Exhibit E
of this Agreement, without the written approval of the City Administrator.
Closure under previously approved plans would have required expenditure of
approximately three to four million dollars (expressed in 2003 dollars). Because the closure
plans approved by this Agreement will be substantially less expensive and of less benefit to the
City, the Development Commitment is amended to provide for the payment to the City of an
additional payment of $25,000 per year for 10 years commencing on July 1, 2004, to be used by
the City for landscaping and natural resource projects.
23. Postclosure. SKB shall provide postclosure care of MICF in accordance
with the requirements of MPCA Permit. No amendments may be made to the Postclosure Plan"
(Volume I, MICF Permit Application) without the written approval of the City Administrator.
24. Financial Assurances. SKB shall comply with the financial assurance
requirements of the MPCA and DC. No reduction in the financial assurance requirements may be
made without the written approval of the City Administrator.
25. Development Commitment. The provisions of the Development
Commitment, approved by the City Council on October 7, 2008 are incorporated by reference as
conditions of the IUP and attached as Exhibit D. With respect to the disposal of ash as
authorized in Section 14. A. of this Agreement, SKB shall pay the sum of $3.25 per ton, based
upon a waste generator charge of $75.00 per ton for the City base service charge, as identified in
Section 10b of Exhibit D. The ash disposal charges set forth in this Section are subject to the
generator charge adjustments set forth in Section 10c of Exhibit D. In addition, with respect to
the disposal of construction and demolition waste, SKB shall pay the sum of .85 per cubic yard
of construction and demolition waste deposited in the Facility, as identified in Section 10b of
Exhibit D.
The provisions of this Section and Sections 9, 10, and 11 of Exhibit D shall
survive the termination of the Agreement and shall remain in effect for one year following closure
of the MICF.
Notwithstanding any provision of Section 2 of this Agreement, the City will not
require any amendment of the Development Commitment for 15 years from the date of this
Agreement.
26. Responsibility for Costs. SKB and the City agree to fund the out -of- pocket
expenses incurred by the City in the review and issuance of the reissued IUP, according to the
provisions of the Development Commitment. Costs incurred by the City for ongoing monitoring
of the operation of MICF and administration of the IUP shall be paid by the City.
Notwithstanding any provision of Section 2 of this Agreement, the City will not require any
amendment of the Development Commitment for 15 years from the date of this Agreement.
27. Hours of Operation and Traffic Control. MICF operations are restricted to
the hours of 6: 00 a. m. to 8: 00 p. m., Monday through Saturday. The hours of operation may be
amended by the City Council for reasonable cause. The City Council may impose traffic
circulation and routing requirements on the operation of MICF at any time it deems such
requirements necessary or convenient in the public interest. Such requirements, which may
include restricting trucks entering or leaving MICF to right -in and right -out turning movements
to and from CR 42 and TH 55, shall be given in writing and shall specify the days, times or
circumstances during which such requirements apply.
28. Indemnification. SKB shall defend, indemnify and save the City, its
officers, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, suits, demands, actions,
fines, damages and liabilities, and all costs and expenses related thereto (including, without
limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of or in any way related to MICF.
The provisions of the Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement and
shall remain in effect until final resolution of any and all of the various claims and actions made
as defined in this Section.
29. Other Laws and regulations. SKB agrees to comply with all other laws,
regulation, permits, or licenses that apply to MICF.
30. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid,
such fmding shall have no effect on the validity of the remainder of this Agreement.
31. Notice of Violation. Notice of violation of any provision of the IUP shall
be given to SKB by the City in writing. Such written notice shall specify the violation and
request that the violation be corrected. SKB shall have ten (10) days after receipt of notice to
correct the violation. Upon evidence that the health, safety, and welfare of the public is not in
jeopardy and upon evidence of diligent cooperation by SKB to correct the violation, the City
Administrator may agree in writing to extend the ten -day period.
32. Termination. This IUP shall terminate on the happening of any of the
following events, whichever first occurs:
(1) Five (5) years from the date of October 7, 2008;
(2) Upon change in the City's zoning regulation that renders the use
nonconforming;
(3) By the City Council (Council) for violation of any provisions of the IUP, in
accordance with the following procedures: Termination shall not occur earlier than
ten (10) working days from the time the written notice of termination is served on
SKB or, if a hearing is requested, until written notice of the Council action has
been served on SKB. Notice to SKB shall be served personally or by registered or
certified mail at the address designated in the IUP. Such written notice of
termination, the nature of the violation or violations constituting the basis for the
termination, the facts that support the conclusion that a violation or violations has
occurred and a statement that if SKB desires to appeal, it must within ten (10)
working days, exclusive of the day of service, file a request for a hearing. The
hearing request shall be in writing stating the grounds for appeal and be served
personally or by registered or certified mail on the City by midnight of the tenth
(10th) working day following service. Following receipt of a request for a hearing,
the City shall set a time and a place for the hearing.
HEARINGS:
A. If SKB properly requests a hearing on termination of the IUP, such hearing shall
be held before the Council, or a hearing examiner as provided below, and shall be
open to the public.
B. Unless an extension of time is requested by SKB in writing directed to the City
and is granted, the hearing will be held no later than forty -five (45) calendar days
after the date of service of request for a hearing, exclusive of the date of such service.
In any event, such hearing shall be held no later than sixty (60) calendar days after
the date of service of request for a hearing, exclusive of the date of such service.
C. The city shall mail notice of the hearing to SKB at least fifteen (15) working days
prior to the hearing. Such notice shall include a statement of time, place, and nature
of hearing.
D. Hearing Examiner. The Council may by resolution appoint an individual, to be
known as the hearing examiner, to conduct the hearing and to make findings of fact,
conclusions, and recommendations to the Council. The hearing examiner shall
submit the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations to the Council in
written report, and the Council may adopt, modify, or reject the report.
E. Conduct of the Hearing. SKB may be represented by counsel. The City, SKB,
and additional parties, as determined by the Council or hearing examiner, in that
order, shall present evidence. All testimony shall be sworn under oath. All parties
shall have full opportunity to respond to and present evidence, cross examine
witnesses, and present argument. The Council or hearing examiner may also examine
witnesses.
F. The City shall have the burden of proving its position by a preponderance of the
evidence, unless a different burden is provided by substantive law, and all findings
of fact, conclusions, and decisions by the Council shall be based on evidence
presented and matters officially noticed.
G. All evidence that possesses probative value, including hearsay, may be admitted
if it is the type people are accustomed to rely on in the conduct of their serious
affairs. Evidence that is incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious
may be excluded. The hearing shall be confined to matters raised in the City's
written notice of termination or in SKB's written request for a hearing.
H. At the request of the City, SKB, or the hearing examiner, a pre hearing
conference shall be conducted by the hearing examiner, if the Council has chosen to
use one, or by a designated representative of the Council. The pre hearing
conference shall be held no later than five (5) working days before the hearing. The
purpose of the pre hearing conference is to:
(1) Clarify the issues to be determined at the hearing.
(2) Provide an opportunity for discovery of all relevant documentary,
photographic, or other demonstrative evidence in the possession of each
party. The hearing examiner or City's representative may require each party
to supply a reasonable number of copies of relevant evidence capable of
reproduction.
(3) Provide an opportunity for discovery of the full name and address of all
witnesses who will be called at the hearing and a brief description of the facts
and opinions to which each is expected to testify. If the names and addresses
are not known, the party shall describe them thoroughly by job duties and
involvement with the facts at issue.
I. If a pre hearing conference is held, evidence not divulged as provided above may
be excluded at the hearing.
J. If SKB fails to appear at the hearing, it shall forfeit any right to a hearing before
the Council or hearing examiner.
33. Amendments. Any changes in the provisions of this Agreement requested
by SKB require the express written consent of the City. The City may at its option impose
addition requirements for the IUP when changes or amendments in waste management rules,
laws, or technology are in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare, or if there are
changes in the MPCA Permit or DC License. The procedure to amend the IUP shall be the same
as the procedure required to issue the IUP.
34. Enforcement. SKB shall reimburse the City for its reasonable costs
(including without limitation engineering and legal fees) incurred in the enforcement of the IUP,
that results in a City Council decision to terminate the IUP. Payment of these costs will be in
addition to the City Service Charge, provided for in the Development Commitment.
35. Interpretation. In any challenge of the provisions of this Agreement, the
interpretation of the provisions shall be liberally construed to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare.
36. Assignment. The IUP is not assignable or transferable without the express
written consent of the City. In the event an assignment of the IUP is proposed, the City may at its
option impose additional requirements to this Agreement or may require a new agreement.
37. Notice. Notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be personally
delivered or sent by certified mail to City of Rosemount, 2875 145th St. W., Rosemount,
Minnesota 55068 -0510 and to SKB, Inc., 13425 Courthouse Boulevard, Rosemount, Minnesota
55068. All notices shall be effective upon receipt.
38. Recording. This Agreement shall run with the subject land and may be
recorded in the Dakota County Recorder's Office.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
ss.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
By:
Its:
And by:
Its:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2008, by and the and
respectively, of SKB Environmental, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on
behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
By:
Its: Mayor
And by:
Its: Clerk
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2008, by William Droste and Amy Domeier, the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of
Rosemount, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
AND
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., a corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "SKB makes the following amended and restated
representations and commitments to the CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, a Minnesota municipal
corporation located in Dakota County, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "City as of the
date of execution hereof by both parties.
WITNESSETH:
1. Project Facility. SKB proposes to locate in the City a non hazardous industrial
waste containment facility (the "Facility" or the "Project as generally described in both the
Environmental Assessment Report dated November 28, 1988, prepared by Environmental
Engineering and Management, Ltd., a copy of which Environmental Assessment Report (herein
referred to "EAR has been provided to the City as well as the Preliminary Permit Application
dated April, 1989 which was also prepared by Environmental Engineering and Management,
Ltd. The Facility will be located on approximately 240 acres of land (the "Property as is more
specifically described on the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference. The
proposed Facility is a "state of the art" project and will allow containing of non hazardous waste
in a manner vastly superior to the way these wastes are presently being disposed of in Dakota
County.
2. Approvals. It is understood that various governmental approvals are required
for the Project including approvals at the federal, state, and regional as well as local level.
3. Economic Benefits. The Facility, in addition to providing a "state of the art"
facility for the handling of non hazardous industrial waste, will also provide economic incentives
from SKB as delineated in this Commitment to the City as required in conjunction with permits
and approvals required under the City Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, SKB hereby represents and commits to the City as follows:
4. City Approval. The commitments herein contained are subject to SKB obtaining
all governmental approvals required for the Project, including but not limited to all permits,
authorizations and approvals from the City required to allow construction, operation and
maintenance of the Facility. The commitments are further conditioned upon the issuance,
existence and continuance of all permits, approvals and authorizations required to allow
construction, operation and maintenance of said Facility.
1
5. SKB to Proceed. SKB agrees to construct, operate and maintain the Facility on
all or a portion of the Property, as outlined in the EAR, subject to obtaining all necessary
approvals and subject to such modification, if any, as may be required, and agreed to by SKB
resulting from reasonable mandates from other approving authorities.
6. Tax Increment Financing. SKB understands the capabilities of the City or its
Port Authority to establish and operate TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS in their program to
expand industrial and commercial development in the City. In an effort to assist in this effort
SKB will not object to the City or its Port Authority in establishment of such a district to include
the Property.
7. Park Dedication Fees. SKB recognized the City of Rosemount's Park and
Recreation development program and the methods the City uses to fund this program by
collection of "Park Dedication Fees SKB also recognized the equivalent payment which
would be required to be paid if their Project would be required to go through a platting process.
Because the City could require this platting and a specific park dedication fee would be required,
although the City is not requiring that the Property be platted, SKB voluntarily made a non-
refundable payment of $85,000 in lieu of the park dedication fee. This was the amount of ten
(10) acres equivalent dedication or ten (10) times the current per acre value for this purpose.
(1989 value of $8,500 per acre $85,000). The payment was made in five (5) equal annual
installments of $17,000 each. The first installment was due on the date the City issues a permit
for the Project and subsequent installments were due annually thereafter on the same day each
year for the next four (4) years. If SKB had decided to pay the fee in installments, it agreed to
furnish the City an irrevocable letter of credit to guarantee payment of the unpaid portion of the
fee. The bank issuing the letter of credit and the form of the letter of credit was approved by
the City. The City acknowledges that this condition has been met.
8. Option to Purchase. At such time as the storage cells are completed and closed,
and the Facility will no longer be accepting waste, the City will have an option for a period of 12
months immediately subsequent to closing of the last cell, to purchase that portion of the
Property not required for closure and maintenance of the Facility. Said option right will
terminate, if not exercised prior thereto, 12 months after closure of the last cell. The purchase
price will be an amount equal to 85 percent of the value of the Property being purchased, as said
value is determined by appraisal. SKB shall select one appraiser familiar with real estate values in
Dakota County and the City shall select one appraiser familiar with the real estate values in
Dakota County. The two appraisers shall select a third appraiser and the three appraisers shall
proceed to determine the fair market value of the Property. If the two appraisers selected by the
City and SKB are unable to agree to the third appraiser, they shall apply to the Chief Judge of
the District Court in Dakota County, Minnesota and the Chief Judge shall select the third
appraiser. Any valuation agreed upon by a majority of the appraisers shall be accepted as final
by both SKB and the City. Payment shall be in cash, at closing, unless otherwise agreed by the
parties with the Property being sold in an "as is" condition, free of all encumbrances and with
real estate taxes due in the year of closing pro -rated to date of closing. SKB shall provide to the
City an Abstract of Title or Registered Property Certificate, evidencing marketable title, or title
insurance from a title insurance company acceptable to the City. SKB shall have the right to
determine which acreage is not required for closure and maintenance and is therefore subject to
the terns of this option, which determination shall be made at the time of closure of the last cell.
Upon closure of the last cell, SKB shall notify the City in writing of this event, receipt of which
2
notice shall commence the 12 month option period. Notice of exercise of the option, during the
option term shall be in writing delivered to SKB. Closing shall be within 90 days of notice of
exercise of the option. The City may, during the term of the option, exercise same and purchase
the Property, but shall not be under any obligation to do so. If requested by the City, SKB will
execute and deliver to the City a real estate option in standard recordable form, setting forth the
terms of this option.
9. City Service Charge.
a. Basis for Charge. SKB recognizes certain aspects of the prior- approval
review, placement and operation of a Facility of the nature proposed in a residential /rural type
city has required and will further require the City to expend funds for the pre approval review
and the ongoing monitoring of the operation of the Facility, the administration of the permit for
the Facility and interaction with SKB and state, county and federal agencies. The City may incur
other costs associated with the Facility and its impact on the City.
b. Base Service Charge. To offset those costs, SKB will, for each ton of
waste deposited into the Facility, pay the City a City Service Charge. The City Service Charge
that shall initially be imposed, commencing with the first day the Facility accepts waste, shall be
computed at the rate of $2.75 per ton for all industrial waste except municipal solid waste
(MSW) incinerator ash and $3.25 per ton for MSW incinerator ash, for each ton accepted and
disposed of in the Facility. Tonnage computation for the City Service Charge shall be the same
as for the Waste Generation Charge. This City Service Charge shall be subject to adjustment,
from time to time, and offset, as hereinafter provided. In addition, SKB will pay a City Service
Charge of $.85 per cubic yard of construction and demolition waste deposited in the Facility.
The $.85 City Service Charge shall be paid monthly on an estimated in place volume, and
verified and adjusted based upon a certified annual survey (the certified survey is a component
of the annual report required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). Payments shall be
made monthly to the City at 2875 145``' Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, or such
other location designated in writing by the City. Payment for each month shall be due by the
15` day of the following month.
c. Generator Charge Adjustment. At the present time, it is anticipated that
the initial per ton fee charged by SKB to waste generators "Waste Generator Charge will be
$75.00 per ton, and the City Service Charge payable to the City, is predicated on that anticipated
Waste Generator Charge. If the Waste Generator Charge is increased or decreased by SKB
(other than as a result of an increase in amounts due governmental entities after the Facility
commences operation, such as special taxes, permit fees, etc., which governmentally required
increases shall not impact the per ton charge due the City pursuant to this paragraph) then the
City Service Charge shall be adjusted prorate. Accordingly and by way of example, if there is a
ten (10) percent increase in the Waste Generator Charge (other than governmentally mandated)
then the City Service Charge shall likewise be increased by ten (10) percent. Adjustment based
on this subparagraph (c) shall be applied to the previously existing City Service Charge, before
the following adjustments or offsets.
d. Adjustment for Future Required, Legislatively Imposed. or Negotiated
Payments. If there are future required, negotiated or legislatively mandated payments due to the
City by SKB (other than as provided herein) the intent of which is to respond to impacts
3
resulting from the Facility, such payments shall be an offset against and a reduction of the
amounts due the City pursuant to this paragraph. Accordingly and by way of example if the
Minnesota Legislature or other governmental entity with authority to do so mandates that SKB
shall pay the City a tax, or other imposition, the amount of said tax or imposition shall reduce
the City Service Charge, dollar for dollar, due pursuant to this paragraph.
e. Consultant Offset. To assist the City in evaluating the Application of
SKB for necessary rezoning and permit issuance, the City has, and will hereafter retain outside
consultants (e.g. legal, environmental, etc.) to assist it. SKB has agreed to reimburse the City for
these outside consultant expenses, pursuant to a letter agreement dated in August 1989.
Pursuant to said letter agreement, SKB has deposited funds with the City and may hereafter
deposit additional funds with the City, to reimburse the City for outside consultant expenses. At
the time of City issuance of the last permit required by SKB to construct the Facility, the amount
of the outside consultant expense incurred by the City will be determined and will be paid by
SKB to the City unless these funds advanced by SKB to the City exceed said amount, in which
case said excess shall be returned to SKB. The total amount expended or incurred by the City
up to the time of issuance of the last permit (the "Consultant Offset" amount) will be an offset
against the City Service Charge due the City by SKB pursuant to the preceding provisions of this
paragraph. Said Consultant Offset amount will reduce the per ton City Service Charge at the
rate of 25 cents per ton, until the total Consultant Offset amount has been eliminated.
Accordingly and by way of example if the total consultant charge amount is $50,000, the amount
due by SKB to the City for the first 200,000 tons deposited in the Facility, determined in
accordance with the foregoing subparagraphs, shall be reduced by 25 cents per ton.
f. The City agrees that the funds provided pursuant to this paragraph will
not be used in any manner directly competitive to the business operations of SKB at the Facility.
Nothing in this provision shall be construed to limit the City of Rosemount's participation in
recycling efforts.
g. SKB will pay to the City the amount of $25,000 per year for 10 years
cornrnencing on July 1, 2004, to be used by the City for landscaping and natural resource
projects.
10. City of Rosemount SKB Environmental Trust Fund.
a. Establishment. SKB in conjunction with the City will establish a Trust
Fund which shall be known as the "City of Rosemount SKB Environmental Trust Fund
The Trust Fund will be administered by a board of trustees made up of five (5) persons, three
(3) of whom will be designated by the City and two (2) by SKB. SKB will make a payment of
$4.00 per ton (subject to adjustment as hereinafter provided) for each ton of waste accepted and
disposed of in the Facility during the years that the Facility is accepting waste to the Trust Fund
and to the City as hereinafter provided (the "Trust /City Payment Tonnage computation for
the Trust /City Payment shall be the same as for the Waste Generator Charge. Payments to the
Trust and the City shall be made monthly at such place designated in writing by City and the
Trustees. Payments for each month shall be due by the 15t day of the following month.
4
b. Use. The principal and income of the Trust may only be used at the
determination of the trustees as set out in the Trust agreement. Detailed activity of the Trust
Fund shall be set forth on the Trust document, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B
and incorporated herein by reference. Payments made to the City may be used for any lawful
public purpose.
c. Adjustment Based on Waste Generator Charge. At the present time, it is
anticipated that the initial per ton fee charged to waste generators "Waste Generator Charge
will be $75.00 per ton, and the Trust /City Payment payable to the Trust and the City, is
predicated on that anticipated Waste Generator Charge. If the Waste Generator Charge is
increased or decreased by SKB (other than a result of an increase in amounts due governmental
entities after the Facility commences operation, such as permit fees, etc., which governmentally
required increases shall not impact the per ton charge due the City pursuant to this paragraph)
then the Trust /City Payment shall be adjusted pro -rata. Accordingly, and by way of example, if
there is a ten (10) percent increase in the Waste Generator Charge (other than governmentally
mandated) then the Trust /City Payment shall likewise be increased by ten (10) percent.
Adjustment based on this subparagraph (c) shall be applied to the previously existing Trust /City
Payment, before the following adjustments or offsets.
d. The City agrees that the funds provided pursuant to this paragraph will
not be used in any manner directly competitive to the business operations of SKB at the Facility.
Nothing in this provision shall be construed to limit the City of Rosemount's participation in
recycling efforts.
e. Prior to January 1, 2009, the Trust /City Payment shall be paid to the
Trust. On and after January 1, 2009, 50% of the Trust /City Payment shall be paid to the City
and 50% of the Trust /City Payment shall be paid to the Trust until payments to the Trust are
terminated as follows: Commencing on the first January first occurring after the value of the
Trust assets equals or exceeds One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) and
thereafter, payments of the Trust /City Payment to the Trust shall cease and 100% of the
Trust /City Payment shall be paid to the City. Payments made under this Section 10 to the Trust
fund before that date will be used by the trustees in accordance with the Trust Agreement.
f. After December 31, 2011, representatives of the City and SKB will meet
to consider whether the allocation of the Trust /City Payment continues to best meet the needs
of the community; however, the payment of the Trust /City Payments will not be changed
without the mutual consent of the City and SKB.
11. Miscellaneous.
a. The City will be given access to operating records of SKB for the
purpose of verifying the accuracy of the amounts reported to have been accepted at the Facility.
b. SKB agrees that any permit issued by the City for the Project may
incorporate the provisions of this Commitment.
5
c. SKB agrees not to sell, assign, or transfer its interest in the Facility or
Property without the prior consent of the City. It is further understood that the City may not
assign rights or obligations of the City hereunder without prior written consent of SKB.
d. SKB will continue to honor the commitment made in this Development
Commitment as long as the Project continues to operate in the City of Rosemount.
12. Summary. SKB feels it is in the best interest of the City as well as the region and
the state that a Facility be constructed consistent with "state of the art" technical knowledge to
accommodate non hazardous industrial waste. The proposed Facility is a "state of the art"
project and will allow containment of said non hazardous waste in a manner vastly superior to
the manner in which said wastes are presently being disposed of in Dakota County. Portions of
the Property have been designated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as "intrinsically
suitable" for such a Facility. Thus, SKB agrees to use their best efforts to accomplish all
necessary steps to allow the construction and operation of the Facility for the good of all
persons concerned.
This Development Commitment is executed by SKB Environmental, Inc. this
day of 2008.
Accepted and agreed to this
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
By
Its
Subject to the above provisions, the City will cooperate with SKB in the permit
application process and provide reasonable assistance to SKB in seeking all necessary approvals.
day of 2008.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
By
Its
And By
Its
6
And
And
And
EXHIBIT A
Description of Property
That part of the E1/2 of the SE1 /4 of Section 19, the NW of the SW 1 /4 and the SW 1 /4 of the
NW 1/4 of Section 20, all in Township 115 North, Range 18 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian,
Dakota County, Minnesota, bounded and described as follows: Commencing at the West
Quarter section line thereof, a distance of 347.4 feet to a post, the East and West Quarter
Section line thereof, a distance of 347.4 feet to a post, said post being the point of beginning of
the parcel of land herein described; thence deflecting 135 degrees 41 minutes to the right running
Southwesterly along a straight line parallel with and distant 170 feet Southeasterly, measured at
right angles, from the center line of the tangent portion of the Chicago and North Western
Transportation Company (formerly the Chicago Great Western Railway Company) belt line track
to the West line of said East Half of the SE 1/4 of Section 19; thence Northerly along said West
line of the East Half of the SE 1/4 of Section 19 to the center line of said belt line track; then
Northeasterly along said belt line track center line to a point in the Southwesterly right -of -way
line of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 55; thence Southeasterly along said right -of -way line to an
iron monument, said monument being 170 feet Southeasterly, measured at right angles, from the
center line of said belt line track; thence Southwesterly parallel with said belt line track center line
a distance of 1009.2 feet to the point of beginning.
That part of the E1/2 of the SE1 /4 of Section 19, Township 115 North, Range 18 West of the
fifth Principal Meridian, which lines southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing
at the West Quarter corner of said Section 20, Township and Range aforesaid; thence easterly
along the east and west quarter section line thereof a distance of 347.4 feet to a post, which post
is the point of beginning; thence deflecting 135 degrees 41 minutes to the right running
southwesterly on a straight line parallel to and 170 feet distance from, measured at right angles,
the center line of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company (formerly Chicago Great
Western Railway Company) belt line track, to the west line of the SE1 /4 of the SE1 /4 of said
Section 19 and there terminating. Subject to existing public roads and all easements of record.
Beginning at the SE corner of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 20, Township 115, Range 18
west of the Fifth Principal Meridian; thence west along the south line of said quarter section to a
point which is 347.4 feet east of the southwest corner of said SW1 /4 of the NW1 /4 of Section
20; thence northeasterly in a straight line to a point on the southerly line of State Trunk Highway
No. 55, which point is 203.25 feet southeasterly of a point where the center line of the United
States Government Road intersects the southerly line of Highway 55; thence southeasterly along
the southerly line of said State Highway No. 55, to the east line of said SW1 /4 of the NW1 /4 of
said Section 20; thence south along the said east line to the place of beginning, all according to
the Government Survey thereof. Subject to existing public roads and all easements of record.
1
All that part of the NW1 /4 of the SE1 /4 of Section 20, Township 115 North, Range 18 West,
described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North and South Quarter section line of said
Section 20, 330 feet South of the intersection of said Quarter line with the Southerly right -of -way
line of S.A.R. No. 55, thence North along said Quarter line to the center of said highway, thence
Southeasterly along said centerline 660 feet, thence South and parallel with said Quarter line to a
point 330 feet South of the Southerly right -of -way line of said highway, thence Northeasterly
652.81 feet to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof.
And
All of the SE1 /4 of the NW1 /4 and the E1/2 of the SW1 /4 lying Southerly of S.T.H. No. 55,
Section 20, Township 115, Range 18. Also that part of the E1/2 of the NW1 /4 of Section 29,
Township 115 North, Range 18 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian which lies northerly of
County Road 38. Subject all easements of record.
And
That part of the SE1 /4 of the NW1 /4 of Section 20, Township 115 North, Range 18 West,
Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the
west line of said SE1 /4 of the N \X1/4 with the southerly right of way line of the St. Paul
Southern Electric Railway as it was located on January 1, 1931; thence run south along said west
line of 293.13 feet; thence run easterly at an angle of 76 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds to said
west line (measured from north to east) for 305 feet to an intersection with the southerly line of
said railway; thence run westerly along the southerly line of said railway for 372 feet to the point
of beginning; which lies southerly of a line run parallel with and distant 50 feet southwesterly of
Line 1 described below:
Beginning at a point on the west line of said Section 30, distant 1117 feet south of the northwest
corner thereof; thence run southeasterly at an angle of 53 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds from
said west section line (measured from south to east) for 3000 feet and there terminating;
containing 0.65 acre, more or less.
And
The W1/2 of the SW1 /4 of Section 20, Township 115, Range 18, according to the Government
Survey thereof, excepting therefrom the part lying northwesterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the west quarter corner of said Section 20; thence easterly along the east and
west quarter section line thereof, 347.4 feet to a post, which post in the point of beginning;
thence deflecting 135 degrees 41 minutes to the right running southwesterly on a straight line,
parallel to and 170 feet distant from, measured at right angles, the centerline of the tangent
portion of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company (formerly Chicago Great Western
Railway Company) belt line track, to the west line of said Section 20 and there terminating.
2
EXHIBIT B
City of Rosemount SKB Environmental Trust Fund
3
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT SKB ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST FUND
This Restated Trust Agreement made this day of 20
by and between SKB ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "Donor and
collectively referred to as "Trustees
(a)
recreation;
(hereinafter
1. Purpose of Trust. This trust is created and shall be operated exclusively for the
benefit of the citizens of Rosemount and the City of Rosemount, including, but not limited to,
the following purposes:
To provide for the construction and maintenance of facilities for public
(b) To further community, industrial, governmental and physical planning
for the City of Rosemount and all other lawful public purposes of the City;
(c) To improve living and working conditions within the City of Rosemount
for the general welfare of the citizens of Rosemount;
(d) To further public educational opportunities, whether by establishing
programs or facilities devoted to educational purposes, or the furnishing of educational
scholarships; and
(e) To provide for the charitable needs of the citizens of Rosemount and the
City of Rosemount, within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, and amendments supplementary thereto.
This trust is formed for and shall be operated exclusively for such purposes and in such a
manner as shall make this trust tax exempt and the donations to it deductible from taxable
income to the extent allowed by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and such
other applicable legislation and regulations as they now exist or as they may be amended. No
part of the trust fund shall insure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, and no
part of the activities of this trust shall consist of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise
attempting, to influence legislation, or of participating in, or intervening in (including the
publication or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for
public office. Notwithstanding any other provisions, this trust shall not conduct or carry on any
activities not permitted to be conducted or carried on by any organization which is tax exempt
or by an organization to which donations are deductible from taxable income to the extent
allowed by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and other applicable legislation and
regulations as they now exist or may hereafter be amended.
2. Name of Trust. The name of this trust shall be the City of Rosemount SKB
Environmental Trust Fund, and so far as practicable, the Trustees shall conduct the activities of
the trust in that name.
1
3. Trust Fund. The Trustees shall accept only donations made in cash from the
Donor pursuant to the terms and provisions of that certain Interim Use Permit dated November
10, 1992 (originally issued by the City of Rosemount to USPCI, Inc.), as amended from time to
time. All donations so received, together with the income derived therefrom, herein referred to
as the trust fund, shall be held, managed, administered and paid out by the Trustees pursuant to
the terms of this Trust Agreement.
4. Use of the Trust. The Trustees shall apply the trust fund, at such times, in such
manner, and in such amounts as they may determine, to the uses and purposes set forth in
paragraph 1, or they may make contributions to the City of Rosemount or to other charitable
organizations to be used within the City of Rosemount, for the uses and purposes set forth in
paragraph 1. For this purpose, the term "charitable organizations" shall mean a corporation,
trust or community chest, fund or foundation, created or organized in the United States or
under the law of the United States or any state, organized and operated exclusively for charitable
and educational purposes, no part of the net earnings of which insures to the benefit of any
private shareholder or individual, and no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on
propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, and which does not participate in,
or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on
behalf of any candidate for public office. Subject to the foregoing ]imitations:
(a) During calendar year 2009, the Trustees shall distribute trust funds in an
amount equal to fifty percent (50 of the donations received from the Donor during
2008 to the City of Rosemount to be used by the City of Rosemount for any lawful
public purpose, which trust funds shall be distributed no later than January 31, 2009.
Total contributions from the Trust during 2009 shall not exceed One Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($100,000), excluding the amount distributed to the City;
(b) During calendar year 2010, total contributions from the Trust shall not
exceed Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000). Any part of such contributions may be, but
is not required to be, made to the City;
(c) Trustees will endeavor to so manage the Trust assets as to maintain a
Trust value, in interest bearing investments and income, of at least One Million Five
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) as of December 31, 2010, and at all times
thereafter. Each year, commencing on December 31, 2010, the Trustees will determine
the value of the Trust assets as of December 31" of that year.
(d) Contributions for each calendar year commencing in 2011 and thereafter
shall be made as follows:
(i) If the value of the Trust assets at any time is equal to or less than
One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000), no distributions will
be made until the value increases to such amount.
(ii) If the value of the Trust assets exceed One Million Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000), the Trustees shall make distributions as follows:
2
Up to Sixty -Two Thousand Dollars ($62,000) may be
distributed during the calendar year in accordance with this
instrument to parties or entities other than the City.
Any distribution in excess of Sixty -Two Thousand Dollars
($62,000) in any calendar year shall be made to the City.
An amount equal to any excess of the fund value over One
Million Five Hundred Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars
($1,525,000) on any December 31' shall be paid to the City by
the following January 31
In no event shall the Trustees be required after January 31, 2009, to distribute sums that will
reduce the value of the Trust assets to an amount less than One Million Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000). Any other provisions of this Trust Agreement notwithstanding,
the Trustees shall distribute the trust income for each taxable year at such time and in such
manner as not to become subject to the tax on undistributed income imposed by Section 4942
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or corresponding provisions of any subsequent federal
tax laws.
5. Action of Trustees. The Trustees shall meet at least three (3) times during each calendar
year at such times and places as they may from time to time designate. Thirty (30) days written
notice of all meetings of the Trustees shall be given to each Trustee, except where the meeting is
an adjourned meeting and the date, time and place of the meeting are decided at the time of
adjournment. Written notice shall contain the time and place of the meeting and shall be signed
by at least two (2) trustees. Three (3) Trustees must be present at a duly noticed meeting to
constitute a quorum for the transaction of trust business. All actions of the Trustees shall be
taken by resolution at a duly noticed meeting or by a written record without a meeting with the
unanimous consent of all Trustees. The Trustees shall appoint from among themselves a
secretary, who shall keep a record of all actions of the Trustees. All actions of the Trustees,
including, but not limited to distribution of income, shall require the affirmative vote of a
majority of the Trustees then in office.
Any instrument required to be executed by this trust shall be valid if executed in the name of this
trust by three (3) of the Trustees. A copy of any resolution or action taken by the Trustees,
certified by any three (3) of the Trustees, may be relied upon by any person dealing with this
trust. No person shall be required to see to the application of any money, securities or other
property paid or delivered to the Trustees, or to inquire into any action, decision or authority of
the Trustees.
6. Trustees' Powers. In the administration of this trust and of the trust fund, the
Trustees shall have all powers and authority necessary or available to carry out the purposes of
this trust and, without limited the generality of the foregoing, shall have the following powers
and authority, all subject, however, to the condition that no power or authority shall be exercised
by the Trustees in any manner or for any purpose which may not be exercised by an
organization which is tax exempt or by an organization to which donations are deductible from
3
taxable income to the extent allowed by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and other
applicable legislation and regulations as they now exist or may hereafter be amended:
(a) To receive the income, profits, rents and proceeds of the trust fund;
(b) To purchase, subscribe for, retain, invest and reinvest in securities or
other property wherever situated, and whether or not productive or of a wasting nature,
and without any requirement for diversification as to kind or amount. The words
"securities or other property" as used in this agreement shall be deemed to include real
or personal property, corporate shares, common or preferred, or any other interest in
any corporation, association, investment trust or investment company, bonds, notes,
debentures or other evidences of indebtedness or ownership, secured or unsecured, even
though the same may not be legal investments for a trustee under the applicable laws;
but securities and other property shall not be deemed to include shares or indebtedness
of the Donor unless the same is donated to this trust;
(c) To sell for cash or on credit, convert, redeem, exchange for other
securities or other property, or otherwise dispose of any securities or other property at
any time held by them;
(d) To alter, repair, improve, erect buildings upon, demolish, manage,
partition, mortgage, lease, exchange, grant options to lease or to buy, and sell or dispose
of at public or private sale, and upon such conditions and such terms as to cash and
credit as they may deem advisable, real property;
(e) To pay all administration expenses of this trust and any taxes imposed
upon it, and to settle, compromise or submit to arbitration, any claims, mortgages, debts
or damages, due or owing to or from this trust, to commence or defend suits or legal
proceedings, and to represent this trust in all suits or legal proceedings;
(f) To exercise any conversion privilege or subscription right available in
connection with any securities or other property; to consent to the reorganization,
consolidation, merger or readjustment of the finances of any corporation, company or
association or to the sale, mortgage, pledge or lease of the property of any corporation,
company or association any of the securities of which may at any time be held by them
and to do any act, including the exercise of options, the making of agreements or
subscriptions, and the payment of expenses, assessments or subscriptions which may be
deemed necessary or advisable, and to hold and retain any securities or other property
which they may so acquire;
(g) To vote personally, or by general or limited proxy, any shares of stock,
and similarly to exercise personally, or by general or by limited power of attorney, any
right appurtenant to any securities or other property;
(h) To borrow money in such amounts and upon such terms and conditions
as shall be deemed advisable or proper to carry out the purpose of this trust and to
pledge any securities or other property for the repayment of any such loan;
4
To hold part or all of the trust fund uninvested;
To employ suitable accountants, agents, counsel and custodians and to
pay their reasonable expenses and compensation;
(k) To register any securities held by them in their own name, or, to the
extent permitted by law, in the name of a nominee with or without the addition of words
indicating that such securities are held in a fiduciary capacity and to hold any securities
unregistered or in bearer form;
(1) To make, execute and deliver all instruments necessary or proper for the
accomplishment of the purpose of this trust or of any of the foregoing powers, including
deeds, bills of sale, transfers, leases, mortgages, security agreements, assignments,
conveyances, contracts, purchase agreements, waivers, releases and settlements;
(in) To exercise any and all powers granted to Trustees under Minnesota
Statutes 501B.81, as it exists at the date of execution of this Restated Trust Agreement;
and
(n) Any other provisions of this agreement notwithstanding, the Trustees
shall not engage in any act of self dealing as defined in Section 4941(d) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, or corresponding provisions of any subsequent federal tax laws;
nor retain any excess business holdings as defined in Section 4943(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, or corresponding provisions of any subsequent federal tax laws;
nor make any investments in such manner as to incur tax liability under Section 4944 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or corresponding provisions of any subsequent
federal tax laws; nor make any taxable expenditures as defined in Section 4945(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or corresponding provisions of any subsequent federal
tax laws.
7. Trustees Designation and Succession. The trust shall be managed and
administered by five (5) Trustees. Class I Trustees shall be nominated and appointed by the
Mayor of the City of Rosemount, with the approval of the City Council of Rosemount at the
first City Council meeting in January of each year. Class I Trustees shall consist of three (3)
Trustees who are residents of the City of Rosemount, selected for their knowledge of the needs
of the Citizens of Rosemount and the City of Rosemount. No more than one Class I Trustee
may be either a member of the Rosemount City Council or an employee of the City of
Rosemount. Class I Trustees shall serve three (3) year terms and may not serve for more than
two (2) consecutive three (3) year terms. Upon the initial appointment and designation of Class
I Trustees, the Mayor shall designate and stagger the terms of the initial Trustees such that in
January of each year a Trustee must be designated and appointed by the Mayor of the City of
Rosemount, with the approval of the City Council of Rosemount. Class II Trustees, consisting
of two (2) Trustees, shall be designated and appointed by the Donor. Class II Trustees shall
serve at the pleasure of the Donor.
Any Trustee may resign his office at any time without leave of Court by written notice to
all Trustees then in office. The resignation shall be effective as of the time set forth in said
notice of resignation. Vacancies existing in the office of Class I Trustees, for whatever cause,
5
shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor of the City of Rosemount, subject to approval by
the City Council of Rosemount. Vacancies existing in the office of Class II Trustees, for
whatever cause, shall be filled by the Donor. The Trustees may act notwithstanding the
existence of any vacancies so long as there shall continue to be at least three (3) Trustees in
office.
The appointment of Trustees and successor Trustees shall be made by an instrument in
writing. In the case of Class I Trustees, the writing shall contain a certified copy of the
resolution of the City Council of Rosemount appointing the Trustee or successor Trustee. In
the case of Class II Trustees, the writing shall be signed by an executive officer of the Donor
and appoint the Trustee or successor Trustee. Trustees shall assume office immediately upon
their appointment, unless the notice of appointment provides otherwise. Every successor
Trustee shall have the same powers and duties as those conferred upon the Trustees named in
this Trust Agreement.
8. Bond and Compensation. No Trustee shall be required to furnish any bond or
surety. Each Trustee shall serve without compensation for services, but all expenses of this trust
or of any Trustee shall be paid by the Trustees from the trust fund.
9. Accounting by Trustees. The Trustees shall render accounts of their transactions
to the Donor and the City of Rosemount at least annually, and the Donor and the City of
Rosemount shall approve such accounts by an instrument in writing delivered to the Trustees.
In the absence of the filing in writing with the Trustees by the Donor or the City of Rosemount
of exceptions or objections to any such account within sixty (60) days, the Donor and the City
of Rosemount shall be deemed to have approved such account; and in such case or upon the
written approval of the Donor and the City of Rosemount of any such account, the Trustees
shall be released with respect to all matters and things set forth in such account as though such
account had been settled by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. In the event either
the Donor or the City of Rosemount do not approve such account, both the Donor and the City
of Rosemount shall have such rights as are granted by law to the beneficiaries and Trustees of
the trust to require an accounting. No persons other than the Donor and the City of
Rosemount may require an accounting or bring any action against the Trustees with respect to
this trust. The Trustees may at any time initiate legal action or proceedings for the settlement of
their accounts and, except as otherwise required by law, the only necessary parties defendant to
such action or proceeding shall be the Donor and the City of Rosemount.
10. Liability of Trustees. No Trustee shall be answerable for loss in investments
made in good faith. No Trustee shall be liable for the acts or omissions of any other Trustee, or
of any accountant, agent, counsel or custodian selected with reasonable care. Each Trustee shall
be fully protected in acting upon any instrument, certificate or paper, believed by him to be
genuine and to be signed or presented by the proper person or persons, and no Trustee shall be
under any duty to snake any investigation or inquiry as to any statement contained in any such
writing but may accept the same as conclusive evidence of the truth and accuracy of the
statements.
11. Amendment. This Trust Agreement may be amended or modified from time to
time by the unanimous consent of the Trustees, together with the approval of the City of
Rosemount and the Donor, whenever necessary or advisable for the more convenient or
6
efficient administration of this trust or to enable the Trustees to carry out the purpose of this
trust more effectively, but no such amendment or modification shall alter the intention of the
Donor that this trust be operated exclusively for the purposes set forth in Section 1 hereof, and
in a manner which shall make this trust tax exempt and the donations to it deductible from
taxable income to the extent allowed by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
and other applicable legislation and regulations as they now exist or as they may be amended.
Every amendment or modification of this agreement shall be made in writing, and shall be
signed by the City of Rosemount, by two (2) officers of the Donor pursuant to authority of its
Board of Directors, and by all Trustees, and shall be delivered to each of the Trustees then in
office.
12. Irrevocability and Termination. This trust shall be irrevocable, but may be
terminated at any time by unanimous action of the Trustees, with the approval of the City of
Rosemount and the Donor. Upon any such termination, the Trustees shall promptly distribute
the entire trust fund to qualified recipients under the terms of this trust.
13. Situs. This Agreement is executed and delivered in the State of Minnesota, the
situs of the trust shall be in the State of Minnesota, and all terms and provisions of this trust
shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
14. Acceptance of Trust. The Trustees accept this trust, and hold, manage and
administer the trust fund in accordance with the terms of this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by SKB Environmental, Inc. and
by each of the named Trustees.
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
By
7
Its
[NOTARY BLOCKS]
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT -SKB
ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST FUND
By
Trustee
By
Trustee
By
Trustee
By
Trustee
By
Trustee
8
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Note to reviewers: This form and EAW Guidelines are available at www.egb.state.mn.us. The
Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential
for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit or
its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project
proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for but should not complete the final
worksheet. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary.
The complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30 -day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an
EIS.
1. Project Title; SKB. Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Expansion
2. Proposer: SKB' Environmental, Inc
3. RGU: City of Rosemount
Contact Person William P. Keeg an, P.E. Contact Person Eric Zweber, A.I.C.P.
and Title Environmental Engineer and Title Senior Planner
Address 251 Starkey Street Address 2875 145`h Street West
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
Phone (651) 224 -6329
Tables, Figures, and Appendices attached to the EAW:
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 -4997
Phone (651) 322 -2052
Fax (651) 223-5053 Fax (651) 423 -4424
4. Reason for EAW Preparation:
EIS NMandatory Citizen RGU X Proposer
Scoping EAW Petition Discretion Volunteered
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and name: NA
5. Project Location: County °'.`Dakota City /Twp City of Rosemount
SE 1/4 1/4 Section 19, 20, 29 Township 115N Range 18W
Exhibit 1. State map;
Exhibit 2. Seven county map;
Exhibit 3. Area map showing the general location of the project;
Exhibit 4. United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries;
Exhibit 5. Site plan showing all significant project and natural features;
Exhibit 6. Copy of request form to Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS);
Exhibit 7. Copy of 2001 Letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural
Heritage Program.
TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) 282 -5332
Printed on recycled paper containing 30 %fibers from paper recycled by consumers
escription:
rovrde a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor_
SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) is proposing an expansion at its SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste
Facility (Facility). As part of the expansion, SKB is applying for additional permitted capacity for
Industrial waste, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Combustor Ash and Construction and Demolition
(C &D) waste within the existing waste areas and proposing to add an additional industrial cell.
we a complete description Of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional
eets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
anipulation Of the environment or will produce wastes: include modifications to existing equipment or
industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate
timing and duration of construction activities.
SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) is proposing an expansion for the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste
Facility (Facility). As part of the expansion, SKB is applying for additional permitted capacity for
Industrial waste, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Combustor Ash and Construction and Demolition
(C &D) waste within the existing waste areas and proposing to add an additional industrial cell.
SKB is requesting an increase in its industrial waste from its current permitted capacity of 7,763,541
cubic yards to 15,434,853 cubic yards. SKB is also requesting an increase in its MSW incinerator ash
from its current permitted capacity of 1,679,300 cubic yards to 2,648,950 cubic yards. The current
permitted capacity of C &D waste of 5,471,100 cubic yards is being requested to be increased to
8,790,300 cubic yards. The additional industrial waste, MSW incinerator ash and C &D waste will be
part of the vertical expansion over the previously approved disposal cells. The new industrial cell, Cell
6 is a horizontal expansion. The C &D waste will also expand slightly to the south with the construction
of Cell 6. (See Exhibit 5)
The new industrial Cell 6 would be located to the project south of the industrial Cell 2. The industrial
liner would have a bottom liner consisting of a geosynthetic clay layer (GCL), a textured 60 -mil high
density polyethylene (HDPE) liner, a geocomposite drainage layer, a textured 80 -mil HDPE liner, a
geocomposite drainage layer, and two feet of protective /drainage sand. The 60 -mil and 80 -mil HDPE
liners are the secondary and primary leachate collections systems, respectively. After reaching closure,
Cell 6 would be capped with a 40 -mil linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) liner and the two feet of
cover soils, which would tie into the 40- mil liner over the other areas of the Facility.
The vertical expansion does not change the liner or final cover design for each of the three waste
streams. The saddle areas will continue to maintain separation between the waste types as currently
designed and approved in the existing permit.
The cells at the Facility will be filled in phases which, upon reaching final waste grades, will be covered
in accordance with the phased filling plan submitted with the MPCA Major Modification Permit
Application (see Table 5 -1, Appendix A). In general, the proposed expansion area, Cell 6, will be filled
with Industrial Waste after Cell 3 has been completed.
projec will be cArrid: it Boye ,lain
role'ct,and identif its beneficiari'
The purpose of this project is to provide regional disposal services such as waste processing, recycling
and disposal for the city of Rosemount and surrounding communities as part of an integrated waste
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification
Rosemount, Minnesota 2
Environmental Assessment
Worksheet
management system. The facility provides disposal of construction and demolition waste, along with
non hazardous industrial waste and municipal solid waste combustor ash. Expanding to use more on-
site land and increasing the height would maximize the capacity within the existing property, thus
utilizing an existing resource rather than sighting a new landfill at a new location. The design is
intended to enhance end use capabilities, but would also improve aesthetics of the Facility and create
grassland and scattered trees habitat for wildlife. The final cover will utilize grasses on the four to one
slopes, and would match with the natural bluff corridor along the Mississippi River. The cover will have
better erosion control features after closure and will be maintain as part of post closure. Some of the
potential end uses for the property include open space development/ grasslands, recreational
development, or commercial development. In addition, a public wildlife viewing area exists along 140
Street near the wetland in the southwest corner of the property. The wildlife viewing area will not be
impacted by the proposed expansion if wetland replacement is performed off -site. However, if onsite
mitigation is required, the future proposed expansion may not be able to accommodate this viewing area.
efly describe future stages, relationship to present proje
There are no plans for future development at this time.
1i�s project a subsequent s tage of an earlier project`
yes briefly descri the past; development timeline and any past environmental revie
This facility has prepared a number of environmental reviews since the project started. Each time, the
outcome of the review was approval of the project based on a negative declaration for environmental harm.
On January 8, 1992, Union Pacific Railroad (USPCI) was granted by the state of Minnesota a Permit for
the Construction and Operation of an Industrial Solid Waste Land Disposal Facility. The facility was
named Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility (MICF), SW -383. In early 1995, USPCI sold the MICF,
SW -383 to Laidlaw, Inc. of South Carolina. In August 1997, the name of the facility was changed to
Laidlaw Environmental Services (LES) Rosemount, Inc., SW -383. In early 1998, Laidlaw, Inc. purchased
the Safety Kleen Corporation and in August 1998 changed the name of the facility from LES Rosemount,
Inc. SW -383 to Safety Kleen (Rosemount), Inc., SW -383. In June 2000, Safety Kleen Corporation sold the
facility to SKB Environmental, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota. SKB Environmental, Inc. changed the name of
the facility to SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, SW -383. The permit was reissued by MPCA to
SKB, reflecting the change in ownership, on August 2, 2000.
A license was also granted by Dakota County in 1997 and has continued to be reissued. The city of
Rosemount granted an Interim Use Permit (IUP) in 1992, which has also continued to be reissued. In
December 1992, the Metropolitan Council, as the RGU, completed an environmental review of the MICF,
now referred to as SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, according to Minn. Stat. 116D.04 and
116D.045 and Minn. R. 4410.0200 through 4410.7800.
The MPCA issued its five -year permit on January 8, 1992. The original design consisted of ten cells. Each
six -acre cell had a capacity of 252,000 cubic yards with a total site life of 30 years. The permit authorized
construction and operation of Cell 1, Cell 2, and Cell 3.
In 1996, in conjunction with Laidlaw's five -year permit renewal, a permit modification was submitted to
the MPCA. For this permit renewal and modification, nine of the ten original cells were combined to form
Cells 2 through 4, with each cell being divided into sub cells. The reason for the sub cells is to operate each
area for a relatively short period of time; as one sub cell reaches capacity and is closed and capped, filling
begins in an adjacent sub cell. This reduces the open active area and the amount of leachate generated.
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification Environmental Assessment
Rosemount, Minnesota 3 Worksheet
This is referred to as the progressive trench method. Since Cell 1 has been operational for the previous five
years, the permit conditions for that cell were modified to increase the cell capacity by 86,442 cubic yards
to 338,442 cubic yards.
In 1997, LES submitted a permit application to the MPCA that would allow the Facility to accept MSW
incinerator ash for disposal in a monocell in Cell 4. This action was initiated after Hennepin County
identified Laidlaw as the low bidder to provide transportation and disposal services for ash produced at the
Hennepin Energy Resource Company (HERC) facility. HERC is a municipal solid waste -to- energy plant
located in Minneapolis. It produces approximately 90,000 tons per year of ash.
MSW incinerator ash was not allowed in the original 1992 permit because city ordinance prohibited it, and
at that time, incinerator ash was classified as a "Special Waste" and had to be handled as such. LES
Rosemount is permitted to only accept waste classified as non hazardous. In 1994, the city of Rosemount
adopted a resolution that allows for the disposal of incinerator ash. That same year there was also a ruling
by the U.S. Supreme Court that MSW incinerator ash must meet the testing standards for "Hazardous
Waste." This, in effect, makes MSW ash subject to the same testing standards as any other waste that is
accepted at LES Rosemount. All waste, including MSW incinerator ash, accepted at the Facility must meet
the minimum definition of non hazardous through proper sampling and testing.
Because LES Rosemount requested a permit modification to allow for MSW incinerator ash disposal,
which was not considered in the original EIS, representatives of Laidlaw and the MPCA indicated that
supplemental environmental review would be required. The supplement to the original EIS was done in
1997 for the addition of MSW incinerator ash to the LES Rosemount facility.
The most recent EAW prepared for the facility was in 2003 with the MPCA as the RGU. The project under
review was the horizontal expansion for Cell 5 for C &D waste and the vertical expansion to fill the saddle
areas between the existing waste cells. The environmental review was approved based on a negative
declaration for causing environmental harm.
arehouse
.t Industrial
Commercial
wilding lief
2,500 (existing)
(future)
specify) 0
30 feet If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification Environmental Assessment
Rosemount, Minnesota 4 Worksheet
Unit of Government
Type of Application
Status
MPCA
Solid Waste Permit
Pending
Dakota County
Operators License
Pending
City of Rosemount
Interim Use Permit
Pending
City of Rosemount
Wetland Conservation Act Approval
Pending
Permits and approvals required List:all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and finan
assistance for the, prolect! Include modifications of any existing permits; governmental re iew,of'plans,F
and all direct and indirect forms; of public financial, assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment
Financng mfrastrueture.
9.= Land use De c urrent and re past land u and development on the site and 0::) n adjacent l ands
Discuss" project compatibilitywith`adjacentand nearby land uses._ Indicate whether an p otential coil") icts
nivolve environmen m atters :Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as
soil 'contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or storage to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines
The land is currently zoned as Waste Management by the city of Rosemount. The facility is surrounded
by heavy industrial facilities, such as an aluminum smelter, a fertilizer company, a wastewater treatment
plant, a food waste processing plant, and an oil refinery; and agricultural areas. The Facility expansion is
within existing property boundaries and is compatible with the surrounding uses.
.10. plCover Types Esiimate the acreage of the site with each of the foliownig_ cover types before and after
development.
Types 1 8 wetlands
Woodedlforest
Brash/grassland
Cropland
Before
9.35' acre's:
After
8.54*
106.65 65.65
B efore
Lawnllandscaping
Impervious Surfaces Y 8
Other (descri
Perm Landfill. 112
TOTAL `-236
Amount does not include required mitigation. See Item 12 for more information.
After
151.81;
236
Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
a Identify fish, and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and how they be
affected by the pro ect. Describe`any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts z
The proposed Cell 6 would replace some of the wetland and temporarily replace some of the existing
grasslands; however, the overall site restoration plan includes open grassland with some trees and
shrubs throughout the site. The grasslands would be constructed in phases as the cells reach closure
according to the Facility Closure Plan. Therefore, the total acreage of existing grasslands at the
Facility would not significantly change during operation and would actually increase after closure of
the Facility. The surface water management plan includes seven storm water basins, including a
new basin adjacent to the existing wetland. The basins, when they hold water, will provide water
features for wildlife.
The cells at the Facility will be filled in phases which, upon reaching final waste grades, will be
covered in accordance with the phased filling plan submitted with the MPCA Major Modification
Permit Application (see Table 5 Appendix A).
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification Environmental Assessment
Rosemount, Minnesota 5 Worksheet
e any state (endangered or threatened) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological
esources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant
communities on or near the site? Yes Q No
Ifyes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of
the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame
Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number. ERDB 20020461
escribe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
See Exhibit 7 for a copy of the 2001 DNR Natural Heritage report. (A new request has been
submitted to the DNR, dated July 16, 2008 and the resulting report will be provided to the city of
Rosemount upon receipt. A copy of the request form is in Exhibit 6.) The 2001 report stated that
the Loggerhead Shrike, a threatened species, was documented within the project boundary. Based
on this report, SKB has implemented some items to help the shrikes. The perimeter fence has been
and will be left in place and available for shrikes to use. Additional trees have been planted on site
and SKB representatives have noticed evidence that the shrikes are using some of the site
infrastructure for perching and impaling food.
In the new expansion area, existing red cedar trees will be relocated to areas outside the fill area
where possible and/or new trees will be established. The final end use will provide additional trees
and shrubs as per the approved tree planting plan submitted to the city of Rosemount; and surface
water ponds, but primarily grassland. The final cover will be planted with grasses and the tree
planting plan may include hawthorn and plum trees. The project will also be constructed in phases
so that as new cells are opened during operations, another one is closed and vegetated. The cells at
the Facility will be filled in phases which, upon reaching final waste grades, will be covered in
accordance with the phased filling plan submitted with the MPCA Major Modification Permit
Application (see Table 5 -1, Appendix A). This will allow shrike habitat areas even during facility
operations. Following final closure, the overall habitat will be enhanced. SKB also plans to
minimize the use of pesticides on the final cover vegetation.
The property will maintain a wetland and several storm -water basins. Wetlands are not typically
considered to be Loggerhead Shrike habitat; however, the wetland and future storm -water basins can
continue to be urban birding spots.
pacts onmWater Re sources Will th e project mvoive the physteal o r hydrologic a
brig stream diversion, outfall structure, diking,. andunp man dthen
orid, wetland, stream or drainage ditch?
entify water resource affected, Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation
easures toFminimize impacts Give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory (PW>) number(s) if the
esources affected are on'the P
SKB is currently working with the City of Rosemount through the Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) permitting process for the wetland replacement decision. The project includes 0.8 acres of
the wetland impact for the expansion of Cell 6 on the south end of the property. The City has
completed a Wetland Management Plan. In this plan, 0.5 acres are associated with the complete
filling of a Manage 2 wetland and 0.3 acres are associated with the partial filling of a Manage 1
wetland. SKB has offered options to the city where SKB will either purchase wetland credits or will
construct a new wetland on site. The original design proposed building a 2.1 acre wetland to replace
the 0.8 acres removed.
The remaining 9.0 acres of existing wetland will be protected by a series of storm -water basins on
site The basins will treat site runoff and control runoff rate and volume, thus protecting the existing
wetland.
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification Environmental Assessment
Rosemount, Minnesota 6 Worksheet
13. Water Use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or
changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including
dewatering)? 0 Yes No
If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be
made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations;
and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new
wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site explain methodology used to determine.
As part of the proposed expansion, several upgradient private groundwater monitoring wells will be
abandoned as shown on the Environmental Monitoring Plan submitted with the MPCA Major
Modification Permit Application (Drawing No. 4, Appendix H). These wells are used for water levels
only and are not used to determine groundwater quality at the Facility.
14. Water related land use management districts. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning
district, a delineated 100 -year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use
district? O. Yes No
yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility' with district land use restrictions.
15. Water Surface Use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body?
D Yes. Eg ::No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or
conflicts with other uses:
16. Erosion and Sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be
moved: 36 acres 571,300 cubic yards. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils
and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used
during and after project construction.
Erosion control during Facility operations includes operational berms, drainage ditches, storm -water
basins and infiltration areas. Following site closure, the site restoration includes open grass land. The
slopes are designed to be four (horizontal) to one (vertical) or less. The 36 acres is based on the
expansion area for the new Cell 6.
17. Water Quality Surface Water Runoff.
Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent
controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stone water pollution prevention plans.
Storm -water management at SKB Rosemount provides for the control of surface water drainage
resulting from precipitation events both on the SKB property and areas that flow onto the site.
Storm -water drainage facilities are constructed for the following purposes: (1) to modify existing
storm -water infiltration areas to increase capacity to assure that downstream flow from the Facility
is not increased; (2) to construct control facilities to convey runoff from areas outside of the disposal
cells to the storm -water infiltration areas; and (3) to collect precipitation falling on an open cell to
prevent release of this storm water from the cell.
The storm -water management plan for SKB Rosemount consists of facilities to control runoff inside
and outside of the cells. The control facilities outside of the cells control runoff from precipitation
that falls outside of the cells whereas the control system inside of the cells controls runoff from
precipitation which falls inside of the cells.
The control facilities outside of the cells consist of a series of storm -water basins with
accompanying drainage ditches designed to hold runoff from a 100 -year, 24 -hour precipitation event
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification Environmental Assessment
Rosemount, Minnesota 7 Worksheet
`ot runoff from the site; include ma�oir d ownstream wal
raters. E stimate impact runoffs n'the qualify ofreceiv
occurring over the site area (assuming the worse case scenario of frozen conditions), plus the NURP
storage volume from a 2.5 year storm, as required by the city of Rosemount. This design exceeds
the requirements of the Minnesota Rules, which only require a 25 -year, 24 -hour precipitation event
design.
Control of storm -water inside the cells consists of providing sufficient storage to totally contain
storm water within the cell from a 100 -year, 24 -hour precipitation event. This design exceeds the
requirements of the Minnesota Rules, which only require a 25 -year, 24 -hour precipitation event
design. Storm water that comes in contact with waste will be treated as leachate.
As the cells are constructed, the storm -water management ditches will be constructed to adequately
manage and convey runoff to the storm -water basins. Over the life of the Facility, the construction
of the storm -water management system will occur as each cell is constructed. The initial
development included the construction of Cell 1, buildings, roadways and accompanying drainage
facilities. Accompanying drainage ditches will be constructed as sub cells in Cells 3, 4, 5 and 6 are
developed. Storm -water drainage ditches will be modified and constructed as needed during the
construction of each sub cell to provide storm -water management during the ongoing development
of the Facility.
receiv :740
e moire
There are no water bodies receiving direct storm -water runoff from the Facility and there are no
DNR regulated wetlands on site. There is one non regulated wetland on -site downstream of the
southern infiltration area.
Typical sanitary wastewater from the office and shop buildings is produced on site. The buildings
are connected to an existing wastewater sewer line.
Leachate is produced when storm water comes in contact with waste in the landfill cells. This
leachate is collected by a series of pipes, which drain to the sumps in the landfill cells. The leachate
is then pumped from the sumps into three 250,000- gallon tanks located on the west side of the site.
The leachate is then either discharged directly to the adjacent wastewater treatment plant or it is
loaded into tanker trucks for transportation to an approved disposal facility. The leachate is sampled
and tested prior to discharge to verify that it meets facility discharge standards.
escribe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts£ and gi ve estimat of com pass
receivin w aters including major, downstream water bodie and estimate
ualsiy of receiving waters. the project involves on -site sewage systems,
ofsite conditions for such systems.
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification
Rosemount, Minnesota 8
Treatment does not occur on -site and there is no discharge to local water bodies.
p astes will be discharged into a publicly ownedYt eeatment facility, id entif y the facility, describe an
retreatment provisions and di the facili abili t o h t h e volume and composition
astes, id entifying any mproeme
Environmental Assessment
Worksheet
Not applicable.
The city of Rosemount wastewater treatment plant currently accepts the leachate, as per the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) discharge permit dated October 1998. The
facility expansion would not increase the overall volume or change the parameters in the leachate.
SKB will be discharging to the treatment plant at the permitted discharge rate. If necessary,
additional leachate may be trucked to the MCES plant in St. Paul.
If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and
discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements
necessary. Describe any required setbacks forr land disposal systems.
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions.
Approximate depth (in feet) to Ground water:. 10 minimum; 70 average.
Bedrock: 30 minimum; 113. average.
Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site
map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or
minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
There are no known geologic site hazards on the facility property.
Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and
potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils.
Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination..
The soils at the Facility are predominately clean, sandier soils; however, they range from silty clay
loam to sandy loam at depth. Boring logs indicate the following American Society for Testing
Materials classifications SM, SP, SP -SM, ML, CL -ML, and CH -CL. Specific soil series at the
Facility include Hawick coarse sandy loam, Easterville sandy loam, Dickenson sandy loam,
Kennebec silt loam, Marsham silty clay loam and Kato silty clay loam. These soils develop on
glacial outwash, such as the sediments that underlay the Facility.
Field information collected at the Facility indicates that there is 30 to 130 feet of glacial sediments.
These sediments were deposited by the Superior lobe glacial advances. Superior lobe outwash
overlies a relatively thin Superior lobe sandy loam till. Minor lenses of finer- grained silts and clay
have been noted in the outwash. The outwash unit is described as sand and gravel with cobbles.
The underlying till is described as a reddish -brown sandy loam with cobbles and boulders commonly
encountered. The first ground water is encountered within the outwash sand. During the spring of
2008, the water table elevation at the Facility ranged from approximately 768 feet to 824 feet
National Geodetic Vertical Datum. Ground water generally flows to the northeast.
20. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks.
a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal
manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation Identii' method and location of
disposal: For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan
describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if
there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments.
The Facility is designed and currently accepts non hazardous industrial waste, municipal solid waste
incinerator ash and C &D waste. The industrial and ash cells are triple lined with primary and
secondary leachate collection systems. Although not required by Minnesota Rules, the C &D waste
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification Environmental Assessment
Rosemount, Minnesota 9 Worksheet
cell includes a liner and leachate collection system. The horizontal and vertical expansion will
include these same three waste steams. The facility accepts approximately 700,000 cubic yards of
waste annually.
SKB has been a front runner in the recycling industry and will continue to pursue recycling
opportunities as markets develop. The existing waste streams are sorted for recyclable materials for
recovery. Metal is removed magnetically from the ash waste stream and recovered. C &D waste is
sorted at the working face so that materials such as wood, metals, concrete /aggregates and
paper /cardboard are recovered.
any toxic or hazardous materials to b e*e d or present at the' site and identify measures to be
used to prevent them from oontammatiiig groundwater. ,Ifthe use of toxic or hazardous materials wil
ea d to a regulated waste, discharge o� emission,. discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or
eliminate the waste, discharge',or emission.
The Facility does not accept any toxic or hazardous materials and has a MPCA and Dakota County
approved Waste Acceptance Plan that provides a detailed process for evaluating waste before it is
accepted for disposal.
cats the number, location; 'size and use of any-above or below ground tanks'to store, petroleum
lucts or other materials, exeept water; Describe any emergency response containment plans
The site has one portable 500- gallon above ground storage tank for diesel fuel.
rkng spaces added 0 Existing space (if project involves expansion) 20
ftal average'daily traffic generated. '1 or 30' per hour" E maximumri Pe
generated (if known)' and; itstiming: 10'am and 4 pm Provide an estimate of the
on traffic congestion affected roads and deseribe any traffic improvements necessary. If the projec
n
the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system.,
Traffic currently enters the Facility from Highway 55 and exits the Facility either through Gate 1 on
Highway 55 or Gate 2 or Gate 3 on 140 Street (also known as old County Road 38) on the south side of
the site (Exhibit 5). The exits onto 140 Street further reduce traffic on Highway 55. According to the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the design capacity of Highway 55 is 20,000 trips
per day (TPD). From a MnDOT traffic count, the average TPD in the year 2000 was 10,000, which
would include the current trucks using the Facility. The SKB Facility has a maximum of 315 TPD on to
Highway 55 which fits into the highway design capacity. This expansion will not increase the number of
truck TPD.
Proposed future changes for the interchange between County Road 42 and Highway 55 will help to
further alleviate potential traffic impacts.
icle- related Air Emissions. E sti rate the of'the project's. traffic generation on air; quaiil
ion monoxide levels:° Discuss the; effect of traffic improvements or.otler mitigation`measure<
ity impacts. Note If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW`G
Nether a detailed air quality analys is needed.
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification
Rosemount, Minnesota 10
Currently, dust control is performed by paving the approach roads, some internal roads, and by watering
the internal access roads that are not paved. Air quality, including carbon monoxide levels, is not
expected to be impacted by the Facility expansion.
Environmental Assessment
Worksheet
23: Stationary Source Air Emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive
sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing), any greenhouse
gases (such as carbon methane, and nitrous oxides), and ozone- depleting chemicals
(chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride) Also describe any
proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. the
impacts on air quality.
As stated above, dust is controlled by paving the approach roads and by watering the internal access
roads. Due to the nature of the waste, the potential to create landfill gas (methane) is minimal. The
Environmental Monitoring Plan approved by the MPCA included installing monitoring points around the
Facility to monitor for methane gas. The monitoring points are sampled three times per year. To date,
methane is not been found to be present in any of the perimeter monitoring probes.
24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during
operation? Yes No
If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to
mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on
them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by
operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.)
The facility has been operating since 1992 and has not had any nuisance complaints for noise. Noise will
occur only during the operating hours. The surrounding land uses also include industrial uses with
similar noise levels.
25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
a Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? 0 Yes No
b. Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? n Yes No
c. Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? .0 Yes No
d: Scenic views and vistas? 0 Yes No
e
Other unique resources? 0 Yes No
If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resources:: Describe any
measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation'? Such as
glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or
exhaust stacks? n Yes No
If yes, explain.
The expansion of the facility will not create adverse visual impacts such as glare from lights, plumes from
cooling towers or exhaust stacks. Once the landfill is closed, it will be a tall, grassy hill, which will
mitigate the visual impact of the exhaust stacks from near by local industrial areas as viewed from the
south. The vertical expansion will be visually negligible due to the relatively small vertical increase (40
feet) over a relatively wide horizontal area (4000 feet). The final elevation of the vertical expansion will
be 1010 feet, which is approximately 180 feet above 140 Street and 120 feet above Minnesota Trunk
Highway 55.
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification Environmental Assessment
Rosemount, Minnesota 11 Worksheet
27.: Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local
comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulations or other applicable land use, water, or resource
management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? Yes No
If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be
resolved. If no, explain.
The Facility is approved by the city of Rosemount and is zoned as a waste management facility. The
operation was approved with the IUP, dated March 19, 1992.
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure
or public services be required to serve the project? Yes No
If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a
connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for
details.)
29. Cumulative impacts. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the
"cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an
environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that
may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts.
Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to
determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or
discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this fonn).
No other past, present, or future projects are known that may interact with this project to cause a
cumulative impact.
30. Other Potential Environmental Impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts
not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
None.
31. Summary of issues. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation
before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be
considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit
conditions.
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification Environmental Assessment
Rosemount, Minnesota 12 Worksheet
RGU CERTIFICATION.
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 Minn. R. 4410.0200, subps. 9b and 60, respectively.
Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Name and Title of Signer:
Date:
Eric Zweber, A.I.C.P., Senior Planner
City of Rosemount
The format of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental
Quality Board at Minnesota Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact:
Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651 -296 -8253, or at their Web site
http: /www.mnplan.state.mn.us
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Major Modification Environmental Assessment
Rosemount, Minnesota 13 Worksheet
In the matter of the
Decision on the Need for an
Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the
SKB Landfill Expansion in
Rosemount, MN
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS
The proposed SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Expansion is located north of
140m Street and south of Trunk Highway (TH) 55 in eastern Rosemount. This project is
located on approximately 236 acres and involves an increase in permitted industrial waste
from 7,763,541 cubic yards (cy) to 15,434,853 cubic yards; an increase in municipal solid
waste incinerator ash (MSW) from 1,679,300 cy to 2,648,950 cy; an increase in
construction and demolition waste from 5,471,100 to 8,790,300 cy.
The City completed a discretionary EAW for this expansion. As to the need for an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project and based on the record in this
matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of Rosemount makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project
The proposed project involves expanding the existing landfill site to
accommodate an additional 11,930,162 cy of waste material than originally
permitted. This expansion would accommodate industrial, MSW incinerator
ash, and construction and demolition debris.
B. Project Site
The proposed project is located between 140 Street and TH55 in eastern
Rosemount at the existing SKB Landfill site. The site currently contains
approximately 112 acres of permitted landfill, 9 acres of wetland, 107 acres of
brush/grassland, and 8 acres of impervious surfaces. The proposed condition
is anticipated to contain 152 acres of permitted landfill, 9 acres of wetland, 65
acres of brush/grassland, and 10 acres of impervious surface.
II. PROJECT HISTORY
A. The project was not subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under
Minnesota Rules 4410.4300. However, the City completed a discretionary
EAW to assess environmental impacts associated with this project.
G:120081PlanningCases108 -18IUP SKB Interim Use PermitlEAWlFindingsof Fact 090408 .doc
B. An EAW was prepared for the proposed project and distributed to the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties
on July 21, 2008.
C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for
public review was published in the Rosemount Town Pages on July 25, 2008.
D. The EAW was noticed in the July 28, 2008 EQB Monitor. The public
comment period ended August 27, 2008. Comments were received by the
DNR, Mn/DOT, Vermillion River Watershed Join Powers Organization, and
the Metropolitan Council.
III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 1 states "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that
have the potential for significant environmental affects." In deciding whether a
project has the potential for significant environmental affects, the City of
Rosemount must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota R. 4410.1700,
subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City fmds as follows:
A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
The first factor that the City must consider is "type, extent and reversibility of
environmental effects Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City's
findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below.
1. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated
as part of this project include:
a. Wetland Impacts: Approximately 0.81 acres of wetland fill is
expected to occur with the expansion of the landfill site. This
fill has been minimized by changes in the project design.
Mitigation will be accomplished through wetland creation on
site. Additionally, the required upland buffer will be
implemented around the wetland and the mitigation area.
b. Wildlife Impacts: The project site is known to contain habitat
for Loggerhead Shrikes, a threatened species. Impact to the
habitat will be temporary and the applicant will plant red cedar
and other trees as part of the restoration plan on the site to
replace lost habitat once landfill activities are complete.
Additionally, the landfill work will be done in phases so only
portions of the site will be excavated and exposed at the same
time.
G :120081P1anning Cases108 -18 IUP SKB Interim Use PermitlEAW\Findings of Fact 090408.doc
c. Storm Water Management: The project will result in
additional storm water being generated by the project. Storm
water will be treated and held on -site in conformance with the
City's Surface Water Management Plan.
d. Groundwater Impacts: Landfills have the potential to
contaminate groundwater with leachate when storm water
comes into contact with the landfill cells. To prevent this
contamination and potential runoff, the leachate will be
collected by a series of sumps that will discharge into the
adjacent wastewater treatment plant or be loaded into tanker
trucks and brought to an approved disposal facility. Further,
the industrial and ash cells are triple lined with primary and
secondary leachate collection systems. The construction and
demolition cells will also be lined and contain a leachate
collection system.
e. Visual Impacts: The landfill is located in an industrial area
and is typical of the surrounding area. Once the landfill is
closed, it will appear to be a tall grassy hill. The final elevation
will be 1,010 feet will is approximately 180 feet above 140
Street and 120 feet above TH55.
B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR
ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS
The second factor that the City must consider is the "cumulative potential
effects of related or anticipated future projects Minnesota R. 4410.1700
subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below.
1. The SKB landfill expansion is located in an industrial area with
heavy industrial uses. Adjacent industries include an aluminum
smelter, a fertilizer company, a wastewater treatment plant, oil
refinery, and food waste processing plant. Other surrounding uses
are agricultural. There are a few residences scattered in the area.
There are no past, present, or future projects that are anticipated to
interact with this project to cause a cumulative impact.
C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE
SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
G:120081 Planning Cases108 -18 -I UP SKB Interim Use Permit)EAW 1 Findings of Fact 090408.doc
Unit of Government
Type of Application
Status
State
MPCA
Solid Waste Permit
Pending
City/Local
Dakota County
Operators License
Pending
City of Rosemount
Interim Use permit
Pending
City of Rosemount
WCA Approval
Pending
City of Rosemount
Storm Water Management Plan
approval
Pending
1. The City fmds that the potential environmental impacts of the project
are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an
EIS need not be prepared.
D. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE
ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC
AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, OR OF EISs
PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS.
The fourth factor that the City must consider is "the extent to which
environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer,
or of EISs previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R. 4700.1700,
subp. 7.D. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below:
The proposed project is subject to the following plans:
1. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan
2. City of Rosemount Surface Water Management Plan
3. City of Rosemount Wetland Management Plan
The City fmds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated
and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and
permitting processes.
G:120081Planning Cases108- 18 -IUP SKB Interim Use PermitlEAWtFindings of Fact 090408.doc
CONCLUSIONS
The preparation of the SKB Industrial Waste Facility Expansion EAW and comments
received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the
proposed facility has the potential for significant environmental effects.
The EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects
exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or
permits to mitigate these effects. The project is anticipated to comply with all City of
Rosemount standards and review agency standards.
Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have
the potential for significant environmental effects.
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for
significant environmental impacts.
An Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
G:120081P1anningCases108- 18 -IUP SKB Interim Use PermitlEAWlFindingsof Fact 090408 .doc
Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization
14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124
952.891.7030 Fax 952.891 .7031
www.co. dakota. mn. us CountyGovernment /PublicEntities /VermillionJPO
August 18, 2008
William P. Keegan, P.E.
SKB Environmental, Inc
251 Starkey Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
RE: EAW for the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Expansion Project
Dear Mr. Keegan,
The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization VRWJPO) appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the EAW for the proposed project at the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility. The
VRWJPO is providing the following comments reference by EAW sections for your consideration
pertaining to the project and EAW:
Section 6c. It is mentioned that wetland replacement is a possibility during this project. It is
recommended if a wetland replacement is to be conducted; the LGU for WCA is contacted to comply
with WCA ordinances. Accordingly, the City of Rosemount's Local Water Management Plan (LWMP)
should have ordinances pertaining to protecting wetlands that should be reviewed and complied with if
applicable.
Section 8. An additional listing of governmental review of plan should be the City of Rosemount's
review of compliance with LWMP and the status of that review.
Section 11 b. It was recommended by the DNR to contact Dakota County to determine if the County's
land cover mapping project had identified any valuable natural resources that the DNR did not have
within their report. I don't see any indication that action was performed. The VRWJPO does recommend
contacting Dakota County and/or the Dakota County SWCD to determine if any natural resources of
importance could be impacted.
Section 17. Ensure that these storm water facilities meet the City of Rosemount's LWMP requirements.
No SWPPP is listed or described for the project. Will the project require a SWPPP? And if so, please list
it.
Section 19. List measures planned to be used to protect groundwater contamination in areas where
shallow groundwater exists
Section 25a. It is listed that a public wildlife viewing area exists along 140'h Street near the wetland in the
southwest corner of the property that the VRWJPO considers to be a potential recreation area or unique
resource. A description of the resource and listing any project related impacts on the resources should be
added as well as describing any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts to this feature.
Section 27. The City of Rosemount is listed as approving the facility, but more details about what they
approved are needed. Rosemount needs to approve the project based on their LWMP that implements the
standards of the VRWJPO, and no description of that is listed as approved nor the measures that will be
taken to comply with that plan.
Again, the VRWJPO would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAW and proposed
project. If you have questions or comments pertaining to this project or the VRWJPO's comments, please
contact Travis Thiel at (652) 891 -7546 or travis.thiel @co.dakota.mn.us at your convenience.
Thank you for attention to this matter,
Travis Thiel
Watershed Specialist
cc: Eric Zweber, City of Rosemount
Mark Zabel, VRWJPO Administrator
A A A Metropolitan Council
August 19, 2008
Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: City of Rosemount Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
SKB Environmental, Inc.
Metropolitan Council Review No. 20295 -1
Metropolitan Council District 16 (Brian McDaniel 952 239 -3612)
Dear Mr. Zweber:
The Metropolitan Council received an EAW for the SKB Environmental, Inc. proposed expansion on July
28, 2008. The proposed project is located at the company's existing facility at 13425 Court House
Boulevard in Rosemont. The EAW proposes additional permitted capacity for various types of industrial
waste within the existing area, and proposes an additional industrial waste cell.
The proposed capacity for the industrial waste is 15,434,853 cubic yards, the municipal solid waste ash is
2,648,950, and the construction and demolition waste is 8,790,300. The EAW proposes to expand the
facility to the south and construct a new cell (Cell 6) to accommodate construction and demolition waste.
The Council's review fmds that the EAW is complete and accurate for regional purposes, and raises no
issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. Staff requests
that the City consider the following comments.
Item 18 Water Quality, Wastewater
The proposed Cell 6 expansion and construction appears to occur approximately ten feet from
the Council's wastewater treatment plant effluent outfall 118009, which is located northwest of
this project. The Outfall pipe was built in 2008 and is a 78 -inch, reinforced concrete Pipe (RCP)
at a depth of approximately 52 feet. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services staff
request that the City send preliminary project plans to Scott Dentz, Interceptor Engineering
Manager (651 602 -4503) for review prior to initiating construction.
The Council will take no formal action on the EAW. If you have any questions or need further
information, please contact Tori Dupre, Principal Reviewer, at 651 602 -1621.
Si
P'y anson, Manager
Lo Tanning Assistance
C Brian McDaniel, Metropolitan Council District 16
Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative
Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator
www.metrocouncil.org
An Equal Opportunity Employer
N: \CommDev \LPA\ Communities \Rosemount\Letters\Rosemount 2008 EAW SKB Environmental 20295 -1.doc
390 Robert Street North St. Paul. MN 55101 -1805 (651) 602 -1000 Fax (651) 602 -1550 TTY (651) 291 -0904
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
August 21, 2008
Central Region
1200 Warner Road
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106
(651) 259 -5767
Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 -4997
RE: SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility Expansion
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Dear Mr. Zweber:
Minnesota
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW prepared for the
proposed expansion of the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility. From a natural resource
perspective, the document appears to be complete and accurate. We offer the following comments for
your consideration.
Item No. 11 (Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources) indicates that SKB has taken some
actions to maintain and improve habitat for loggerhead shrikes within the project boundary. We
appreciate SKB's efforts and encourage SKB representatives to report shrike sitings by submitting the
attached Rare Feature Reporting Form or sending an email to Sharron.Nelson @dnr.state.mn.us) so we
can update the Natural Heritage Information System with this new information. Also, please note that
loggerhead shrikes don't need a heavy tree planting for nesting; a few isolated trees will suffice.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. If you have any questions about
natural resources on or near the project site, please contact the regional environmental assessment
ecologist Wayne Barstad at 651- 259 -5738.
Sincerely,
atair.!
Central REAT, Janell Miersch, Diana Regenscheid, Gerald Johnson,
Liz Harper, Lisa Joyal (DNR)
Jon Larsen (EQB)
Nick Rowse (USFWS)
attachment
RM08 SKB Industrial Waste.doc
C:
Kurcinka
on Director
DNR Information: 651 296 -6157
mndnr.gov
An Equal Opportunity Employer
1- 888 646 -6367 651- 296 -5484
1- 800 -657 -3929
Minnesota Department of Transportation
0
a Metropolitan District
i Waters Edge
o- ax° 1500 West County Road 8 -2
Roseville, MN 55113 3174
August 27, 2008
Mr. Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997
SUBJECT: SKB Environmental EAW, Mn/DOT Review #EAW08 -016
SE Quad. of TH 55 and US 52, East of Railroad Tracks
Rosemount/Dakota County
Control Section 1910
Dear Mr. Zweber:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the SKB Environmental EAW. Please note that
Mn/DOT's review of this EAW does not constitute approval of a regional traffic analysis and is
not a specific approval for access or new roadway improvements. As plans are refined, we would
like the opportunity to meet with our partners and to review the updated information. Mn/DOT's
staff has reviewed the document and has the following comments:
Permits:
Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are
available from MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us /tecsup /utility Please include
one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any
questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig, MnDOT's Metro Permits Section, at
(651) 234 -7911.
As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as
plats and site plans to:
Development Reviews
Mn/DOT Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require either:
1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans (the electronic version of the plan needs to be
developed for 11" x 17" printable format with sufficient detail so that all features are
legible);
2. Seven (7) sets of full size plans.
An equal opportunity employer
If submitting the plans electronically, please use the pdf. format. Mn/DOT can accept the plans
via e-mail at metrodevreviews@dot.state.mn.us provided that each separate e-mail is less than 20
megabytes. Otherwise, the plans can be submitted on a compact disk.
If you have any questions conceming this review please feel free to contact me at
(651) 234 -7797.
Sincerely,.
'1 1 Doff
Senior Planner
Copy: Andrea Moffat, WSB Associates, Minneapolis, MN
Copy sent via Groupwise:
Tod Shennan
Sheila Kauppi
Buck Craig
Nancy Jacobson
Ken Johnson
Julie Lindquist Dakota County
Ann Braden Metropolitan Council
WSB Associates
Attn: Andrea Moffatt
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
To:
Comments from Vermillion River JPO
DRAFT
Travis Thiel, Vermillion River JPO
Joseph Kurcinka, DNR
William Goff, Mn/DOT
Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council
Copy: Eric Zweber, City of Rosemount
EAW Review Agencies
From: Andrea Moffatt, WSB Associates
Date: September 4, 2008
Re: Responses to Comments on SKB Industrial Waste Facility EAW
WSB Project No. 1668-62
The 30 -day comment period for the above referenced EAW ended on August 27, 2008.
Comments were received from the Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization, Department of
Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and Metropolitan Council. On
behalf of the City of Rosemount as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU), please find
outlined below responses to these comments.
Comment 1: Section 6c. It is mentioned that wetland replacement is a possibility during this
project. It is recommended if a wetland replacement is to be conducted, the LGU for WCA is
contacted to comply with WCA ordinances. Accordingly, the City of Rosemount's Local Water
Management Plan (LWMP) should have ordinances pertaining to protecting wetlands that should
be reviewed and complied with if applicable.
Response: The City is the LGU for WCA and the applicant has applied for approval
through this process.
Comment 2: Section 8. An additional listing of governmental review of plan should be the City
of Rosemount's review of compliance with LWMP and the status of that review.
Response: This comment is noted and the applicant and City are reviewing the plans
through this process.
Comment 3: Sectionl lb. It was recommended by the DNR to contact Dakota County to
determine if the County's land cover mapping project had identified any valuable natural
resources that the DNR did not have within their report. I don't see any indication that action
was performed. The VRWJPO does recommend contacting Dakota County and/or the Dakota
County SWCD to determine if any natural resources of importance could be impacted.
G. 20081Planning Casesl08- I8-IUP SKB Interim Use PermitlE4WWFMO agency 090408 wBilldoc
September 4, 2008
Page 2
Response: Both Dakota County and the SWCD were provided opportunity to comment
on this EAW. No specific information related to this comment was provided by these
agencies. Additionally, information from the Minnesota Land Cover Classification
System (MLCCS) database was reviewed and shows that there are no significant valuable
natural resources within the project area.
Comment 4: Section 17. Ensure that these storm water facilities meet the City of Rosemount's
LWMP requirements. No SWPPP is listed or described for the project. Will the project require
a SWPPP? And if so, please list it.
Response: The City has been working with the applicant to design the storm water
management plan for the site. Additionally, the SKB site has an industrial SWPPP,
which meets the requirements of the SWPPP. MPCA provides the permitting for the
NPDES permit.
Comment 5: Section 19. List measures planned to be used to protect groundwater
contamination in areas where shallow groundwater exists
Response: Response: The groundwater under the Facility will be protected by using a
state -of -the -art liner and leachate collection system in combination with a network of
groundwater monitoring wells. The liner system consists of a primary liner with leachate
collection and treatment as well as a secondary composite liner and leachate collection
system that acts as leak detection for the entire landfill. In addition, the groundwater
quality is monitored by sampling the extensive network of groundwater monitoring wells
on a quarterly basis. These measures have proven effective in protecting the groundwater
as evidenced by the fact that the Facility has not had any impacts to the groundwater
throughout its operational history.
Comment 6: Section 25a. It is listed that a public wildlife viewing area exists along 140 Street
near the wetland in the southwest comer of the property that the VRWJPO considers to be a
potential recreation area or unique resource. A description of the resource and listing any
project related impacts on the resources should be added as well as describing any measures to
minimize or avoid adverse impacts to this feature.
Response: This area consists of a small gravel parking lot. The parking lot was created
by SKB when they noted that some people were stopping on the side of the road to bird
watch. With the trucks hauling in the area, stopping on the side of the road was a safety
concern and SKB installed the parking lot. SKB is working to maintain this area with the
expansion of the landfill. The site will provide views the existing wetland and the
proposed wetland mitigation area.
Comment 7: Section 27. The City of Rosemount is listed as approving the facility, but more
details about what they approved are needed. Rosemount needs to approve the project based on
their LWMP that implements the standards of the VRWJPO, and no description of that is listed
as approved nor the measures that will be taken to comply with that plan.
G120081Piannbig Casesit8.18 4UP &Interim Use Pmnit%E4WIMEMO agency- 090408 vsBill.doe
September 4, 2008
Page 3
Response: The City approves the Interim Use permit and reviews the plan for
conformance with all City Standards. The MPCA approves the expansion permit for the
landfill. Once developed, the site will comply with the City's storm water management
requirements.
Comments from DNR
Comment 1: Item No. 11 (Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources) indicates that
SKB has taken some actions to maintain and improve habitat for loggerhead shrikes within the
project boundary. We appreciate SKB's efforts and encourage SKB representatives to report
shrike sitings by submitting the attached Rare Feature Reporting Form or sending an email to
[the DNR] so we can update the Natural Heritage Information System with this new information.
Also, please note that loggerhead shrikes don't need a heavy tree planting for nesting; a few
isolated trees will suffice.
Response: This information will be provided to SKB.
Comments from Mn/DOT
Comment 1: Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit.
[See comment letter for submittal details.]
Response: We are not aware that this project will affect Mn/DOT right -of -way.
However, if plans change, the applicant will be required to submit this information to
Mn/DOT.
Comments from Met Council
Comment 1: Item 18 Water Quality, Wastewater. The proposed Cell 6 expansion and
construction appears to occur approximately ten feet from the Council's wastewater treatment
plant effluent outfall #8009, which is located northwest of this project. The Outfall pipe was
built in 2008 and is a 78 -inch, reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) at a depth of approximately 52
feet. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Staff request that the City send
preliminary project plans to Scott Dentz, Interceptor Engineering Manager for review prior to
initiating construction.
Response: The City will forward these plans as they are available.
This concludes the City's responses to comments. If you have questions, please feel free to call
me at (763)287 -7196 or Eric Zweber with the City at (651- )322 -3052.
G ..120081PIonnrg Coaes108 -18-1UP SAB Interim Use PennitlEl ffMfEMO -henry- 090408 wBill.doc
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision /Findings and Conclusions
Name of Local Government Unit: City of Rosemount
Name of Applicant: Mike Fullerton, SKB
Project Name: SKB Industrial Waste Facility
Type of Application (check one): Exemption Decision
No Loss Decision
Replacement Plan Decision
Banking Plan Decision
Wetland Type/Boundary Decision
Date of Decision: October 7, 2008
Date of Permit Expiration: September 16, 2011
Check One:
Approved
Approved with conditions (see note on page 2 regarding use of wetland banking credits)
Denied
Summary of Project/Findings and Conclusions (indicate exemption number per MN Rule 8420.0122, if
applicable):
The applicant is proposing to expand the SKB Industrial Waste Facility, which is
anticipated to result in filling a portion of Wetland 1 (0.3 acres) and filling all of Wetland
3 (0.51 acres). The total wetland fill proposed is 0.81 acres. Wetland 1 is in the City's
Wetland Management Plan as #438 and is classified as a Manage 1. Wetland 3 is listed
as Wetland #432 and is classified as a Manage 2. The applicant is proposing to construct
on -site wetland mitigation immediately east and west of the existing wetland. The
eastern mitigation site is 0.92 acres and the western mitigation site is 0.70 acres. The
total on -site new wetland credit proposed is 1.62 acres. This amount meets the required
2:1 mitigation ratio. The City's Wetland Management Plan requires a 50 foot buffer
around Wetland 1. If Wetland 3 were to remain, a 30 foot buffer would be required.
Page 1 of 4 G :120081P1anning Cases108- 18 -IUP SKB Interim Use PermitlSKB WAC DecFindConc 10072008.doc
It has been determined that wetland impacts have been avoided, minimized, rectified, and
reduced to the greatest extent reasonable based on site constraints within the project area.
For those impacts that could not be avoided, the proposed wetland replacement plan
includes the following impact and mitigation plans:
The submitted application is approved based on the following conditions:
1. The WCA Deed Forms are filed with the County for the on -site mitigation, as
required, and a copy provided to the City.
2. The cross section on the plan states that the delineation berm is at elevation 224.5.
This should be corrected to state 824.5.
3. A seeding and restoration plan for the buffer must be provided.
The following performance standards are included as part of the permit conditions:
1. Submittal of hydrologic monitoring for the existing Wetland 1 with monitoring at least
once a month between April and October for at least five years. This information should
be submitted to the City in an annual report at the end of October each year.
2. The mitigation area will be saturated or inundated for 30 consecutive days during the
growing season under normal to wetter conditions.
3. Year 1: The first full growing season after upland buffer is established, the cover species
must be present over the entire site by the end of the growing season. For the first full
growing season for the wetland, seedlings of at least three early successional native
sedges, rushes, and/or grasses should be dispersed throughout the seeded area. The cover
wetland crop should also be present by the end of the growing season. There should be
no more than 20% cover of exotic, non native invasive vegetation. (The first full growing
season for fall planting is defined as the following growing season; for spring planting it
is defined as the current growing season).
Page 2 of 4 G:120081PIanning Cases108- 18 -IUP SKB Interim Use Permit1SKB WAC DecFindConc 10072008.doc
Acres
Permanent Wetland Fill
0.81
Total Impact
0.81
New Wetland Credit Created On -Site
1.62
Public Value Credit Created On -Site
0
Total Mitigation Provided
1.62
Total Mitigation Required
1.62
It has been determined that wetland impacts have been avoided, minimized, rectified, and
reduced to the greatest extent reasonable based on site constraints within the project area.
For those impacts that could not be avoided, the proposed wetland replacement plan
includes the following impact and mitigation plans:
The submitted application is approved based on the following conditions:
1. The WCA Deed Forms are filed with the County for the on -site mitigation, as
required, and a copy provided to the City.
2. The cross section on the plan states that the delineation berm is at elevation 224.5.
This should be corrected to state 824.5.
3. A seeding and restoration plan for the buffer must be provided.
The following performance standards are included as part of the permit conditions:
1. Submittal of hydrologic monitoring for the existing Wetland 1 with monitoring at least
once a month between April and October for at least five years. This information should
be submitted to the City in an annual report at the end of October each year.
2. The mitigation area will be saturated or inundated for 30 consecutive days during the
growing season under normal to wetter conditions.
3. Year 1: The first full growing season after upland buffer is established, the cover species
must be present over the entire site by the end of the growing season. For the first full
growing season for the wetland, seedlings of at least three early successional native
sedges, rushes, and/or grasses should be dispersed throughout the seeded area. The cover
wetland crop should also be present by the end of the growing season. There should be
no more than 20% cover of exotic, non native invasive vegetation. (The first full growing
season for fall planting is defined as the following growing season; for spring planting it
is defined as the current growing season).
Page 2 of 4 G:120081PIanning Cases108- 18 -IUP SKB Interim Use Permit1SKB WAC DecFindConc 10072008.doc
Mike Fullerton
Ken Powell
SKB
Board of Water and Soil Resources
13425 Courthouse Blvd
520 Lafayette Road North
Rosemount, MN 55068
Saint Paul, MN 55155
Brian Watson
Vermillion WMO
Dakota SWCD
Dakota County Physical Development Division
4100 220th St West Suite 102
14955 Galaxie Avenue
Farmington, MN 55024
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Janell Miersch
DNR Wetland Coordinator
DNR Waters
Ecological Services Section
1200 Warner Road
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55106
St. Paul, MN 55155
4. Year 2: The upland and wetland must have at least 50% cover of the native grasses,
sedges, and forbs. The site must contain 70% of the middle successional species from the
seed mixes and there should be no more than 10% cover of exotic, non native invasive
vegetation. See the publication "Restoring and Managing Native Upland Vegetation" for
sample species lists.
5. Years 3 -5: The upland and wetland must have at least 70% cover of the native grasses,
sedges, and forbs. The site may have no more than 10% cover of exotic, non native
invasive vegetation. See the publication "Restoring and Managing Native Upland
Vegetation" for sample species lists.
6. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Deed forms will be developed by the applicant,
filed with the County, and evidence of recording provided to the City prior to the start of
wetland mitigation construction.
7. In the second and fifth year of monitoring, the wetland will be delineated by the applicant
or City to determine the size of the mitigation area.
8. Record drawings of the mitigation site will be provided by the applicant upon grading of
the mitigation site.
9. A performance bond shall be provided by the applicant.
10. At the 5 monitoring year, if requirements of these performance standards are not met,
the monitoring period will be extended.
Qualified by the above conditions, the wetland replacement plan has been determined to offset
the wetland impacts and fully complies with the Wetland Conservation Act. This permit is good
for two years from the date of approval.
List of Addressees:
Page 3 of 4 G:120081Planning Cases108- 18 -IUP SKB Interim Use PermitlSKB_WAC DecFindConc_10072008.doc
Brad Johnson
US Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
ATTN: CO -R, 190 Fifth Street East
St. Paul, MN 55101 -1638
You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above referenced
application was made on the date stated above. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any appeal of
the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of
Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this
Notice.
NOTE: Approval of Wetland Replacement Plan Applications involving the use of wetland
banking credits is conditional upon withdrawal of the appropriate credits from the state wetland
bank. No wetland impacts may commence until the applicant receives a copy of the fully signed
and executed "Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits," signed by the BWSR wetland
bank administrator certifying that the wetland bank credits have been debited.
THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Additional approvals or
permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities
before commencing work in or near wetlands.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT
Signature Date
Name and Title
Page 4 of 4 G:120081Planning Cases108- 18 -IUP SKB Interim Use PermitlSKB WAC DecFindConc_10072008.doc
WSB
Associates, Inc.
To: Eric Zweber, City of Rosemount
From: Andi Moffatt, WSB Associates
Date: August 19, 2008
Re: Wetland Mitigation Review
SKB Industrial Waste Facility
WBS Project No. 1668 -56
WSB has reviewed the wetland mitigation plan submitted August 18, 2008 for the SKB Industrial
Waste Facility. This submittal is a result of our July 16, 2008 memo to the City and subsequent
meeting on July 28, 2008. The plan includes the following:
The applicant is proposing to expand the industrial waste facility, which is anticipated to
result in filling a portion of Wetland 1 (0.3 acres) and filling all of Wetland 3 (0.51
acres). The total wetland fill proposed is 0.81 acres.
Wetland 1 is in the City's Wetland Management Plan as #438 and is classified as a
Manage 1. Wetland 3 is listed as Wetland #432 and is classified as a Manage 2.
The applicant is proposing to construct on -site wetland mitigation immediately east and
west of the existing wetland. The eastern mitigation site is 0.92 acres and the western
mitigation site is 0.70 acres. The total on -site new wetland credit proposed is 1.62 acres.
This amount meets the required 2:1 mitigation ratio.
The City's Wetland Management Plan requires a 50 foot buffer around Wetland 1. If
Wetland 3 were to remain, a 30 foot buffer would be required.
The mitigation plan appears to meet the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act, the City's
Wetland Management Plan, and the requirements of the City with the following exceptions:
The cross section on the plan states that the delineation berm is at elevation 224.5. This
should be corrected to state 824.5.
A seeding and restoration plan for the buffer needs to be provided.
August 19, 2008
Page 2 of 3
Submittal of a hydrologic monitoring plan for the existing Wetland 1 with monitoring at
least once a month between April and October for at least five years. This information
should be submitted to the City in an annual report at the end of October.
The following performance standards outlined in WSB's July 16, 2008 memo are recommended to
be included as part of the permit conditions:
1. Within the first growing season and subsequent growing seasons, at least 70% of the
mitigation area will have six or more inches of water for half of the growing season
when rainfall meets or exceeds the average rainfall for the area. The remaining 30% of
the mitigation area will have at least soils saturated to six inches of the surface for four
weeks during the same time period.
2. Year 1: The first full growing season after upland buffer is established, the cover species
must be present over the entire site by the end of the growing season. For the first full
growing season for the wetland, seedlings of at least three early successional native
sedges, rushes, and/or grasses should be dispersed throughout the seeded area. The
cover wetland crop should also be present by the end of the growing season. There
should be no more than 20% cover of exotic, non native invasive vegetation. (The first
full growing season for fall planting is defined as the following growing season; for
spring planting it is defined as the current growing season).
3. Year 2: The upland and wetland must have at least 50% cover of the native grasses,
sedges, and forbs. The site must contain 70% of the middle successional species from
the seed mixes and there should be no more than 10% cover of exotic, non native
invasive vegetation. See the BWSR publication referenced above for species lists.
4. Years 3 -5: The upland and wetland must have at least 70% cover of the native grasses,
sedges, and forbs. The site may have no more than 10% cover of exotic, non native
invasive vegetation. See the BWSR publication referenced above for species lists.
5. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Deed forms will be developed by the applicant,
filed with the County, and evidence of recording provided to the City prior to the start of
wetland mitigation construction.
6. In the second and fifth year of monitoring, the wetland will be delineated by the
applicant to determine the size of the mitigation area.
7. Record drawings of the mitigation site will be provided by the applicant upon grading of
the mitigation site.
8. A performance bond shall be provided by the applicant.
9. At the 5 monitoring year, if requirements of these performance standards are not met,
the monitoring period will be extended.
The decision before the City will be to approve or deny the WCA application. If approved, a
number of conditions on the permit as outlined above are recommended.
K10 1668.561AdwUlDba comber- 08I90&doe
August 19, 2008
Page 3 of 3
If you have questions, please feel free to call me at (763)287 -7196.
c. Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount
Andy Brotzler, City of Rosemount
Morgan Dawley, City of Rosemount
K 10 /668S64L8ninIDoc,iMFMO umber 081908doc
o
t4 LC)
N
U
n Q)
2 :1 replacement ratio
with a minimum of 1
acre of New Wetland
Credit and maximum of
1 acre of Public Value
Credit
2:1 replacement ratio
with a minimum of 1
acre of New Wetland
Credit and maximum of
1 acre of Public Value
Credit
Storm Water
Management
possible
Sediment and nutrient
pretreatment required
Sediment pretreatment
required
Pretreatment to NPDES
standards (per Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
rules) is required if these
standards apply to the.
project
Wetland Buffer
Requirements
averaging is' allowed
Monuments required
50 feet
30' minimum if buffer
averaging is allowed
Monuments required
30 feet
15' minimum if buffer
averaging is allowed
Monuments required
15 feet for non-
agricultural areas only
15' is the minimum
buffer standard
Monuments not required
Management
Strategy
habitat.
Apply strict avoidance
standards.
Maintain wetland
without degrading
existing functions,
values and wildlife
habitat.
Sequencing is
applicable
Maintain wetland
functionality
Apply some
sequencing flexibility
Allow maximum
sequencing flexibility
Score
U
N
V
co
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
N ID
Management
Class
N
N
0..
O
co
c
R
Q)
a)
a)
2 co
a)
a) ca
ca
WSB
&Assoc® Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763- 541 -4800
Fax: 763 -541 -1700
To:
Ken Powell, BWSR
Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD
DNR Wetlands Coordinator
Brad Johnson, US Corps of Engineers
From: Andi 1lloffat4 WSB Associates
Date: June 23, 2008
Re:
TEP Meeting Notes Rosemount, MN
SKB Industrial Waste Facility
WBS Project No. 1668-56
On behalf of the City of Rosemount as the Local Government Unit (LGU) for the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA), please find outlined below a summary of the TEP meeting for the above
referenced project that was held on J 17, 2008. The TEP signature page from the meeting is
attached. f
In attendance at the TEP meeting included: Eric Zweber, City of Rosemount; Brian Watson,
Dakota SWCD; Mike Fullerton, SKB; John Domke, SKB; Bill Keegan, SKB; Morgan Dawley, City
of Rosemount; Andi Moffatt, WSB.
SKB is proposing to expand their industrial landfill. This expansion is anticipated to
result in 0.81 acres of wetland impact. Wetland 1 (WMP #438) is a Manage 1 and
Wetland 3 (WMP #432) is a Manage 2 wetland in the City's Wetland Management Plan.
All of the 0.51 acres of Wetland 3 is proposed to be impacted and 0.3 acre of Wetland 1
is proposed to be impacted. Mitigation is proposed on -site through the expansion of
Wetland 1.
There are no expansion requirements for this facility from the PCA or other agency. The
size of the expansion is based on SKB's estimates for needed future landfill space.
The hydrology of the wetlands was discussed as it appears that there is not as much
water in the wetlands as there was in the past. SKB supplied groundwater monitoring
information and indicated the wetland's hydrology reflected the groundwater. The
Metropolitan Council had been dewatering in the area as part of their trunk line project.
The discharge was directed to Wetland 1. This dewatering has been completed.
Brian asked if the storm water ponding will dewater or reduce hydrology to the
wetlands. Andi indicated she would review how the surface water treatment and
subwatershed changes associated with the expansion will affect the wetland as part of
the permit review.
Minneapolis 1 St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
cmiesr-sm m'r..axauesro -nosey- 062001.1.rk
June 23, 2008
Page 2
If the wetland fill is allowed, mitigation will be needed. The proposed on -site wetland
mitigation was discussed as to whether or not the hydrology could be supported for the
mitigation area. Andi expressed concern that if the hydrology of the mitigation site
cannot be maintained, the mitigation would be a failure and that it may be more prudent
to purchase wetland mitigation credit from a bank now rather than attempt to make the
on -site mitigation area function.
Brian stated that if the replacement is done on site, it should not be conducted within the
future right -of -way of 140 Street to avoid future impacts with the road expansion. He
also recommended that if mitigation occurs on -site, strong performance standards should
be implemented to ensure a successful mitigation site.
If wetland fill is allowed and purchase of wetland credits is proposed, a copy of the
purchase agreement between the applicant and bank holder should be submitted to the
City as part of the City Council's review of the application.
Brian and Andi discussed the plant community classification of the wetlands. They
concluded that the wetlands should be classified as a shallow marsh and wet meadow
rather than a seasonally flooded basin as indicated in the application.
Brian noted that permitting a new landfill is more difficult than expanding an existing
landfill from a regulatory and public perception. For these reasons, he was generally
comfortable with the avoidance and minimization outlined by the applicant.
The slope of the wetland buffer was discussed. The applicant is proposing a 3:1 slope as
the wetland buffer as the final end use of the project. Eric indicated the City Council
may want a more gradual transition in the wetland buffer. While buffer averaging is an
option in the Wetland Management Plan, the Council has consistently denied its use.
This concludes our understanding of the meeting. If there are errors, corrections, or additions,
please call me at (763) 287 -7196.
c. Eric Zweber, City of Rosemount
Morgan Dawley, City of Rosemount
Mike Fullerton, SKB
John Domke, SKB
Bill Keegan, SKB
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact
Date: I
County:
Project Name/#:_
Location of Project:
•F
1 4
City: ZOWevaturv
Members d others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site)
LGU: BWSR:
WCD: DNR (if applicable):
ther Wetland Experts present: A ten eki m ay,,
TEP requested by Vier,e-OnCU.r'k
1. Type of J. EP determination requested (check those that apply):
Exemption (WCA Exemption
Wetland Boundary and Type 3�
2. Description of Wetland(s) with proposed impact:
a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) (Cowardin)
b. Wetland Size pry! l
c. Size of Proposed Impact (acres and square feet) il• A
3. Have sequencing requirements been met? Attach Sequencing Finding of Fact as supporting information.
Yes No (if no, list why)
4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the
metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive
plan and zoning ordinance? QYes No (if no, list why)
1 4
5. How will the project affect the following wetland functions:
6.
7.
8.
Functions
Floodwater Storage
Nutrient Assimilation
Sediment Entrapment
Groundwater Recharge
Low Flow Augmentation
Aesthetics/Recreation
Shoreland Anchoring
Wildlife Habitat
Fisheries Habitat
Rare Plant/Animal Habitat
Commercial Uses
LGU Representative
WCA TEP Findings of Fact
Impact
For replacement plan or no -loss determinations, are we
Yes 1; o (if no, list why)
LGU: US4t'1e*Q-1►'... rrrr
LGU Contact: .rd �'�"T�t'�"! vii)
Phone hone 7 7 4
Sec. Twp. Range Lot/Block
County: ^Y
No -Loss
Replacement Plan
No Impact Improve
ctions maintained at an equal or greater level?
Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.?
Yes Yes, with Conditions No (if no, list why)
If no, why? c�
List TEP findings to support recommendation in question 7 above.
DNR Representative
Page 1 of 1
().el ice.
SIGNA C S f TEP recommendation is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page)
6 17 -OF
CD Representative Date) BWSR Representative
/0
(April2003)
(Date)
(Date)
Andrea Moffatt
fit? CO r -crriS
From: Wayne Barstad [Wayne.Barstad @dnr.state.mn.usj
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:12 PM
To: Andrea Moffatt
Cc: Ken Powell; Brian.Watson @co.dakota.mn.us; Janell Miersch
Subject: Re: FW: SKB file
I -sue
h log
Peron
Hi Andi. It's difficult to tell, but it appears to me that the expansion described in the
Notice of Application is an expansion above and beyond the expansion for which the MPCA
developed the EAW in 2003. If it is, it may trigger the need for another EAW. The City
of Rosemount should check that out before making any decisions on the WCA application.
Our primary concern in 2003/04 was the potential impact to Loggerhead shrike habitat.
That gets us into WCA Special Considerations, Rule 8420.0548, subpart 2, endangered and
threatened species. The issue would be whether construction of the mitigation wetland in
the southwest corner of the site would impact shrike habitat. I've been pouring over the
aerial photos and the Natural Heritage database record and I don't believe that this part
of the property provides good shrike habitat. Therefore, I don't believe that it would be
reasonable to invoke the Special Considerations provision.
Finally, there are no MCBS plant communities or MCBS sites of biodiversity significance on
the site.
Thanks. ..wb
Wayne Barstad
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Central Region
651 259 -5738
wayne.barstad @dnr.state.mn.us
Nature bats last!
1
Andrea Moffatt
From: Ken Powell tKen.Powell @state,mn.us]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:38 AM
To: Andrea Moffatt; Watson, Brian
Subject: SKB Rosemount application
Andi Brian,
The following are my comments on the SKB Rosemount replacement plan application:
I am confused by the total amount of wetland to be impacted. The impact table in the application form indicates 2 separate
impacts which add up to 1.31 acres. Below the table, a total impact of 0.81 acres is indicated. The narrative in the
application states 1.02 acres of impact. The 6/6/08 supplemental memo includes a plan sheet that shows 0.8 acres of
impact. So what is it? The application materials should be revised to show a consistent amount of wetland impact. Also, the
wetland delineation report included with the package shows a 3rd wetland on the site that is not accounted for in the
application.
The replacement portion of the application form indicates a replacement ratio of 2:1. This is not correct given the current
application. It is at least 2.25:1 (not in advance) and may be 2.5:1 depending on whether or not it is in -kind or not. I can't tell
if it is in -kind because no replacement plant community goals are articulated.
The sequencing discussion in regard to the no -build and alternative sites seems reasonable. Clearly establishing a new
landfill site is a major undertaking as opposed to expansion of an existing site. However, the issue here is not if it should
expand, but rather how much. Which gets to wetland impact minimization. What are the implications of reduncing the
footprint of the expansion to avoid at least the north portion of the larger wetland? What about avoiding all wetland impact
and still expanding? Seems like there are certainly alternatives that avoid wetland impacts and still allow a major expansion
to occur. Can't the dissipation pools be placed in the SW corner and the fill line adjusted to avoid filling 0.3 acres of the big
wetland? (see attached sketch).
I am concerned about the hydrology source for the replacement wetland and the existing wetland to remain. What is the
watershed flowing into it before and after the project? The submitted hydrology information shows only mid winter water
level readings which I am not sure can be extrapolated to the growing season. Secondly, the wide fluctuation in water
levels discussed in the application would appear to the unnatural and therefore it would seem to be very difficult to
establish a native plant community in the replacement wetland area. Looking at the challenges involved, l would advocate
for utilization of a wetland bank rather than trying to create a rectangular wetland expansion area next to a road and huge
berm. The type of onsite mitigation proposed is the type that is typically unsuccessful and adds little public value. If the City
wants more water storage in this area, then they should obtain it through stormwater management means (infiltration,
pond), not by trying to fit in a replacement wetland doomed for failure.
The wetland vegetation management plan for the proposed replacement wetland is practically nonexistent. Attached is a
checklist that shows all of the missing information in the application. The vegetation management plan is very important in
onsite mitigation and if this is ultimately approved instead of using a bank, then specific goals and management activities
need to be identified and a large escrow taken to protect against failure.
In summary, I strongly recommend that wetland minimization be looked at in more detail and that the replacement plan either
include banking or be highly modified in accordance with the above comments and concerns.
Ken Powell
Senior Wetland Specialist
MN Board of Water Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road N.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 651-296-0874
6/30/2008
r S jage 1 of2
to l3t9 iCX
Andrea Moffatt
From: Watson, Brian [Brian .Watson @CO. DAKOTA.M N. US]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:33 PM
To: Andrea Moffatt
Cc: Ken Powell
Subject: RE: SKB Rosemount application
Andi,
Were notes from our June 17 meeting prepared. Thought I had seen them but they are not in my file can you send to me if
complete thanks.
My additional comment would be that approval of a wetland replacement plan should be conditioned to require hydrology
monitoring of the existing wetland at set intervals (May 1, June 1, July 1, August 1) to determine hydrologic changes during on -site
dewatering activities; and that the LGU may consider dewatering as additional WCA impacts requiring compensatory mitigation.
Somehow we need to establish a monitor program for the existing wetland if landscape and dewatering activities are occurring on-
site and then an action plan pending results of monitoring.
Brian Watson
Dakota County SW CD
4100 220th Street, Suite 102
Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 480 -7778
email: brian.watson @co.dakota.mn.us
web: www.dakotaswcd.org
Original Message----
From: Andrea Moffatt [mailto:AMoffatt@wsbeng.com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:54 AM
To: Ken Powell; Watson, Brian
Subject: RE: SKB Rosemount application
Page 1 of 3
Thanks, Ken!
Their impacts proposed are 0.81 (yes, it has changed throughout this process).
I am working on a Council memo with recommendations, so this will help.
I am also newly concemed about additional dewatering" of the wetland from the project and storm water management
practices.
Andrea Moffatt, PWS I Senior Environmental Scientist! WSB Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Ave, S., Suite 3001 Minneapolis, MN 55416
Direct: 763 I Fax: 763 -541 -1700 CeII: 612- 360 -1301
www.wsbeng.com
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is Intended solely for the use of the addressee. if you are not the addressee or received this email in
6/30/2008
Page 2 of 3
error, you should permanently delete this email from your system. Any use, dissemination, printing, or copying of this email by unintended recipients is strictly
prohibited. Because electronic files may deteriorate or be Inadvertently modified, WSB Associates, Inc. does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
content of this message which arise as a result of electronic transmission. if verification is required, please request a hard copy.
From: Ken Powell [mailto:Ken.Powell @state.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:38 AM
To: Andrea Moffatt; Watson, Brian
Subject: SKB Rosemount application
Andi Brian,
The following are my comments on the SKB Rosemount replacement plan application:
I am confused by the total amount of wetland to be impacted. The impact table in the application form indicates 2
separate impacts which add up to 1.31 acres. Below the table, a total impact of 0.81 acres is indicated. The narrative
in the application states 1.02 acres of impact. The 6/6/08 supplemental memo includes a plan sheet that shows 0.8
acres of impact. So what is it? The application materials should be revised to show a consistent amount of wetland
impact. Also, the wetland delineation report included with the package shows a 3rd wetland on the site that is not
accounted for in the application.
The replacement portion of the application form indicates a replacement ratio of 2:1. This is not correct given the
current application. It is at least 2.25:1 (not in advance) and may be 2.5:1 depending on whether or not it is in -kind or
not. I can't tell if it is in -kind because no replacement plant community goals are articulated.
The sequencing discussion in regard to the no -build and alternative sites seems reasonable. Clearly establishing a
new landfill site is a major undertaking as opposed to expansion of an existing site. However, the issue here is not if
it should expand, but rather how much. Which gets to wetland impact minimization. What are the implications of
reduncing the footprint of the expansion to avoid at least the north portion of the larger wetland? What about
avoiding all wetland impact and still expanding? Seems like there are certainly alternatives that avoid wetland
impacts and still allow a major expansion to occur. Can't the dissipation pools be placed in the SW corner and the fill
line adjusted to avoid filling 0.3 acres of the big wetland? (see attached sketch).
I am concerned about the hydrology source for the replacement wetland and the existing wetland to remain. What is
the watershed flowing into it before and after the project? The submitted hydrology information shows only mid-
winter water level readings which 1 am not sure can be extrapolated to the growing season. Secondly, the wide
fluctuation in water levels discussed in the application would appear to the unnatural and therefore it would seem to
be very difficult to establish a native plant community in the replacement wetland area. Looking at the challenges
involved, I would advocate for utilization of a wetland bank rather than trying to create a rectangular wetland
expansion area next to a road and huge berm. The type of onsite mitigation proposed is the type that is typically
unsuccessful and adds little public value. If the City wants more water storage in this area, then they should obtain it
through stormwater management means (infiltration, pond), not by trying to fit in a replacement wetland doomed for
failure.
The wetland vegetation management plan for the proposed replacement wetland is practically nonexistent. Attached
is a checklist that shows all of the missing information in the application. The vegetation management plan is very
important in onsite mitigation and if this is ultimately approved instead of using a bank, then specific goals and
management activities need to be identified and a large escrow taken to protect against failure.
In summary, I strongly recommend that wetland minimization be looked at in more detail and that the replacement plan
either include banking or be highly modified in accordance with the above comments and concerns.
Ken Powell
Senior Wetland Specialist
MN Board of Water Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road N.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 651 296 -0874
6/30/2008
Andrea Moffatt
From: Ken Powell [Ken.Powell @state.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:48 PM
To: Watson, Brian; Andrea Moffatt
Cc: Ken Powell
Subject: RE: SKB Rosemount application
Brian,
I received a hard copy of the TEP notes In the mail. I second your comment about requiring monitoring of the existing wetland.
Alot of disturbance is proposed for the landfill expansion and the effects of it on the wetland they are trying to avoid cannot be
reasonably estimated. Hydrologic monitoring is an appropriate and reasonable requirement.
Ken
From: Watson, Brian mallto :Brlan.Watson @co.dakota.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:33 PM
To: Andrea Moffatt
Cc: Ken Powell
Subject: RE: SKB Rosemount application
Andi,
Were notes from our June 17 meeting prepared. Thought I had seen them but they are not in my file can you send to me if
complete thanks.
My additional comment would be that approval of a wetland replacement plan should be conditioned to require hydrology
monitoring of the existing wetland at set intervals (May 1, June 1, July 1, August 1) to determine hydrologic changes during on -site
dewatering activities; and that the LGU may consider dewatering as additional WCA impacts requiring compensatory mitigation.
Somehow we need to establish a monitor program for the existing wetland if landscape and dewatering activities are occurring on-
site and then an action plan pending results of monitoring.
Brian Watson
Dakota County SWCD
4100 220th Street, Suite 102
Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 480 -7778
email: brian.watson @co.dakota.mn.us
web: www.dakotaswcd.org
6/30/2008
Original Message----
From: Andrea Moffatt [mailto:AMoffatt @wsbeng.com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:54 AM
To: Ken Powell; Watson, Brian
Subject: RE: SKB Rosemount application
Thanks, Ken!
Page 1 of 3
6/30/2008
Page 2 of 3
Their impacts proposed are 0.81 (yes, it has changed throughout this process).
I am working on a Council memo with recommendations, so this will help.
I am also newly concerned about additional "dewatering" of the wetland from the project and storm water management
practices.
Andrea Moffatt, PWS 1 Senior Environmental Scientist 1 WSB Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Ave. S., Suite 300 I Minneapolis, MN 55416
Direct: 763- 287 -7196 I Fax: 763 -541 -1700 I Cell: 612 360 -1301
www.wsbeng.com
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee or received this email In
error, you should permanently delete this email from your system. Any use, dissemination, printing, or copying of this email by unintended recipients is strictly
prohibited. Because electronic files may deteriorate or be inadvertently modified, WSB Associates, Inc. does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
content of this message which arise as a result of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy.
From: Ken Powell [mailto:Ken.Powell @state.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:38 AM
To: Andrea Moffatt; Watson, Brian
Subject: SKB Rosemount application
Andi Brian,
The following are my comments on the SKB Rosemount replacement plan application:
I am confused by the total amount of wetland to be impacted. The impact table in the application form indicates 2
separate impacts which add up to 1.31 acres. Below the table, a total impact of 0.81 acres is indicated. The narrative
in the application states 1.02 acres of impact. The 6/6/08 supplemental memo includes a plan sheet that shows 0.8
acres of impact. So what is it? The application materials should be revised to show a consistent amount of wetland
impact. Also, the wetland delineation report included with the package shows a 3rd wetland on the site that is not
accounted for in the application.
The replacement portion of the application form indicates a replacement ratio of 2:1. This is not correct given the
current application. It is at least 2.25:1 (not in advance) and may be 2.5:1 depending on whether or not it is in -kind or
not. I can't tell if it is in -kind because no replacement plant community goals are articulated.
The sequencing discussion in regard to the no -build and alternative sites seems reasonable. Clearly establishing a
new landfill site is a major undertaking as opposed to expansion of an existing site. However, the issue here is not if
it should expand, but rather how much. Which gets to wetland impact minimization. What are the implications of
reduncing the footprint of the expansion to avoid at least the north portion of the larger wetland? What about
avoiding all wetland impact and still expanding? Seems like there are certainly alternatives that avoid wetland
impacts and still allow a major expansion to occur. Can't the dissipation pools be placed in the SW corner and the fill
line adjusted to avoid filling 0.3 acres of the big wetland? (see attached sketch).
I am concerned about the hydrology source for the replacement wetland and the existing wetland to remain. What is
the watershed flowing into it before and after the project? The submitted hydrology Information shows only mid-
winter water level readings which I am not sure can be extrapolated to the growing season. Secondly, the wide
fluctuation in water levels discussed in the application would appear to the unnatural and therefore it would seem to
be very difficult to establish a native plant community in the replacement wetland area. Looking at the challenges
involved, I would advocate for utilization of a wetland bank rather than trying to create a rectangular wetland
expansion area next to a road and huge berm. The type of onsite mitigation proposed is the type that is typically
unsuccessful and adds little public value. If the City wants more water storage in this area, then they should obtain it
through stormwater management means (infiltration, pond), not by trying to fit in a replacement wetland doomed for
failure.
The wetland vegetation management plan for the proposed replacement wetland is practically nonexistent. Attached
is a checklist that shows all of the missing information in the application. The vegetation management plan is very
important in onsite mitigation and if this is ultimately approved instead of using a bank, then specific goals and
management activities need to be identified and a large escrow taken to protect against failure.
6/30/2008
Page3 of 3
In summary, I strongly recommend that wetland minimization be looked at in more detail and that the replacement plan
either include banking or be highly modified in accordance with the above comments and concerns.
Ken Powell
Senior Wetland Specialist
MN Board of Water Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road N.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 651 -296 -0874
E -mail: ken.powell@state.mn.us
Website: www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Andrea Moffatt
From: Wayne Barstad [Wayne.Barstad @dnr.state.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:57 PM
To: Andrea Moffatt
Subject: SKB Industrial Waste Facility WCA Application
DNR comments on Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility (SW -383) Expansion (comment letter
April 10, 2003) Item 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
The EAW recognizes the need to continue to provide shrike habitat on -site during the 25
years during which the site will be operated. We agree that this effort should be made
and appreciate that SKB Environmental, Inc. is willing to close and re- vegetate the site
in phases. We also recommend that the proposer re- vegetate using native prairie species,
along with appropriate nesting species such as red cedar (which presently exists on the
site), hawthorn and plum trees. This and other recommendations are included in the
Landowners Guide (EAW Exhibit 8c of the EAW). Item 17. Water quality water surface
runoff On page 8, the EAW identifies small wetlands that will receive on -site surface
water runoff. The wetland in the southeast quarter of Section 19 is high quality and is a
well -known urban birding spot from which birders regularly report their sightings (to a
website called MnBird.org). Therefore, it has both ecological and recreational value.
The wetland's ecological potential is bolstered by its proximity to a major wildlife
corridor, defined by a diversity of plant communities and animal habitats strung out along
the Dakota County side of the Mississippi River. Also, the site is almost surrounded
by an ecological patch (grassland) identified by the Regionally Significant Ecological
Areas Assessment Methods. The site's functional capabilities are enhanced by the presence
of this grassland landscape element. By increasing site runoff volume and decreasing
runoff quality, the project has the potential to diminish the quality of this wetland.
Efforts should be made to avoid this impact by treating site runoff and controlling runoff
rate and volume.
Andi, I'm trying to determine whether it would be appropriate to invoke the WCA Special
Considerations provision, which reads as follows:
8420.0548 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.
Subpart 1.Scope.The factors in this part, when identified as being applicable to an impact
site or a replacement site, must be considered by the local government unit in the review
of replacement plans.
Subp. 2.Endangered and threatened species.A replacement plan for activities that involve
taking species listed as endangered or threatened in parts 6134.0200 to 6134.0400 must be
denied unless the commissioner issues a permit pursuant to part 6212.1800 or Minnesota
Statutes, section 84.0895, subdivision 7. Applicants may determine if there are known
locations of listed species at a particular site by contacting the Department of Natural
Resources' natural heritage and nongame research program.
Wetlands are not typically considered to be loggerhead shrike habitat; therefore we
wouldn't apply the provision to the wetland fill. However, we could apply it to the
taking of shrike habitat for the purpose of creating new wetland. I'm not convinced at
this point that the SW corner of this property (where SKB proposes wetland replacement) is
quality shrike habitat. Even if part of it is good habitat, some mix of new wetland and
buffer might be acceptable. ..wb
Wayne Barstad
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Central Region
651 259 -5738
wayne.barstad @dnr.state.mn.us
Nature bats last!
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Site Introduction for the Three Facilities
This permit reissuance application is for the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, Permit
SW -383, is being submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) by SKB
Environmental, Inc. (SKB).. This application includes information for three separate facilities
under one permit application. The site in general will be referred to as either (the Facility or SKB
Rosemount).
This permit application submittal includes four volumes as follows:
Volume I: Permit Application includes site analysis, engineering design for the 3
facilities, site development, closure and post closure, Recycling/Transfer
Facility, MPCA application form and checklists.
Volume II: Waste Acceptance Plan for all facilities
Volume III: Operations Plan for all facilities
Volume IV: Contingency Action Plan for all facilities
Each volume includes the appropriate information for each of the three facilities. The reports
provide a discussion of the data and logic to facilitate the MPCA review of the drawings,
hydrogeology, operation, design, closure, and post closure care for the permit modification of the
Facility. The application has been prepared in accordance with the MPCA Solid Waste
Management Rules, Dakota County Solid Waste Management Ordinance 110, and the City of
Rosemount Zoning Ordinance.
The data developed for the various design decisions and the development of operational plans are
provided in the text and appendices. Data and information used to prepare this report were
prepared by SKB and Foth Infrastructure Environmental, LLC. Previous documents prepared
for the Facility are also referred to. The tables referenced are provided in Appendix A of each
volume. The Permit Application form and checklists are provided in Volume I as Appendix B
and Appendix C, respectively. The drawings are provided:
under separate cover in a 24 -inch by 36 -inch size plan set, and
as an 11 -inch by 17 -inch size plan set in Appendix H of Volume I.
A site location map is provided on Drawing No. 1. The existing conditions for the site outside
the waste boundries, as per a topographical map were generated from an October 2000 aerial
survey, are shown as Drawing No. 2. Inside the existing cell the topography was updated in
January 2007.
1.2 Permit History
On January 8, 1992, USPCI (Union Pacific RR) was granted by the state of Minnesota a "Permit
for the Construction and Operation of an Industrial Solid Waste Land Disposal Facility." The
facility was named "Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility, SW- 383 In early 1995, USPCI
sold the "Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility, SW -383" to Laidlaw, Inc. of South
Carolina. In August of 1997, the name of the facility was changed to "Laidlaw Environmental
SKB Environmental Permit Reissuance Application Volume I /November 2007 1
Services (Rosemount), Inc., SW- 383." In early 1998, Laidlaw, Inc. purchased the Safety Kleen
Corporation and in August of 1998 changed the name of the facility from "Laidlaw
Environmental Services (Rosemount), Inc. SW -383" to "Safety Kleen (Rosemount), Inc.,
SW- 383." In June of 2000, Safety Kleen Corporation sold the facility to SKB Environmental,
Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota. SKB Environmental, Inc. changed the name of the facility to "SKB
Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, SW- 383." The permit was reissued by MPCA to SKB,
reflecting the change in ownership, on August 2, 2000.
1.3 General Site Description
Site:
Primary Contact:
Facilities:
Site Permittee and Operator:
Primary Contacts:
Land Owner:
Consultant:
SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, SW -383
13425 Courthouse Boulevard
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068
(651) 438 -1500
Mike Fullerton, Facility Manager
Three facilities under Permit SW -383
Industrial and Ash Waste Facility
Construction and Demolition Waste Facility
Recycling and Transfer Facility
SKB Environmental, Inc. (A Private Entity)
251 Starkey Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
(651) 224 -6329
John Domke, Vice President
William P. Keegan, P.E., Environmental Engineer
Mike Fullerton, Facility Manager
SKB Environmental, Inc. (A Private Entity)
251 Starkey Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
(651) 224 -6329
Foth Infrastructure Environmental, LLC
Eagle Point II, 8550 Hudson Blvd., Suit 105
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 -8704
(651) 288 -8550
Contact: Kathleen M. Osborne, P.E., Senior Project Manager
Area or Business Served: Minneapolis -St. Paul Metro area
Waste Types: Non hazardous industrial, municipal solid waste (MSW)
incinerator ash, C &D, recyclables such as; wood, concrete,
asphalt, tires, cardboard, MSW, shredder fluff.
SKB Environmental Permit Reissuance Application Volume I /November 2007 2
Zoning:
Facility Size:
Site Life:
Capacity:
Estimated Annual Waste Volume:
Waste Management as per the city of Rosemount zoning
ordinances
The Facility is located on a 236 -acre site. Approximately
120 acres will be developed of which approximately 112
acres will be disposal areas. The individual cells areas are
as follows:
Cell 1 Industrial 5.3 acres
Cell 2 Industrial —17.1 acres
Cell 3 Industrial 37.0 acres
Cell Ash —10.7 acres
Cell 5 C &D 37.2 acres
Total disposal area 112.0 acres
The disposal facilities on the site are expected to be able to
accept waste for the next 25 years. The recycling and
transfer facility will be open indefinitely.
Cell 1 Industrial 338,442 cubic yards
Cell 2 Industrial 1,422,199 cubic yards
Cell 3 Industrial 6,129,727 cubic yards
Cell 4 Ash 1,679,300 cubic yards
Cell 5 C &D 5,788,923 cubic yards
Industrial 300,000 cubic yards per year
Ash 77,000 cubic yards per year
C &D 350,000 cubic yards per year
SKB Environmental Permit Reissuance Application Volume I /November 2007 3
C,35 5 1 591 (.has
0
co
0 V
C
1- F-
Z
O U
0
w
0 1)
LL
W
J
1..1.E
v
0
z
0
ti
V
Z
U
z
J
z F
w
a
Z
0
z
co
W
cf)
0
O
0
O
O
0
i
i
1
z
0
2
ti
0
5
0
0
0
w
0
y h
Z
0
W
0
9
O
5
i
0
m
8
a
5
0
D
a
R
2
0
0
O
U
r
rc
8
rc
9
a
0
0
O
4 a
6
SCALD
a Tao
IOW
M&[oi ID 075403
SNOLLIONOO
ONLLSIX3
r
a
x,wxo .n
a5nm
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DutOT■ C (RITY ROSEYOIMT. MINNESOTA
Psi
i
11111 1
Foth
«a DT
mre
OESCRIRTiq
"""0° ONO
OF P747
BY
"ntli t"ibic4"� m Eiitrsnment, MC
lab e"`..rnma N.Arw
holm a..s.wsmma11.wO
A
A•
rol =oa,
Waft
MINK OF SWUM afamrTION of
REUSE OE OOCUFNTS
TINS ws_ rtv¢n� M v([VC 4RIuTIW ND
ND M6oE IT mar NIT W 140 N�VT TN DATE
ouYW W of [dNETED cYSIRUCTIM
o•rtW
ocoellmsom M DATE TO aflTluci uNNM. WCCtM.
LOOMED. uSE IS THE OM rtsiMrsmwn 6 ON 1>m I ®1.
T
co
m
T m
.o
P
-.METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
v+o
m
0
zz
T
Eig
m F
I
1P.45eaiaaaasa MR355.
Pi :i4lsigis is xi R ill
P
m
010
0
z8
0 la
m z
<m
r-
0 rri
v
z
o 2
mZ
mm
I- m
o
v
Ro
R1
z
-i
W
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ov
<rn
om
v
mc;
z
P.
r�
M
T
V 0
0
z
YE i I I I
i 1 I l t,
pif
ISrOggOligpligl
al g 51 g
;Ol Ili
e o y gyd g
.Z1
O
z=
z
c)
O
00
13 73
mm
XI LA
m
N
1
3 5
REVISIONS
A
A
A
trx
DESCRIPTION
RECORD DRAWING 6 COMPLETED CONSTRICTION OT
e6NM ODAm00 OP ConETED CmsTRUCTION
ODFO N0a TO 01001..11111 SraM OWNERS SECNm&
DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
05E0TO COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. 0ME50TR
MalsyMDMNfen*WOO.
N Tl oOmpl P.a M oN.Yrry
Eaph lomdtoOmaeblbnl
PNaWE1y..EWNawE
MY of
oft E 0.1ama
9 e.,lla>m
•Foth
Foth Infrastructure Environment, LLC
B M smownl w.u. emu in
lob e1w ISO area
P eew 0012a1000 n00 001210 W 1
REUSE OF 00L1YENTS
DOS 00011.1 w6 DEM DEVELOPED roll a SPECIFlC NM1RJnl( 00
NOTTOR wENi usE. THE ESOR IT .uT mT SE Ono nnaUT THE
Or POTS 0Fe15TRIC1URE 510 EIVIROM IT. LLD.
J10■10W0 USE IS DIE SEE RESPNnnWTT Or DE UNWTEMIIm LLWy
E z
In
p
z O
Z A m
z�
r
x
g p
S
nn IsI
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SK RO SEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEWMT. MINNESOTA
t�.r.- w..
+'+s..�+.
o n•O*L1=1.1
1
O or
3 /LST10.....•
F
a
SCRIPT: a
m
g°
reds
...Yr.. I•r...w.ml. s e.+ken..lw c
LAD no. 1111111041 r.,w
1
OF F Ts
IM S AAA Ot Rw.Rln M PCCSM .IwM1ATIO. ,.o
M IwM� IT W, NOT ...,m 111110. TIE
771 1 1 or r IE SOLE m. 71 6ps11111.117 .m owour.I. uc
/WM.) Q T 110.00 ST Of TIE ulWxoxlIIn MD,
A A
6 F
i
3
T.
g
N
Du.11a ar
0wcrm mNlnicrtm
aA m ,.IMIIO»
on CONTRACTOR ..a.o. owna 1109
In
0
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
m
mg
g
m g
mo
zr
z
Yz I
,A� ai R.
g
.jb
i
0000
N o
Lai 4.4 Lo
���rti rF
on
m n
2
n 0001 cc cc
0
N 2
9
8 m
s
uuuuu c
r V 2 uu
(IAIFI AA1. FF
717171717171 an '71'71
2
S
V' D
m•
N
0
z
6
2 vm
00
o. s 71A
RI I
-_I
w rn
N
1 O
SCALE,
PNVECT 10 075007
BASE GRADES
(TOP OF LINER
SYSTEM)
P a
9
/SURVEY.
DATF
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
UN
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
Nx+"".M19
w......,
°o°^•. t P'••
Foth
x n i
v.
m
11
UPDATED Sw BERM PONDS
11111.11 I
v
Infrastructures a Environment, u.e
imo x°"''14 IAA
rn... sTaaaurN�n+srusss
A
vT.,uo, I
'ARATION
�a
�q /ZS .rra n
RECORD DRAWING OF COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION
�r uo
IC
D DEN x TS !CATION AND
THEREFORE ii TAT MOT BE USED WITHOUT TIE
WRITTEN
.N.wimv[O USE IS TOE D aO I •„0 �"PO ENT. C D US TURE OT RISTR ME ON AM OF
RECORD [RAVINGS Ci COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION
COW ONG TO CONTRACT RECORDS.
BY DM
REVISIONS
A
A
BY
Ot
OATS
oESflnvnoN
UPDATED SOUTH BENI/ 'MOS
ICON DRAWING OF COMPETED KrETEKTM..
RECORD DNA MOS MALE= CONSTIESTION
CONFORM= TO COMPACTOR AMO/OR mots =COOSA
sT 00.7E
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COMITY ROSEMOIIT, MINNESOTA
o.e LS a.,ars
Foth
W ae.raRp...rsra,.
au..s Foth Inh.slruebM. Environment, LLC
yWr �iv� -U /J.jc
1.4 aStie Nil
m,
Inter. E.a...1 M.,q Sao 105
ue.e. pi Elm, 6500 .n.. ®Memo sm o,.awss,
REUSE OF OOCUF&TS
FS mEEnr,v FOR SPECIFIC USED M
APPLICATION! ORS OTFCR 01= e R.. T FC E T M S M E M US uz
K,.rnROVIS IS 'E PE OF SOLE 7ES:asmuin a T1E wuhxmU ED LEny
8Y
OFTE
DESCRIPTION
/6. DIV
S-2D-De
UPDATED SOUTH HRH
hl A
A
A
A
F
A.
RECORD DI.PIHO OF MAPUTO, CONSTRuCTION BY
RECORD DRAHINGS DF C
CONFDRIADID 70 CONTRACTOR ANIVOR DINERS RECORDS.
BY DATE
M U
cn
o 0
00
Z
1,3
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW-383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
LATEV.ISITPHI
urrsoanFaSPITH
EITszliRoxs.enlins1.1FrnaduHUsensel
Alele oflasysole.
*Foth
Foth Infrastructure Environment, LLC
E... RAH II
zfi,J2 esso Han ortavere rms. aim los
Eme, IAN OM
nom: 631.845SSO Fmm 65,28.3511
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
T r gt=r0.4 O NETT A NN E EttI C SS7A r trir
IIR11101 APPROVAL OF FON INFRASTRUCTURE MO ENVIROLMENT. LLC.
UNAPPROVED USE IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY Di THE UNAUTHORIZED USER
eil
D
cn
wv
N 5
Z
REVISIONS
DATE
A
A
A
DESCRIPTION
"OWED SOUTTI BERM
RECORD WnWG CP CdeLETSD cmaRRSnw sr
RECORD ORNITINDS OFF CO ALE CONSTRUCTION
DNiwWING TO CO /OR OWNERS RECORDS.
BY DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
C j ZS G Ry /MTN
.Amlm°m. 4 Foth
nwl �..R..r Mro..mw
doNtsmorblen ME en.Ny
maw. rota Infrastructure Environment, LLC
4 N.y.. ewe.w xsey ear TOs
'�Xyry� "K� Aar
°m" Ens, MN MU
RNSS6TiSeaSROKam mTmauet
REUSE VE DEVELOPED •mLIEETION .a
TOTEM NOS MORTEN, N. TEEN CETERA,
USE nERETC E I* NAT NOT SPECIFIC isfD M T c
NRITTEN AMITY& OF PONT ',APPROVED USE IS DE SOLE RESNdamILlrt OF M I000NNOR0 10 MEP,
CO
SCALE,
160 320
PROJECT 10 moos
FINAL COVER
GRADES
oss¢wn
DATE
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW-383
DAIWA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
Ma./ ...a.. fart ANAMETa.
Dr Baal Impala a u• •fl ua r• T•
amtapnalonandaallern ea./lama
Prtamanolamberumlatelonolem
saleollannaNa
6— rt.
Foth
se
,r,
DESCRIPTION
DIV
S-20-OT
S. BERN. mos. orroEs REVISED
GORMAN
A
A
Foth Infrastructure 8. Ertokonment, LLC
pooh 14.111
Loso ha* C woo, soot los
lab P., BIM M
Rhen..6514116415.S0 F8l51.671551
4/
Z pI
•ARATION
MEM
Oar 9/2/5/1 ROGR23726
REMO MUNI. OF CCOPLETTO CONSTRuCTION NT
Tas Boum., N, n oBrogEropEo t T "E'IS
OF A SPECrIC APPLICATION AM
NOTTOR GENERAL USE. TIEREFU. IT MAT NOT BE USED IIIINOUT TIE
MITTEN APPROVAL OF WM INFRASTRUGTORE Ma ENVIRD.ENT. LI.C.
volAPPAovED USE IS TNE SOLE RESPONSIBILITT Or ME UN...TWINGED USER
RECORD DRAWINGS OF COWIE. TEO CONSINUETION
CONFORMING TO CONTRACTOR AND/Ca OWNERS RECORD,
IT DATE
AZIAATAA'AV°1°.
°R
xxxgx fgg
g4fga 141
f6
g 2 E
4
igg
C8i6.
Ar.3
z 6
SCALE,
K080T 01 0=0
SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
rocsic„m
b[C[FO
H09
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
Mott COIMTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
.^^^•..,^Ve+�+
R.........aa.+......
e ..w..uD.ur .R.a.
"s
G Roth
M
DATE
DESCRIPTION
AI
4-3.
T°
CitV
m a
-me
POT ELEVATIONS. MICR SLOPES
ma, LLC
Fait. 6et.aatrueture ERa4m M
FA. MOIR
Lab E """`m.,os
eE,ma®a Pms,.naa,s,
A!
2001
L SE.. woo
'ARATIPN
PATE
0mo.
Me 1124613 R.
M.. RECO. M OR a. SRTED ruSTRuCT RR
Reuse OF OCCIYERTS
M MOVE aRUcarTe. »o
WV. r WI HOT .E USED ..aa.r LK
APPRO.. s ,MN a .R.,TwERwE Na O.aR..FeT. LEG W AAN APPRO..
DSE R ILE SOLE RSnMS.m,TS R M uRWTMRIEM DEER,
.LTS. roomer.
a.KI .aINC .CONTR.ETOR NOM OWNERS !RECORDS.
er OM
ii
ceusaa w a .1611
RRONS SY .31Y3S
ENGINEERING
CROSS SECTION
A -NAND LOCATOR
oFCxxe
xovo
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW- 383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. aR.E3OTA
.pM...,..smM
9Db.�;,= �°�1'� °b`
RRAMeM..Y��Ni6TR.l..lR.
Mod
n -�9,
*Foth
N> or
Mit
DESCRIPTION
00
RD.1CO D
OF PRO
L a J
A
Environment, LLC
Infrastructure a Environment,
Inamon""""""'""r"06
mon*
NW NOM NM MOM
A
A A
1
t O NmR
n e `;`25/Oa 1 40 Ra a
RD O ANDL Or COWLS. CabTRRLTIM el
DE
R M ,RmD, ea RE E RAN° EM A sank APP ICAT1M .w
R R9 eTRRE IT e, SC MO WM.
,R,x°R1mTO•rto+ APPROVAL sn RC °f sr MROniry u� i.wwMl
R xaa MOMS a MOWED E0c az 1M
COI. TO CONTRACTOR .e.M CORMS
OT OAR
a_
c VERTICAL
0w0
w0-
2w0-
3,00-
5w0.-
1
2w0-
9w0-
10 .00-
11.00-
12.00-
13400+
19.00-
20.00-
21 w0-
22.00
23.00-
29+00-
25+00-
26.00
n.00-
20.00
29 .00-
30.00
f
0
PI
J
Elevation
EEEE
0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Elevation
m
C7
0
Z
400
1400
2.00-4
3400-4
Two --4
6+007
9w0
10+00
1400 ..T.
12+00 -7i-
13400
14+00-
1
15.00 7 771
16.00-
,7400
i
16wo -4
19 +00 --1-
I
I
20 +00 I
21400 -1
22400 -1
23400— I
24+00
25w0-
26400—
26 +00
26+00
29 +00
30+00
31+00
32400—
33+00-L-
34400-:
35400
36 +00
37400
Elevation
Elevation
8
o z
y G)
co 2
CD M
0 XI
i Z
0
9
5
8
REVISIONS
Or Can
A
1ESCBIPTIOR
RECOOD .0•014 a .ancTT6 Ie6TT+m.1 n
AEONS a. iw TO CONTRACTS. 0 •m i[caos
OATS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
(MOTS COUNTY R05ESMAIT UIIOESOT•
1.•.yy.•Y/g4.e.1..
•Foth
lf"
Seth Infrastructure E 5Iroemmt. LLC
s..+.•• ■R.•e.a u.I►. 4.
r, MK Me
Mow 1161.11040.111. 9111-111114101_
REUSE OF 000*I&TITS
q n 00.uer WS •r01 enlsm FOS WILMS urtaRe •T 010
011 GEMAL USE MOYNE IT OM TOT E 1610 IMMO OE
4 uuw mVED 164 611E SOLE 1em
1 1016Im uu
SCALEt AS PM
.wacT m ORM
ENGINEERING
CROSS SECTION
o-o'
L06
MOM
oAA,.
EIATE
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW-383
DAKOTA COMITY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
.....v.............
NNWON.I.ONOINNo••.N.V
SNels.**11.114••NIANANNI
ProloabodEmpsemd•Solosdin•
alootA•moI•
-11.90144.4
4
Ar
40 Fo
NO. III
OM
RESCRIRVION
AS ONV
1. -n-os
unman DITC■0 WANG
1E
_hV
Roth kinstroeture IL erelnameent, LLC
.0. 1.11i II
0111,1*.adrawl11.01411411•1•1
Lod. Wm. MOW
Ihelotoriaameletwanfia4155,
a A
A
A
A
EE6 2
sr... TQDE
mw
YUTIIM
IMMIE
mem
qz
=do [own.
OF MALVIN CONSINUCTIO• re,
nos mama Am L Mom Ton As motional mo
reTFOR MEM ME MINIM IT NAV NOT OE MO AMOR 116
MEM OM.. OF Fan OilltiTIRKNAIE AN1 NIVIRMENT. I..
UNAPPRONN) a IS IIN SOU NIONONONAILIT CV RE ANAUTIoNOSED IISER,
NIMONO NIAINNON OF COWLS CONSTRACTION
COMFARNO TO CONTRACTOR MOMS OWNER =OROS
OF DATE
rriert"r.-w
s g
VERTICAL
Elevation
ggt 8 8 g 8 8 88 8 8
Elevation
E
rn
0
z
1 15
SCALE, AS SHOMM
YEWSCY P CMOS
ENGINEERING
CROSS SECTION
E -E'
fITMLE
raE VISIOAS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
080010 cowry H05EYO1NT. MINNESOTA
1^in°...k•+°+o.
..erg p,..w...
foloosMa
G Foth
DA E
DESCRIPTION
F3
WONTED °1 °a F sms
_CEP
COPPER
SEE
OF PREI
MY j
I; `Tn"e„" a Environment, uc
L� z Whi o EY. 11■wo� Mr°
1....651.1.463$0 n o$ '4 I S s 1
A A
A
A
PUS SEPT. EPOS
w
EV �j 8.,.8:�
MOM MA°1E s 01.LETm Ee61B1[TI I
113 MM. MS BEO118 .16 FOE A 181 111 Inl 1CATle1 00
01108 METAL USE T EM ME IT ..T MT 1Z LSO 01„.1311E
I.1OF M MMIMMED MEN
uu ME II TTM SOLE AESPOMiSO.
MOM 1840108 DE ceR[TEV C06181C11e1
102880 F TO 011r8AC1m u0.A81MOS RECORDS.
11,1E
VERTICAL
0l
1 1 0+00
2.00
1+00
7100—
8400
9.00-
10000-
000
12000-
13000
11.00—
15000
16300—
n.00—
18000
19.00
20000
21.00
22.00
23.00
21.00
25.00
21100
2r.00-
28100-
29000
30.00
31400
1+00
3 .00—
5A00—
6100
Elevation
Elevation
N
m
n
-1
d
z
m
A
F
r. m
E
73 m
y
u
1 7 m m
0 Z
0 0
0
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -363
14.00 6 COUNTY ROSEYO1Nr. NINNESUT.
,�,.w....Na......
o,, i°
r .r.r
R
214
8 F0
n
40 6
UESC.IPTION
o
m
i
MN lanotraoeun a EmkenwM, LLO
NwwN.■
I�Na I iloolomol Its/40/1• ION
lab I NY M
8
s
m g
MO. N...ue
ff
mwn rn. .1
Rea 0011.1011011
.FUSE 0r 00a.[Nrs
b ITII r w i.r um :nt."ug1,
N /1490.• s ..n 31 .ru.. 0.m...r. Ye
JOINVI Y. (AO N ME IN➢...RYY s M YmN1.N.m MP,
RMO 9...n.s z 0056015 m,um.rlo.
*mow .r.. r. mn..era w MOMS
Br a 041045
R
N..
0,N 4..2.4
0400
1.00
2400
3000
9 00
5400
6 .00
T .00
9W0
9400
10400
11.00
12.00
13.00
14400
15400
16+00
1 TWO 4-
16+00
19+00
20+00 21.00-1-
22.00
23+00
24.00
25+00
26+00
27.00
29 +00
29+00
1
7
Devotion
Elevation
N
m
C
0
z
I 17 1
EA m MOW
NMOIS Sr .31Y3S
ENGINEERING
CROSS SECTION
G-G'
R 9
g
I=
GATE
E
RV/MIME
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
MIME COUNTY R0SEMOUNT. 1208E5074
lM.N..4R9.N4w+...
nwR .R.R..II.O.rRr
d NM.M
aman ...1.R°
Ytl1°"�• J
40..44 n•U
Fri th
w
DESCRIPTION
Mro En "°e ",°e
A
E
c wEN
CST I
W..,,., 1nu;'au°°°` Environment, EiC
"'E 1Ms.M1t06
Nr..1..NIn Rm ■1A.NH
A
TEL SOP I
SEPT, SOSO
JAN. PODS I
SEPT, POO.
AMATION
q /2sJD�
RE� roomer O AIMO ay 01761681104 Mr
REUSE OF °0`uc' TS
WIT. MMus OF ,MUIO E w 1 T Y OE M ITI MIT i U.C.
MMRpR°y®� R0 NE IDUT OF q E Ony. 4
*In 00.3 WOODS.
tOmmoodos To C.W.O. DATE
VERTICAL
0400
1.00
2400
3.00
4.00
5.00
6400
7400
9.00
9+00
10.00
11.00
12+00
15+00
14400
15+00
16400 1-
17400
16400
19
20+00
21.00
22.00
23
2.400
25+00
26400
27+00
29.00
29+00
30+00 4
31.00
32+00
0 o n o 2 o 0 0 0 o
4-
a o 0 8 o 8 8 0 0
Elevation
0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Elevation
n e o
8
m
n
0
z
C)
C)
1 fr
a
A
I'
ti 2
0
8 zm
w e
2
TO Ell
M m
0 M
zi E
00
Z
1111
p
Pt
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW-383
DAKOTA COI.MTV ROSEMOUNT. MINMESOTA
11*.m.o...p..,......
...........w.....,
PARROADADA
ft.... Vida-M. adol-P"
lit
NA
G F
PM OT
OATS
DESCRIPTION
CEF
9-7.3-ot
UPDATED DIMES 03114.
liEVR
4
A
A
A
Fee lariestrmetsere R. Rindreminsid, ELC
N
=se 16.......k.a..,......us
Rim 1.4 MOM
Mum leiSNAMED DAR 1111141.1.111
Tms mom. RAS EZ A gam ~Ana AO
NNW EINEM UM TIENEFORE IT RAT NOT M USED WWI IRE
memo. IISE PS NC SW IMPOWILITT OF ME WNW= 50'!, WM Ammo. s mu DomsoluermE mo onocalott. us_
/1, A
A
A
il
1 i
AA
0 z,
m
rn
REMO MAW OF
OWLETS!, CONSTRICTION WI
Mom WOW AE
commeme re coonvAcres 000(18 mos Kamm
AT DATE
Dem Rm..=
Elevation
Elevation
S
REVISIONS
XXX
DATE
A.
DESCRIPTION
CO CONSTRUCTION
CONFORMING TO CONTRACTOR OTO/OR MITERS RECORDS.
BY PATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
I no eraBN NI M. M,R.ehoM
rn pKINa paare M.rrr.rmr
MN RF.MOn and MIN. R %Dmwr
RN*. FrOmer um.. to Wm Ere
Nab OCRs.
4Foth
Folk Infrastructure Environment, LLC
Pm& Point
n
Era Ram MN 5S00 .rb.tl
PNnn.:101a41141560 FeO an:ISBUSI
REUSE OF POOR ENTS
THIS DOCUMENT Drs BEEN DEVELOPED FOR A SPECIFIC APPLICATION MO
USE TitraFO 11 MAT NOT BE useD WITHOUT VIE
BRITTEN USE S THE SOLE S SPONSIBILITY OF N USER..
1
1 I
1
1
Li
s
871
880 Th\A
A
840
83'-
IT
I nllc l
II�II I�
II4 I I I
Fa
no
i" i
2
REVISIONS
DATE
DESCRIPTION
RECCRD [RAM.. rc maYETS° Col$TRIIETRRI sr
REMO DRAWINGS ST DRYING TO CONTRACTOR ASOZOR OWNERS RECORDS DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
I MaY.Rr Ra tt /`M1 aama..
f Ipolwat.w.M.00ay.
ltl mMlDMI mnd N I Na R duly
emMmtma.h M.. dos
S OP 4+NG M^'�
oamem
25" (2/3RL.E..ro,
•Foth
4,1 osso xr..RambraewM St. IDS
I.r FYq RM YOIt
mar Rflm•lsm fm olsmsausl
REUSE OP DOCUMENTS
TICS DOCUlelt CIDER. DEVELOPED TOR SPECIFIC •pmJE•N. M0
x0 Tacf MID DIVERO NT. LAC.
sRwi
WRITTEN USE IS TIE S DES wra®um OF THE wwTlv11. OsEy
07,'
i
0 +00
�t0
3 +0J_
6±00
9 +.0
_11.00
12L11n—
_13100
19.D0
153110
16.00
_17300
IV
1
18.00
19.00
20.00
21000
22.00
23.00
x.00
25 +00
I
26.00
r
X1
O ry
m l"
-19
c 10
,m—zx
Z
c
0
a
REVISIONS
m
A
BY
DATE
DESCRIPTION
RECORD SMACK OF COMPLETED w¢TROCTION Br
RECORD
coNFoRUIND TO CONTRACTOR O. I OR Ow.. RECORDS
BY DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
0000TH COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
I�n.eer� NNNT Me, mom
prolasska ENINNN
•Foth
rota Infrastructure 8 Environment, LLC
Eagle 14 .11
4 4 e
BSSOM aw Boulevard North,.. IDS
lab n0e,aN -0550
FNamr635 25041.30 FAX mamas,
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
OCCOMENT wSSUR DEVELOPED A SPECIFIC m MR*u e TIION Em
K
VED USE IS NA SOLE RESPONSIBILITY Or TNE UNDMIDRICEO USER
SCALE. AS SWAN
050..FCi Io
RECYCLING I
TRANSFER
FACILITY PLAN
e51
1 51117E7E0
REVISIONS
PERMIT RENEWAL DRAWING
FOR THE SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW-383
0.0 T• COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MURESOTA UN
9 Foth
Cl
BY CUTE
DESCRIPTION
SKY A
A
ii
BY
A A
I
Roth Infrastructure Ear ronntsut, LLC
se^ tau.
FSSO Naar brim. Mord, swit. YRS
A A
A
A
1....•,11•1 Ma
P.m IMISIM462.0 F.= RD'I.P•SPI
E
DATE
RECORD
L`-
AHATI
MAIM OF CCAPTEITO CONSTRUCTION BY
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
TNIS DM.. I.S NEP DEVELOPO FOR Y. Srf./FIC ARRLICATION ARO
NOTRON CDCRA1 uSE. INOWCONE 77 RAT WI +E USW NITSILF7 7.
WRIT?. AMY. OF MN bil•STRUCTURC 1410 FRYMOtmENT. LI.
TRAPPROWO USE IS RE MR RFSPONSMILITY OF TRY MAUTIIBRI110 LIM,
COISORUINC TO CONTRACTOR ARCM, MFRS RECORDS
IT OM OF COIRRETE11 CONSTRUCTION
OAR
A
m
BY
XXX
DATE
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
RECORD NMNeC IF CeaLTED COMTMCTIN rY
RECORD IRO 11) CONTRACTOR CINEIRUCTION
a AAMIOR IIMS RECORDS
BY DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
IMgaKgm+HNe. Wore..
dnolsmislamolONINA APO MANNA
PoNsslevl or. AN WINN..
MN DI lAlwasoN.
RAW 1 /2c /t6R.F.m
GFoth
Foth Infrastructure Environment, LLC
MO M1idN
4 110..4 MO rem• xwhln NAM. WINK.,
ER. aRR. R wa
68,2//1.5501.c1131.28.11.451
REUSE OF DOCUE@NTS
FED FORA SPECIFIC APPLICATION Awl
Two DOCUMENT CENTRAL F IT NW NOT DE USED .ITIROT nc
UNAPPROVED APPROVAL OF 50L E ola�TT a T. W .I.T IC CRIim 5!!!,
NOT TO SCALE
MU. W 015003
DETAILS
INTERIOR BERMS
AND SADDLE AREAS
xsuxB
aEam
1 1
3
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
OMOTA COUNTY ROSSEYOINT, MINNESOTA
N.wms.+..n+.+r
OINON. "mANIAli
W iltr•••••••••
E
.a+. U
Foth
N
DESCRIPTION
GOWN
c5v
Of PREI
L BY
N I.fra.44FFWR. EnWn.NN..FR lLC
N•" rem
..swHR✓tE01... .L{OI
A
A
1111
AOr.
O R
0. V ZS wn.IN
REAM
MINK OF
CAMEO. Cb.TOCTIE N
RE16E S ILO
nASS DOOM. NO S ILO! N 4�C nn1OTwR N0
F
AMR WON. I f TO M R wT NOT E EN USED 0.. rt.
NFpg0yl0 WE 00 Of SOLI pa m.In IA Of ISAMORIZED .60,
RED= MAMA OF CAPLEYED CONSTRUCTION
CONFORM. TO OloNACTOR NDM DOOM EmOi
Or DATE
TYPICAL CELL 2/CELL 3 6 INTERIOR BERM DETAL
01
-1
r)
r
m
r
01
r
m
m
n
F
m
2
-1
m
z
m
1
m
1
REWSI G
DESCRIPTION
RECORD DRAWN% Of Ca.0.ETED wNDTRrtna
DOODAD ION
INDi Od.lcrtD m,cTRNn
wRRACTU AND/OR ORINRF RECORD.
OATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW-383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOINT. OMESOT•
•MNIEINSMIN Iy Foth
R npensastiMsvuw q
e lawslS NdANllwegI
morn lfipNNWNbr dIN
4eisa FRM InGOfeueNTFe 4 Environment, LLC
U IM wh 3042 Salto INS
PoeeeeN O+""• Mona 1.m a Fm 014..41
V C/DI; netters
OEM OF MR DOCUMENT DAS DEVELOPED ION .Y FFL6K_MR N ICATiW AND
:pa 010101:1,113 F. TNERFINIE IT 1141 WTI v.N ur IVED nc zaE ssw SIDILn. Or THE UNDU NON USEN
c
n
myz T-o
o n
Migf.
m -i
z m
1
REVISIONS
MAJOR M ODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
.a..w.+..r++_
smornmump•olioom W D..r•R
nW4.Tp..rYblOtlb
m ra
es+..� I•
$JFoth
T.
a.,E
DESCRIPTION
a
o
AA-
Roth 4.hatroe4w. 6 Eevheimrn4 LLC
e rKrw■
Mom. r Pola s w•a
n.. wrr+ars+
a DOELONNTS
TTr DeDmow a Nom r.uar Ta wows r..TaTri N0
s
MOW. LIRE T.asa.[ IT INN ioT r MO NT.wT TIC
osna warm a Font .s.nIncruc .o D.ar...f. uc
A.ryryr 1.6E n .E ME z9raa¢Trt OF TTE r../DN.ON .6f>
D
E
n
T aTNm
MINN s
wanm rN.TTacTmT N
Der
L C�
S
ow.ae OF D.RfifD TxrTTacTrT
oriw m T..T..cm..a.r area WINOS
N rn
w6 .mN
fA
n
r
m
a m
n r
xr
m�
r tri
mm
mm
a n
z
o
C z
'y Z
a
a
M-
a Aa
a
A
1 27 1
NOT TO SCALE
PRNECT ro OTS001
DETAILS-
PERIMETER BERM
AND FINAL COVER
luawm
OEM
awrcno
n..N
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
088or• COUNTY Ro$EYQNr. MIMIESOr•
RN.RyeEDRrap. S.M
M.N.....� Rw..M
mwerr s+. sr.as
°Ma
��B
Ebr .M��
g
or r Tf p a .o. ma
FOth
b e.
wrz
DESCRIPTION
z+cA
n M
OF PRE,
�flY
I °h; Infrastructure Environment, LLC
E.0 a +.5
Mom 15,.2.11550 Faso RHesf,S,
A
f0W
SEPT. 1006
i
g
Y
1
RECORD
IOO M.LErzh C T ET
ORA Or 0 d61ROCIM
REUSE OF 00CURWHT9
un =Wan MS DUN DEVELOPED TOR A =EWE APPLICATOR. aw
0, 08)0.01 1.5E. MOM THEREFORE IT wT NOT DE MED 718
=APPROVED 8 5 nE DOLE 808Po0 T n Y 8 )0I)RI DOER
ucau o 48 8 S s CPPLErto cros=OCT
O/E RECORD
WKAMING TO CONTRACT= APO/Col DINERS S.
0T DATE
•41 4
PRDPERTY LINE
EDGE ROAD /DITCH
958.758.7 E
SUBGRADE CUT
958.743.2E
EDGE ROAD 958.783 .7 7 E
om
CENTER LINE DITCH
958.753.95 E
BACK BERM 958.749.2 E
_WASTE 1114175
EAST 51DE 958.736.7 E)
P:
m
rn
a
Ea
In
17
n
m
m r
na
r
C') X
p1 rrl
AP'
tg
TYPICAL CELL 5 PERIMETER BERM/FINAL COVER DETAIL
31VOS 01 10N
CEn
m'
REVISIONS
A
A
A
DATE
DESCRIPTION
Kmo mwoo oF TaaETED mSTUCno.
nECm Damns OF c=PUCrto Up6TaCTREN
caro.mm TO cartweTCO AETOn ORIEU tams
NY
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
OAROTE COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINIESOTA
immwmayleolNamm,slk.m.
dhouronokomitehosoielorosi
ar u m
H
OMR iO$wEn1211
eFoth
FWh Infrastructure Environment, IJ.0
M IRS
Woo OE,. Mel
Mast osaaESm INUE os -nsESI
REUSE OF DOC MCNTS
T wS ouaam wS m DEVELOPED FOR E SI WWIC APPLICATION MO
Uac wE
TroS IT NAT NOT x USED wow, NE
U IMI APPROVAL OF FEED nE 1 ma
EASITUC DS.UENT. LL.
&APPR vm UAL IS TUC ME usmanm'
a OF 1) TUC uaurmx® LEER,
8
E
R
REVISIONS
A
DATE
DESCRIPTION
wsmNE OF mnETED COKTRACTICR IT
REmlp RR•anEE OF COMPLETED CnmROCTION
CONFOmOC TO CONTRA. AMEN KKK WORDS
ST DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COLMTY ROSEMOUNT. UIMCSOTA
er ens
u+a LS Rq EOna
9Foth
Foth Infrastructure EnvIromn-nE, LLC
elcbil -9
NW E.». w sum
n.ImnnamaEmrmwwwn
REUSE CC DOCUMENTS
MS MAN. N•E KEN OET6CFm Pm N SPECIFIC PRIDATim •Ia
K I£FR& USE TIE IT MT POT K USED RTUUT 1NF
K ITTEN AMOTC CO IOTN INFRASTRUCTURE UU M. LLC
m
KAPPSTO USE LS TIE SOLE RFSPON54Rrt1 OF RE mOUT WTIC OKEED USER
NOT TO SCALE
IMAM M 015005
DETAILS
LEACHATE
SUMPS
KAMM
aEam
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY RpSEYOIHT, MINNESOTA
iam..Rr.'+..e......+
y1'ti�"„'° Wm.
VANdMm"
G� G
Foth
«o IN
UM
UESCRIPT /OY
A
Of PREI
BT
A
ITdra.truetu.m Ee.YsaRmn t, LLC
INN. mama MAIM Urr in
I.R. lb, MUM
Rom 01 ns+wo FA= .614114.0181
A
P
g
°ION
we q
ZS /d w.ms
NEMO
DRAM. o conSTED TamTYCnw OP
RERrsE a OOOED(!!TS
�.eNT MS m a.Riarm PM SPUME nn.d.TR. NO
NUM COMM me TOME IT MT NOT RED USED MOLT NE
NY.ypyED UM as O. s� Rmyaeny Or M M v f m USER,
.cam DRAMS s Call[TED CO SUUCTwY
a.eoYOm To CONTRACTOR MUM aaEDS Y:EDEDS
IT DAM
of z
m
2
W
1
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
IEC00 .0.6 OP MAIM Cp61NCTIM BY
MONO DNNa65 OF CNNEIID CbKTMTIDN
COMMUNE 10 CONTRICm. »w00 ODERS NCUmS.
ET Torre
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -363
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. UDOESOTA
Foth
P E PEW.. Mrsaal6pav
W.. aNCtlIaNEbu r
HV N
olIkem yra�r6. a.ra
rar. Fe6M1 Infrastruefu
r y� 4,11._ J/�,` et. Environment, LLC
nary l7R4l x/, eS, mN �.r.r wymr tot M.p Da. Mo ENI..IA
Mom 89I4E6100 Fai RfiYDSN
RASE OF DOO ENrs
nos 00C..0.1 BAS 10a DEVELOPED PM A SPECIFIC APPLICATION NO
0 �Y 6 FON INFRASTIOCEEL NO 8 01. NOY PC
DIDParD 0E IS TIE SSE IESV01EIDDITY 00 TIE 00*105® IDEK,
NUT TO SCALE
DETAILS
LEACHATE
STORAGE TANKS
AND LIFT STATION
I rcakxm
oEnm
i COMM
m
av
DATE OF PFD
1 TV
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW 383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEYOIni. YIMESOTI
�.r_�=
w :arou"
after
wY p r�/y19�
Fn
n
wn
DESCRIPTION
01 DATA
Z+1
I
RAM idra ww `hme asn "O�eed, LLC
-d M ...r... Y....+r
l. ate, NN w.0
Wr
MEM 01411146511 no .61
A
EEL SONS
AM MIS
SoM
MM. MOO
9� zs�oRRaP�
mum m nw OF rnLSL.TED ai6TRLEDON BY
E aP FOE A n
.>..n,� ;IC ODO N.
WINCE s TYTCaa IT MAT NOT BE iem T. T.
*WM ISE IS DE SOLE rtA�YalTT iR
6 COMPLETED COMMONS R.
COLOREDS TO L ,ER Alin. MINDS MOM
BY wT[
Pc KR�R s K
Ri W:6
NMI/ MIL I
War CII teL
Fran T't1oO
Hein
1Y Vt stA p
4!
I: i
0
1 1
mv.rox OF
RAM. 07
01 DATA
Z+1
I
RI
1
1
r4@ Ra `ss
2
Pi
9
1
6
7
DUPLEX GUIDE RAIL DISCONNECT SYSTEM
'stollens \SI
8
r
m
m
oz
w
m
i3
m
-a
m
P1
P1
P1
r
r
z
z
m
2'
r ni p
1 0
m'AT
N
1
p 6
e
1
p
REVISIONS
m
DT
m A A
DESCRIPTION
RECORD CRA.NS OF Ev•crm co.TwnMN sr
REDM
BY TO wTRAC DATE MERE rtan0s
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
0M0TA COMITY ROSEMOUNT. MTNESO A
GFoth
Foul Infrastructure Environment, uC
n -P IW Mb Ira
e MOdn�
PDem1 W.TMOW Po¢Y
o.iwsrTma
nrwAw. PAFAl p.m ArMrry
PtlebiYfiyn u R•Y
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
DoCINENT ma eEO. DEVELOPED FOR A Mccvrc MnMATR.. AMI
ND MEM urc vursarE Mr UM w, es DSc EITRORT nc
A W O VE ww s
ArAL COIN EsWASmm TLRE A O ENVM.ER10.
DNAWRDVED use Is TIE S.£ M[Y.bM¢R„ s NE UNAUMMUEEO YSFA�
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT m 071003
DETAILS
LEACHATE
MANHOLES
0117
f
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKBROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA town ROSFINIWT. u1r+ESOU
I NN Y N MSRN K+�.O
d
do m.;
j
v
Foth
MR
DESCRIPTION
A
1 v
OF PRE]
BY
°s/h am`ti°•& O00M°r'tu
MO ..raboodIMaOAin
Wrer.,.Nwoa
rr.w.s.w...o.,m..n
5
MOO
ukq /24ICAr Harare
MOOG s mn.TED cna,urt SI aN
,wo room wo a os N ORIGAMI .io
KRIM taEERLL uG T�E60t IT TM of t 16® WIDOW M
TIL ME IS M KU MOOMs�m s TIE IMAIIIMMIZIO NOV
scomO mums or cuwaTES cOST.nicO
TO tM1WCTOO Y•N MOM ROOM
TT art
a
1
m
rn
m
2
R
m
m
-f
W
01
J
88 R
4 d
9 LZ
RA
B
9
8
4
tp
5
m
r
m
8
2
a
6
REVISIONS
DATE
408 A A
4 8
AA A
DESCRIPTION
RECORD DRAWING OF COMPLETED CONSTRUCTOR rY
OF COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION
MWOnRN4 TO CONTRACTOR 4/0 S.
MOTS RECCNO
ET DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
GFoth
TA,N.Nn.I MR* Nsw NA.ar+
asa 051411
o Infrastructure a EnvfronmenEnvironment. LI.0
E
'r" w...Fa FwFp UN. OM
S N a r WOO
a
Few sts
nsassR r+e estan+ssT
D i 25
REUSE CP DOCUMENTS
ppn
MS ,F LNS SEEN DEVELOPED FOR A SPECIFIC APPLICATION AND
NOTFOR GENERAL uSF.
USED NON]IFi TN:
MPTUSTC AAD RLuIR MEDI LLC.
nAPPROVED SEE N RFS PeS iBttiTi Oi Tt MaADTx USED
I.
I.
P. m
M o
z
d v G)
0 in
in
m 0)
m M
g
S'
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW-383
O.OTA COI NTY ROSErwJT. UIO&SOTA
..o. ...1.rdy"
1
so.. 1 s
q ZS Gl� a
le Foth
ND. DT
DATE
OEscRIFTION
1
e
"`iw. a E.we..rR4 u c
A..d+�
A
5
m
O
REUSE OF OCCUERTs
,.s ODO DA 0 M. T
.,T. mn.. n T NOT E
O DO En[ mv,T o
w CONTRACTOR °n`F° o.a o .�c .s i
DT DATE
o.. ft..
LA
n
m -C
9 r)
5
c v
A x
as
H N
2 m
0
m
z
im
a s
P_
2
co
c
m
z SD
x
S
n$
22
e §A
eaa
a
W
V
F
x
A
m
c EXTENT OF EXISTING
n CLAY LINER
m
m
z
REVISIONS
DATE
DESCRIPTION
RECORD MAIMS OF CO MISTCO CONSOMME BY
DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COMITY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
GFoth
rn{al PRpeRRMR.vmRRq
M RDRNtlm elM M1I N a.1u411��
Px4
ewa FoM Infrastructure LLC
sus, es. lnsn4
No+6R 1YY N(.Ir...s NMI4,wr
lYg ND.t
ILOalmm
Memo 66,41(4+650 Fm 44,41waN
D.: 9/Zs /ONg w.ma
REUSE TV DOCUMENTS
NOME DEMME USE MAUVE IT sa "MT DE MED MINSIT
MITTEN NKN ER
S+INCRAS A NwrARN. ELL
m
N.PuveD USE IS .E DOLE REVnmmrn OF IE wvrrlRRRm MA.
pa
A
n T.
P
m C
M
REVISIONS
A
A
[Yt
DAVI
I-S-0I
DAV
DESCRIPTION
NOES SETLL VIII Y WM EM
I. WIDE eau BRITON
FROND elun< R CIEIFRO CONSIRUCTIM N
RECORD
ECOR MA II MAPUTO RY CDRSIIORION TO EDxIWtTOR MOM PRIERS ROOM.
E SATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW-383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOINT, YINNESOTN
ryw o.IIREY NRLROriR
OIOgRilbRr�IYIENUEd
NOV PolmlaRI
EIRRIR
t(.
Mon
GFoth
m
lr RlV•olE WY IN
Moe StiaawnNm awwas+
REUSE OE DOCIEETITS
DOORE E FIN
II WC d MOMS TOR D IS APPLICATION p MO
Rol GOER. ICZ IIERIRE R WY ROY E USSR EIWT RE
MIT. APPROVAL 01,0111 Ian ENVINOW011.4..
JYERIED UST IS RE EYE EYNEERI1Y CV RE W WIIRNIIIU IEiRR,
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
CO
O
0
co
O
O
O
O
v
O
CO
O
0
CD
O
0
O
0
O
O
W
CO
0
co
0
CO
0
z
-o
x z
m
REVISIONS
worn RETAINING PALL ELEVATIONS
Br
DESCRIPTION
RE[MO °RARING OF [BYRU O CONSTRUCTION HT
RECORD DRAW., OF CONFUTED C FORMING TO CONTRACT R OGRE. RECORDS.
BT DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COIINT0 RDSEMOIMT. MfemES0T6
P anAN As*. ON Pan. AP...
erm NRamtlgmem ubu
ValootLAHNsoOL
Swam
�1 +L5 /v'URep,/ MOD
DON
GFoth
Foth Infrastructure Environment, LLC
tom Pa n
.ff).A.. ae La. n *sod Newsom to DRAY
Pan RING 651-7211.8651
REUSE OF 00CNAENTS
TICS NO p °nl�m.i THEREFORE IT i A AN BE u ED APPLICATION TIC
AI/APPROVED USE APPROVAL SOLE INFRASTRUCTURE AND 7NE I NORICE0 a Dy
El
E m
E v
Z
m o
m a_
F
I
66
n
m
REVISIONS
MAJOR M ODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR TH
SK ROSEMOUNT
I NDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY POSIONT NT. ITIMESOTA
in.+rgbE.
Y'°' TV
7
PP+�
q 04 04
e Foth
w m
wDM
DESCPIPTIOP
c ll
i a3
P
E
a
5,
A
by Seed Coma Fab
10.0
Mix Seeds Per Aae
8,710,380
by wt. Forbi
10.0
Foe. Ist
Pea
NM N.IRT•
E .r�aclPa
®A
Pp i 7�g$y� Q °Q+
$4 1
$6° $$8 tl8O B
A te
N oc mq� em! 1..
x
S E
yy g
S Y
n
O oP q V
meow
Ear. EP q
N...aT.s.a ww.ai
Ton Doo.euT MS wwtPm roil A .R.e.•T� re
welt. TwOOTE IT wT ran E MO MOOT Tie wenn
�.A1mS'C ron KYSnOCTI me wTOO.0 W
MO s Tie SOLE rmsedm s Tic ugnwn� x5.
cmPO w .PO m m� w x„
0
wnAT q A1eTm TATr�
TO T
O TE
0
by Seed Count Grasses
72.0
MIS Seeds Per Square Foot
200
%by wt. Graeae
83.0
Total:
Recommended Rate: 10.0 (PLS Ibsleere)
Fo.bc
Gmm IAC
Gm0001
yy J i i! ti111 ii fl fl111 ijif i ii 1 i ij
a
by Seed Count Graminolds
18.0
MIK Seeds Per Square Yard
1.802
by wL Grantnokle
7.0
1 1 1 1 I lia i. 1 1 111 1 1 1 11
c ll
i a3
T 'oai i TN i s
QQ
Os s C'
by Seed Coma Fab
10.0
Mix Seeds Per Aae
8,710,380
by wt. Forbi
10.0
±i5�v l4 n§ St�PQQ+}+Qn�gQ§Q S' g
El §0 625 ?S t§8 8§86
W q A q
a$ a§
Pp i 7�g$y� Q °Q+
$4 1
$6° $$8 tl8O B
,t t,'21 iAam I..2S i22g Ai N
+N, W im
N oc mq� em! 1..
ew q o o+
a+ N Ir s q Tr N W a [a a
O oP q V
Tn eg
g O D C
0
s
TYPICAL REPLACMENT WETLAND LINING CONFIGURATION
REPLACEMENT WETLAND SEED MIXTURE
31 01 10N
w'mom
2
2
g
2
2
2
REVISIONS
1 -23-10
BT
DATE
DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION REVISIONS TO ALL
1000 DETAIL 11/11
MEOW MANDE s urLERn OneTRIETION IY
WOW P0.11D. 0.11D Of
EDD D UTED canTDUCTIax
D m+m nOR •10/011
OINOS NUM
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
Sway urq MOMga �anK
*NI nPntlDDiNIW l 001 tlulT Uao1
F.Smie A EyDrWDbl�tlb
ANN
ft*" o�o.�.
q/25 /o b
Doc
,1rs,.
Foth
n
Foils Inhnstrnet *n Environment, LLC
Da* FAN II
g-A.E BSD* KW* NAM Kalb lm
Lab lbw, Em BOO
Flow Nmi•SW imNr.asgll
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
EMI DDrMnr NES BEEN DEVELOPED MN A WEEVIL .RLWTnN AND
7,041.0. 17 NO WT OE LIMO 10711107110L111 DE.
11.77 a APPROVAL USE 10 10711 0PPDSnuuTMK 1.1.0.141:1117. 10
1um 11 M 71. PP.1D 11R SOLE NESPnnnw 11 uM
TT av RR YfNMIffR 11001,
REVISIONS
BY
XXX
DESCRIPTION
RECORD DRAWING OF COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION BY
RECORD DRAWINGS OF MIRE
BY DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
o `iIZS /D� R.p..aa.
y G Foth
And atl raslaR•nrr Um.
ma "M'•,••• aw Roth infrastructure Environment, LLC
EayA•POBA II
ear a
We 65 a/a4 Esc 63138H05I
R EUSE OF DOCUMENTS DEVELOPED FOR MIMIC APPLAATION AND
ROTFOR GFJERAL DSC THEREFORE IT MAY NOT BE BLED WNW( NE
UNAPPROVED USE IS DE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY A OF P hIO USER,
W
a
8
I v z
(7 50
D Z y
o z a
o 13
REVISIONS
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
l�
Bruce F.wDOas
a
4Foth
k.
9-:3 -De
RE,a«TEDSMUTS. .o�NTH
g
wm Infrastructure a ElnEtronment, uC
u,M.a.Ku
IA.. Boulmm.NNRNN,smE.lus
SODAS
65i z s ..�uu,.uu83E,
A
yy
B E
m F
8
o
m
CO e DRAWING
as R .,R
REUSE OF DOCUMEN TINS ITOCIDAPT HAS SEEN DEVELOPED FOR
ux APPROVED USE IS M SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF TN_ UIMITReNZED HSEN NOTFOR WIRRAL USE THEREFORE IT RAT NOT BE USED RITHOuT THE
WRITTEN APPROVAL OF FOTX INER•STRUCTIRE MO ENVIRONMENT. LTC.
OallNC TO WIRERS WIRERS RERECORDS. RT DATE
a)) l(rri
0
t
X
I
'y1 Y 3> {mil
I rn i T1
CH I
FRI
TTO
P,AWI
5P,AW
N
N
8,
1T
6
P
E
2
8 F
9
8
F
AI F:
AI
,,�n.
A467206. AriLIIMPATATIIIIMI
1��A
J�ir;•rr'���d��llPiY�� 'i i7 .r SL sv
NI Imo.: �__r�E.- ..:,..r: Asp
rr III l��i�sil�.yr'i'i�1 MIEMwmorAMmimparralorINIIIIINVaiallrffitill
WIIILWIMIllifilMNIMIIIIIMMIIIIIIIN
('�I' IIMII UMMMI�7�i�lIM::Ti
lN�wi LwR7�r��►,Tilr +i n 011etsiiPmrilh "'""11,
ra p rnurA mpig h wurigmiffmlimist u ggpammum
00101 .01,11iroommigmt=afr
OPP NOVA
alit Oh 11
111410 to 11
gooN lo
0 11
tog
lir 4°1°
JIMAPI 010
alp
CIFINN
itir_ho
Alirdigtt
��i:: NI Na
i
iirah
NIP" NMIIIIIIIWJIMININP
IIIDB ®1190num
111131SHOM
IIIIIiIIIII CI
•1
i
Z
to
ZD
m
8
REVISIONS
ST
IVY
DATE
DESCRIPTION
SHEET RELOCATED
RECORD MATING OF COLVLETED CCFESTRLICTION
RECORD DRANDICS OF CCRPLETFD CONSTRICTION
=NORIO. TO CC TRACToR FoR/DR ORRIS RECORDS.
BY DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
GFoth
Froth Infrastructure Environment. LLC
L o 11N5 12 .aa..n. UM. UM
s>aa
Mow MI M•10. rim sstassasst
REUSE Of
no =Rea MS NOMA GERM. usE TmatEroKK IT my NOT BE 1 NT
ROPPr,vm usE .s ME SOLE nFSPONsmmtt Or ME unuTIMAIIED .Sry
MA CHLINE
3PAW N
DPArW N
m
z
m D
z
-I D
0
zy
m
i
REVISIONS
ST
DATE
SHEET RELOCATED
DESCRIPTION
RECRn DRAWING OF COMPLETED casmECTION BY
RECORD DRAWINcs DF COMPLETED
DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DARO TA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
°se Reee
GFoth
Feth Infrastructure 8 Environment, LLC
Ea& I55O BoarR I Nem, se1.1Ds
Wm e.e. MN SOO
Me O1.za C.
R .av .slaa.a$St
SEEN D OCL O+ VELPED SPECIFIC APnIMTION SE USED WITHOUT co NOYFOR MCRAE USE THEREFORE IT
z
v
zy
m
REVISIONS
A
otV
MOE
DESCRIPTION
SHEET RELOCATED
RECORD DRAMDC CR COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION BY
RECORD DRAWINGS C INC TO CONTRACTOR AND/OR :NERSREDS.
BT DAR
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
1
Nu. EWads
•Foth
F.m Infrastructure a Environment, LLC
K NWw Mivr( ]db IPS
Saha MN, MN MC
Mem: 01m6550 Fan 6SIaB6. 31
REUSE OF DOCWENTS
DGA.NI �sr iNSUoR I. iu RA ee &En r u 7
TN INERASTRDETLRE N ENVIRO NRT.
UN Esc
APPROVED MR ISS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY DE Tic uwmoNIun USER
W
0
S o
zy
m
REVISIONS
DATE
DESCRIPTION
SKEET RELOCATED
RECO.0 ORMOND OP CavLETED CONSTRUCTION BY
CONFORMING TO CONTRACTOR l./13f1 mNERS
BY DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAXOTA COUNT
ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
Brox FWD*
•Foth
Foth Infrastructure Environment, LLC
RAW awmw No.. DANA ,m Asou
rmnk m Fax ASI20Sassl
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
oEiE.aPER `N°, n ,gy Nn
EEENT. c
UNAPPROVED USE S SOLE RS.ONS
TK L I ENVIRDAD
li OF THE euuTNORIEFD USER,
BY
DATE
DESCRIPTION
uv
9-23 -00
RELOCATED
RECORD DRACK DE
wnETEn CONSTRUCTION BY
RECORD DRAWINGS OF CwnETEO CONSTR...
CONFORMING TD CONTRACTOR AND/011 OWNERS RECORDS.
MI DATE
z-v
m
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
OTA COUDTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
•Foth
Foth u frastr.CW.. 8 Environment, LLC
RAMA PAY
MO M RN.* Nw1yf.N tO5 Plumm 631.44550 ram INIONNSAI
im rem
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
TICS DOCINEXT GAS 19.14 DEVELOPED FOR A SPECIFIC APPLICATICN APO
NOTTOR GENERAL USE 1,0IEFORE i7 my NAT BE USED VITNO211 TIE
E...APPROVED ID tai RESPVDSIOD m a R` TIE U MJI I2DD LLC.
W
00 X
z
S o
z�
rn
REVISIONS
A
A
BY
DATE
DESCRIPTION
SHEET RELOCATED
REEF MARINA OF EMLRTE CONSTRUCTION ST
REC DRAM,. OF COMPLETED E MNTNC ,o CONTRACT AND/OR MORSRECORDS.
DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
DAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESDSA
Mc. T was
GFoth
rote Infrastructure Environment. LLC
...Pa. HN...s.NN..m NedNN fmb
La. lan. LIN UM
Mew WI-WHS. fat aWaBbits.
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
ORS DOnuFNT w5 BEEN DV/ELOPED FOR A SPECIFIC APPLICATION WIDOW T ANO
NOTFOR DOER. USE
EN APPROVAL DF ur.wRDrE. uSE n THE SOLE INFRASTRUCTURE THEREFORE o LLC. MO
xa
TE
DESCRIPTION
m ¢v
9-2)
SHEET RELOCATED
RECORD ORANINCS CF CCARETED CONSTRUCTION
CONFoRN NC TO CONTRACTOR ANDFOR OWNERS RECORDS.
01" DATE
zy
m
REVISIONS
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
PATOT• CONNTY ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA
•Foth
Fofh Infrastructure Environment, LLC
tmM ear... w,n bulb INS
USD Lob P ISSI
ram 6514eeasS1
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
1 MS ,„•P-,OWED LSE 1S T»E SOU RESPONSIBILITY OF TIE DNN,TRDRLEED USER,
41.
Co..)
v
m
REVISIONS
COT
DATE
T.a-0T
DESCRIPTION
NFFT MOOD
ROLM 011.010 OF CertETED Ca6T000TION Or
O M. TO EO«TRM
.I VON OWNERS PEEORVs.
DATE
MAJOR MODIFICATION
DRAWINGS FOR THE
SKB ROSEMOUNT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
FACILITY SW -383
OAKOTA COUNTY ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
One F.Woodo
GFoth
Fete Infrastructure Environment, LLC
1 PUM
liudgeo ..wFee
v«... T�AT,inUFTO Fu: SAVYARASSI MU
REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
*FUTTEN OEO, OEV¢aEn roR Srtnru VM1IUi1a. wo
ce uP/ Ti F inns IT M T «OT ME DAI MEPT. TG
TnSI i t IT F D« FNVIRM.FNT. LAG
,,,,FF«D«m s "sa e n=.nsmlITr o DE usEy
PP§§1
P§§
1
U)
z
0
12 16=
1 1 1
O u)
W
(f) 0
0
03 -4
z
0
0
0
a
8
0
0
z
0
8
0
.0z/zo
Views from the Pine Bend Bluff SNA
View towards Endres
View towards Endres
View towards Cenex
View to the South
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JULY 22, 2008
5.c. SKB Environmental Interim Use Permit (08- 18 -IUP). SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) is
requesting a revision to their Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow an expansion to their facility at
13425 Courthouse Boulevard from 112 acres of disposal area to 151 acres of disposal area. The
proposed expansion in size includes an expansion in total disposal volume from about 15 million
cubic yards to almost 27 million cubic yards, representing a 73% increase, and also includes an
increase in the finish height of the landfill of 40 feet.
Senior Planner Zweber stated that SKB has agreed to process an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for review of their proposed expansion. Because of the time to process this
environmental review, Mr. Zweber further stated that staff is not asking for any action to be taken
at tonight's meeting. He reviewed in detail the policy implications associated with aspects of the
expansion, particularly the filling, buffer and mitigation of wetlands, storm water management,
particularly as it concerns the wetlands, and the proposed height of the expansion. Mr. Zweber
also discussed 140 Street and how the expansion could affect the future plans for the street
development.
The Applicant, Richard O'Hara, president and owner, SKB Environmental, Inc. provided a brief
history of SKB and stated that they have never had a violation. He stated that the facility in
Rosemount is the only industrial waste landfill in the state with a triple liner. Mr. O'Hara stated
that the site is 240 acres zoned for waste management and SKB would like to try to maximize the
use of the zoned land. He further stated that SKB has agreed to modify the plan with respect to
the wetlands and modify the storm water plan to allow more water to enter the remaining
wetlands. Mr. O'Hara stated that the extra height is required in an effort to get more capacity and
the proposed capacity is needed to pay for additional modifications and improvements to the site.
He stated it is important to understand that it will be a gradual height change over a 4000 feet of
distance. He showed diagrams of the triple liner and models and photographs of the site before
and after the expansion. Mr. O'Hara stated that SKB built a wildlife viewing area in the southwest
corner of the site. In conclusion, Mr. O'Hara mentioned the 140t Street future expansion and
stated it may difficult to complete in the southeast corner where the SKB site has previously been
approved in 2003.
Chairperson Messner asked for an explanation of the sloping ratios. Mr. Zweber explained the
slopes using a diagram showing the earthen berm next to the landfill slope. Mr. Bill Keegan, of
SKB Environmental, approached the Commission and stated that the berm height between the
2003 expansion and the current proposal did not change, nor did the road elevation.
Chairperson Messner asked the applicant where the pipelines and power lines will be relocated.
Mr. O'Hara showed on a diagram where they plan on moving the power lines with the assistance
of Xcel Energy. He stated the pipeline will simply be placed within the earthen berm.
Chairperson Messner asked the applicant about the 50 foot buffer and the storm water
management conditions. Mr. O'Hara stated that SKB will have to modify the grades but they will
be able to do the buffer and will work City staff to achieve the storm water conditions.
The public hearing was opened at 7:56p.m.
Brenda Sugii, 13701 Courthouse Boulevard, approached the Commission. She stated she lives
adjacent to SKB site with her driveway on Hwy. 55 and backyard viewing the site. Ms. Sugii stated
the first owners of the site told her the project would be a 20 -30 year development and within 30
years, the site would become a park. However, she stated that it is continually being expanded.
Ms. Sugii stated she has been dealing with problems for 16 years of increased truck traffic on
Highway 55, the noisy conditions and the site being an eyesore. She asked when it will all stop as
the first owners initially proposed. She stated her firm opposition to the expansion.
Myron Napper, 3381 145 Street East, stated his opposition to the expansion in account for the
environmental impacts on the wetlands. He stated there should be more of a buffer around the
wetlands.
Mr. O'Hara approached the Commission and stated he feels it is a good idea to continue the item
to next month's Planning Commission meeting and that SKB would be happy to meet with
residents in the meantime to explain the project in more detail.
MOTION by Messner to continue the Public Hearing to the August 26, 2008 Planning
Commission Meeting.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Zweber stated two primary concerns are the wetland management plan and the filling of the
two wetland areas. Commissioner Schwartz stated she is fine with filling some of the area if
there will be mitigation to the remaining area. Commissioner Howell agreed. A discussion took
place on the mitigation standards of Manage I and Manage II wetland areas. Chairperson
Messner stated that he does not want this expansion to affect the 140` Street future
development plan. Mr. Zweber stated that according to WSB's recommendation, the proposed
mitigation is to begin at the 50 foot setback from 140` Street. Chairperson Messner requested
that Andi Moffatt provide a more detailed explanation on wetland management.
Andi Moffatt, Senior Environmental Scientist with WSB Associates, Inc, approached the
Commission. She gave a brief history of the wetland classification program and the
characteristics of the four categories of wetlands. She stated the smaller area proposed for filling
is a Manage II wetland while the larger area to be mitigated is a Manage I wetland. The
classification difference between the two areas may be due to the size difference. Ms. Moffatt
further explained the mitigation process. She stated the particular wetland on the SKB site is
both ground water and surface water fed. She stated this is a logical location for wetland
mitigation and briefly explained her recommendations for mitigating the site.
With respect to wetland filling, the Commission all agreed that filling of the smaller areas is fine
as long as mitigation is done on the remaining area. Commissioner Schwartz added that even
though part of the Manage I is filled, we will end up with a better qualify of wetland when the
remaining area is mitigated to function properly.
Mr. O'Hara approached the Commission again and stated SKB will comply with the wetland
conditions and invited the Commissioners to visit the area again to view the specific wetland
areas.
With respect to mitigation, the Commissioners all preferred onsite mitigation.
Mr. Zweber asked the Commission if they agreed that as much water as possible is being sent to
the wetland as part of the proposed storm water management plan. The Commission all agreed.
With respect to the development of 140 Street, Chairperson Messner stated he does not want
to go against what was approved in 2003 on the east side. Mr. O'Hara showed where the
permitted berm already exists and where the berm will go if the expansion is permitted. He
stated they are changing it from what was permitted in 2003. He further stated they can move
the storm water pond, the mitigation and the power tower to the 17 foot setback but it would be
difficult to move the berm.
With respect to the increase in height of 40 feet, Commissioner Palda stated his opinion that it
should not cause a problem due to it being such a big area. Commissioner Schwartz stated her
opinion that with the photographs SKB shared with the Commission, she liked the proposed
picture better than what currently exists. Mr. O'Hara shared that SKB will be planting more
trees along the roadway on the berm. They plan on removing a lot of trees but will satisfy the
tree ordinance as required with respect to tree replacement.
Myron Napper, 3381 145 Street East, approached the Commission again and stated his opinion
that landscaping would be beneficial to drivers along County Road 42.
Chairperson Messner agreed that some kind of screening would be helpful to break up the back
slope of the expansion.
The Commission all agreed with the 40 feet expansion with the exception of Commissioner
Howell who stated she wasn't completely sure. Chairperson Messner added that he generally
agrees with the increase but would like to see all revised plans at next month's meeting.
EXCERPT OF MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 13, 2008 CITY COUNCIL WORK
SESSION
2.C. SKB Interim Use Permit (Case 08- 18 -IUP)
Several SKB representatives were in attendance for the item. Senior Planner Zweber
provided an overview of the SKB proposed expansion.
Wetland Filling
Council Member Sterner asked staff's opinion on filling wetlands. Mr. Zweber stated that in
the past the City has predominately discouraged the filling of wetlands. He stated that a
majority of the time it has to do with the expansion of roads. He added that a significant
amount of wetlands were filled in the Evermoor development, which as a result the City's
Wetland Management Plan was revised. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the
wetlands and the relocation of the wetlands. Mr. Zweber stated that the new wetland would
be a Manage 1 wetland. Council Member Shoe Corrigan questioned how many years the
City would be able to follow up on the reestablishment of the wetland. City Engineer
Brotzler stated that typically there is a five year monitoring period. He referred to Andi
Moffit's recommendation regarding the monitoring period. Mr. Brotzler added that the City
would work with the applicant to direct the treated stormwater runoff to the wetland to
provide the hydrology that isn't at the site today. Council Member Shoe Corrigan added that
according to Ms. Moffit's memo bringing the berm down to the wetland would have an
impact.
Mr. Zweber stated that SKB has agreed to the 50 foot buffer to slow down any stormwater
or rainwater that flows into the wetland. It would also serve as a trap during a large rain
event and keep development away from the actual wetland. Council Member Baxter
questioned the impact of filling the wetland. Mr. Zweber stated that shrinking the watershed
would actually have more of an impact. The wetland won't become a Manage 2 and would
stay as a functional wetland.
Council Member Shoe Corrigan agreed with the filling of the wetlands as proposed provided
that the wetland mitigation occurs on site. She requested that the agreement include
language regarding a monitoring program after the five years.
Wetland Mitigation
Mr. Zweber summarized the TEP information provided in the memo. He added that the
mitigation would occur on site. Mr. Brotzler stated the benchmarks that would need to be
obtained with the monitoring occurring on site. He also talked about the hydrology factors.
Council Member Shoe Corrigan pointed out that the applicant will be in Rosemount for a
long time. The City would build in opportunities to address the issues. She agreed to move
forward and see how the mitigation works out.
Storm water management
Mr. Zweber stated that the applicant submitted a plan that met the City's stormwater
requirements. He added that staff and the Planning Commission asked the applicant to
revise the plan as needed to provide hydrology that at least matches or increases what goes
to the wetland today. He further explained how the stormwater management plan would
work with the wetlands. Mr. Brotzler added that the primary issue that we design for is the
100 year rain fall event.
Height of landfill cover
Representatives from SKB provided models showing how the change in height would
appear. They explained the elevations and sloping and provided more information about the
appearance of the land fill from County Road 42 and Highway 52. They also provided
photographs of the permitted areas and provided views from Highway 55 and County Road
42.
Mayor Droste questioned when trees were required to be planted. Mr. Zweber responded
that the berms will be created before the landfill. He added that trees can be planted when
the cells are under construction. Mayor Droste requested that the trees have considerable
height and include a wide variety. He was also concerned about the appearance from the
Mississippi corridor. He requested the dimensions of the Pine Bend landfill in Inver Grove
Heights.
Mr. Zweber stated that if the plan revisions are completed by August 18, then the Planning
Commission will be able to provide a recommendation. He stated that the City Council
could expect to see the plans again in late September.
Matt Kearney was in attendance to talk about the SKB Trust Fund. He provided a
projection of the trust fund over the next 10 years. He stated that a cap was included
because over the years excess dollars would be accumulated that would go directly to the
City. The City Council and SKB would discuss the trust fund again at the September work
session.
Rick O'Gara added that he had obtained an air dome 360 feet in diameter that could be
placed on the outdoor recreation complex land. He was interested in donating the dome, a
portion of the installation and the grading to the City. Mayor Droste stated that Mr. O'Gara
should meet with the Parks and Recreation Director and the new City Administrator for
further discussion on the dome.
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 26, 2008
5.b. SKB Environmental Interim Use Permit (08- 18 -IUP). SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) is
requesting a revision to their Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow an expansion to their facility at
13425 Courthouse Boulevard from 112 acres of disposal area to 151 acres of disposal area. The
proposed expansion in size includes an expansion in total disposal volume from about 15 million
cubic yards to almost 27 million cubic yards, representing a 73% increase, and also includes an
increase in the finish height of the landfill of 40 feet. This is a continuation of the public hearing
opened on July 22, 2008. Senior Planner Zweber reviewed the changes to the plans since the July
22, 2008, meeting and the issues remaining for the Commission's discussion including the wetland
fill, wetland mitigation and storm water management, the wetland buffer, and landscaping /tree
replacement. Mr. Zweber also reviewed the conditions to the interim use permit having to do
with recycling items within the site.
The Applicant, Richard O'Gara, president and owner, SKB Environmental, Inc., approached the
Commission with a few comments on the recommendations by City staff. With respect to the
tree replacements, Mr. O'Gara stated that at the last meeting, he said SKB would provide a tree
survey, but did not say they would supply trees tall enough to hide the landfill. He stated that they
will be tearing down 505 trees and are required to install 766 new trees. Mr. O'Gara stated that
SKB wishes to replace the trees in the same percentages they currently exist. He further stated
that the DNR recommended in the EAW that the same kind of trees be planted to preserve the
environment and that the slope is not set up to handle that many trees that are that tall. He also
stated that 2.5 inch caliper trees are difficult to find and requested that 1.5 inch size be allowed
since they are more readily available and easier to transplant.
With respect to the decorative wall design, Mr. O'Gara stated that SKB has no problem with
making the wall decorative but requests that the specific plan be required at the time of permit, not
at the current approval stage. He stated the wall will not be built for several years and they will
then have a better idea of what the decorative plan will consist of.
With respect to the conditions added for recycling, Mr. O'Gara stated that SKB has no problem
with conditions #6 and #7. He stated, however, that he is concerned with condition #8
containing the 100% masonry requirement. The proposed building would not face a right -of -way
and is 1000 feet away from any proposed roadway. Mr. O'Gara stated he thinks it is an unfair
burden and unnecessary.
Mr. O'Gara's final comment was his concern with the ditch that runs along the south side of the
property as part of the storm water management plan. He asked the Commission to considering
allowing the ditch to remain within the 17 foot right -of -way.
Chairperson Messner asked Mr. O'Gara if SKB agreed with the number of caliper inches required
and whether or not there was a cost difference between the type of trees. Mr. O'Gara replied that
he is fine with the number required and that the types of trees they chose were recommended to
SKB by their tree specialists in order to be in compliance with the EAW. The EAW recommends
having a variety of trees rather than the same kind and height of trees.
Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Zweber how specific the verbage reads on the masonry
requirement. Mr. Zweber replied that any building visible from a public right -of -way is required to
be 100% masonry. Chairperson Messner asked if SKB building will be visible from the right -of-
way. Mt. Zweber replied that it will not be visible from the right -of -way today but would be
visible from any road installed in the future on the northwest side of the property. Mr. O'Gara
showed the Commission on a site plan where the operation buildings are located and where the
activity will be located. He stated this is a requirement to put 100% masonry on the back of the
building where it will not be visible to anyone and it is not known at this time where any future
road will be installed.
Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Dawley for clarification on the location of the ditch on the south
side of the site. Mr. O'Gara then added that the west portion of the ditch is not built yet but
would like to design it together with the east portion within the 17 foot right -of -way to complete
their storm water management plan. He stated that if the City would allow this, SKB would
consider giving the right -of -way portion to the City at no cost. Mr. Zweber replied that staff
would be willing to explore this issue further with the applicant if it was a commitment to have the
right -of -way given to the City.
The public hearing was re- opened at 8:22p.m.
Myron Napper, 3381 145 Street East, stated he has met with the neighboring residents and
reported that they have no problem with the expansion SKB is requesting. Mr. Napper further
stated that SKB gave him a tour of the location on the site next to where the one resident lived
who spoke at last month's meeting and agreed that her backyard is right next to SKB's property.
He tried to contact her but was not successful.
There were no further comments.
MOTION by Schultz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Howell.
Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. The public hearing was closed at 8:24p.m.
Commissioner Schwartz stated her preference in staying with the same proportions of tree
species that are there today. She further stated that she would agree to reducing the 100%
masonry requirement to 40% since the proposed road may or may not be there for quite some
time.
Commissioner Palda stated that he agrees more with Mr. O'Gara proposed tree plan than what
City staff recommended. He also stated he agreed that the plan for the decorative retaining wall
should be held until the permit is filed for and therefore Condition #4 should be eliminated. He
stated his agreement with Commission Schwartz on Condition #8 and the percentage of
masonry to be required.
Commissioner Schultz stated her agreement with the previous Commissioners' comments.
Chairperson Messner stated he did not want to eliminate Condition #4 but that it should read
"tune of permit" instead of "before the City Council review He further stated his agreement
with the mixture of trees proposed but stated he would like to see the installation of the trees as
near as possible to the construction of the berm. Chairperson Messner further agreed with
reducing the masonry requirement to 40% masonry on all sides of the building. He stated he
was unsure on the ditch issue but did not feel the need to add any other condition.
Mr. Zweber stated that this is the time the Planning Commission will have the ability to give
opinions on the design of the decorative retaining wall which is why staff included the condition
at this time. He clarified that the condition to have trees that are a taller species is not a
discussion of the differences between deciduous or coniferous. The Eastern red cedar thrives in
low wet areas and the proposed areas for planting are on a high slope with low moisture. He
further stated that while the shrike like red cedars as the DNR has stated, the DNR does not
require the number of red cedars that SKB is proposing. There are conifers that can be selected
that can grow to 80 feet or more and are native to that area. Mr. O'Gara replied that they are
proposing what SKB's tree specialist recommended and it is SKB's responsibility to maintain the
growth of the trees.
The Commission agreed to amend Condition #4 to eliminate the phrase "before the City
Council review" and add "at the time of permit The Commission agreed to amend Condition
#8 to change "100% masonry for any side facing the boundary of the facility and 40% masonry
for the remaining sides" to read "40% masonry on all sides of the facility". The Commission
agreed to leave Condition #2 as is. The Commission agreed to eliminate Condition #3 in its
entirety. The Commission agreed to amend Condition #1 by changing "dated August 21, 2008"
to "subject to amended plans
MOTION by Schwartz to recommend the City Council approve the Interim Use
Permit for the expansion of the SKB landfill to accommodate a maximum of 26,874,103
cubic yards of waste, subject to the follow conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum datcd August 21, 2008 subject to
amended plans.
2. Installation of total of 2203 caliper inches of trees.
0
Oi glcatcl.
4. A design of the retaining walls shall be submitted before thc City Council review at the
time of permit that shows the decorative style of the wall.
5. Provide an exhibit of the pipeline relation to show that there is no conflict with the
proposed landscape plan and retaining walls.
6. Any MSW brought to the recycling and transfer facility shall be stored indoors during
the entire time that it is on site.
7. A vermin control plan for the recycling and transfer facility shall be prepared and
approved by City staff that may include the plan being prepared by a pest and vermin
control professional and periodic inspections of the facility by a pest or vermin control
professional.
8. The recycling and transfer facility shall be constructed of
facing thc boundary of the facility Mid 40% masonry for thc remaining sides. 40%
masonry on all sides of the facility.
Second by Schultz.
Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved.
110
As follow -up, Mr. Zweber stated this item will go before City Council at their regular meeting of
September 16, 2008, subject to revisions to the plans as discussed tonight.
EXCERPT OF MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 CITY COUNCIL WORK
SESSION
2.A. SKB- Rosemount Community Trust Fund
Community Development Director Lindquist stated that as part of the amendment to the
interim use permit process, the City has typically taken the opportunity to discuss the
financial arrangements regulated by the SKB- Rosemount Community Trust Fund, the
Interim Use Permit, and the Development Commitment. Ms. Lindquist provided more
information about the changes made relating to the use of the trust in 2004. She reviewed
the payment overviews, Trust Fund options distribution and highlighted the main points of
the proposal. Two features of the proposal were to set a cap on the fund balance and also
provide a cap on the amount of distributions coming from the Trust Fund on any given
year.
Matt Kearney explained the Fund Balance Growth Analysis for 2008 -2017 that was included
in the staff report. A brief discussion was held on the gross contributions to the SKB Fund.
Mayor Droste stated the best way to treat the residents was to make sure the fees go in the
general fund to help offset the taxes. He was concerned about double taxing the residents.
Council Member Baxter indicated he was comfortable with a $1.5 million cap. He did not
want the trust fund to go away because it does great things for the community. He would
prefer to have the trust fund renamed so that the City would receive some credit on the
donations.
Mr. Kearney offered more numbers from a historical perspective on the distribution of fund
monies to various groups. The recipients included educational groups, transportation such
as DARTS, athletics and general civic activities.
Council Member Shoe Corrigan stated that the trust fund does many good things for the
community. She preferred the $2 million cap and to include the City's name on the trust
fund. She wanted more facilities and amenities brought to the community which could be
named after SKB and the City.
Rick O'Gara pointed out that the intent when the trust fund was set up was for the extra
money given to the City to be used for capital improvement. He added that SKB would like
to see the trust fund continue forever and were flexible on how to move forward. Don
Chapdeline added that the assurance on the trust board is that all monies are being spent on
Rosemount citizens.
Council Member Sterner stated that the cap did not take into account the inflationary cost of
living. Council Member DeBettignies pointed out that the cost of living was a huge variable
to be calculated.
Mayor Droste noted that the staff recommended a $1.9 million cap which resulting in a
Trust Fund distribution of approximately $82,000, close to the average distribution. City
Administrator Johnson pointed out that the cap could be reviewed again in five years when
the IUP expires.
Council Member Baxter favored a hard cap of $1.5 million with a 50/50 ramp down with a
clause that states the fund would be reviewed again by the City Council in three years.
The City Council consensus was to cap the fund at $1.5 million while splitting the
contributions with the City in the same 50% formula until the cap is reached in 2011, which
is based upon the financial information provided by SKB. The 1.5 million cap is projected to
generate $62,000 which can be used to provide grants to various local organizations in the
same manner as the current situation. The distribution will be capped at $62,000 with any
additional income into the Fund being forwarded to the City. Additionally, after the Fund
cap is achieved all payments will go directly to the City rather than being funneled into the
Trust Fund.
July 12 2008
To: Rosemount City Planning Commission
From Bill Busher
My name is Bill Busher. I have been a Rosemount resident for just over 10 years. We
have lived in several other states prior to moving here, and we really have enjoyed this
area the Most.
The reason rata writing this letter is because I understandthat SKB Environmental has
applied for an expansion of the Rosemount landfill As a citizen of the Rosemount
community and an advocate of keeping and growing our local businesses, I feel as though
I should share my opinion with the City Planning Commission.
I feel that SKB has been a strong benefit to our community. Not only does our
community receive the benefits of the business itself, we receive countless financial
contributions to many local non profit organizations in need of help. I could not imagine
how many dollars SKB inc. shares with the many organizations who solicit them. I work
closely, as a volunteer, with several different groups and I know that their financial
support helps us maintain the quality of our programs. Without the support from SKB,
these non profit fund raising groups would have a very difficult time raising sufficient
funds to carry out the many needs of the community.
SKB is a very strong supporter of the Rosemount community. To the best of my
'knowledge, SKB inc. operates within all of the environmental safety standards. From my
perspective this company places the community first as they operate a first clays business.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
B' 1 h
cc: Rosemount City Council
Droving the N�w Agendafo B usuness
dakota county
C H A M B E R O F C O M M E R C E
July 10, 2008
The Honorable Bill Droste
Rosemount City Council
City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Mayor Droste:
Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce adopted an Economic Development Policy in 2005 that
states in part, "The Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce advocates investments in technology
infrastructure, supports local and regional economic development planning, and promotes regional
workforce training. The DCR Chamber supports cooperative city and county efforts to maintain or attract
business. The Chamber will be actively involved in any policy development that impacts a business,
including but not limited to sign ordinances, taxes, transportation, and expansion of businesses."
We support the SKB Environmental Inc. application for expansion of the Rosemount Landfill site. SKB
has been a chamber member for almost 20 years and has been a strong supporter of the community in
Rosemount. Many community and business activities have benefited from the benevolence of the SKB
Trust over the years, including youth programs and the Dakota County Library project.
From a business perspective, the proposed plan is the "best and highest use of the land" as it is today. The
company has always operated within safe environmental standards and the plan maintains the esthetics and
appearance of the facility. In addition, the landfill provides sound and cost effective means of waste
disposal for the citizens and businesses of Rosemount and surrounding communities.
e encourage the council to approve this expansion.
Ruthe Batulis
President
Dakota County Regional
Chamber of Commerce
Cc: Councilmember Mike Baxter
Councilmember Mark DeBettignes
Councilmember Kim Shoe- Corrigan
Councilmember Phillip Sterner
Interim City Administrator Kim Lindquist
1121 Town Centre Drive I Suite 102 I Eagan, Minnesota 55123
P: 651.452.9872 F: 651.452.8978 I l: info@dcrchamber.com
crrj
DAILTA CQUNTY
TECHNICAL COLLEGE
1300 145th Street E. (Co. Rd. 42) Rosemount, MN 55068 -2999
July 11, 2008
City of Rosemount Planning Commission
c/o City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Rosemount Planning Commission:
It is my privilege to write this letter in support of SKB Environmental Inc.'s expansion of the
Rosemount Landfill Site.
phone: 651.423.8000
fax: 651.423.8775
toll free: 877.937.3282
TTY services: 651.423.8621
web: www.dctc.edu
SKB Environmental has been an active and supportive member of the Rosemount community
for years. They are involved in community, chamber, and business meetings/events which
benefit our residents.
Many community activities and youth programs have benefited from the donations available
because of this facility. Through the support of SKB Environmental Rosemount Community
Trust, Dakota County Technical College has been able to offer scholarship support to students
who reside in Rosemount. Many of these students would not be able to attend college without
this support.
To our knowledge, SKB Environmental has operated within safe environmental standards and
has always followed through on their commitments to the Rosemount Community.
We at Dakota County Technical College believe SKB Environmental is a valued community
partner and strongly support their application for expansion.
Sincerely,
4ezdwe4d7
Sharon LaComb
Vice President
An Equal Opportunity Educator/Employer
A member of the Minnesota State Colleges Universities System
Accredited by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education
of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
cff
DAILTA CQUNTY
TECHNICAL COLLEGE
1300 145th Street E. (Co. Rd. 42) Rosemount, MN 55068 -2999
July 11, 2008
Rosemount City Council
c/o City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Rosemount City Council:
RECEIVED
JUL 1 5 2008
CP Of ROSEMOUNT
It is my privilege to write this letter in support of SKB Environmental Inc.'s expansion of the
Rosemount Landfill Site.
phone: 651.423.8000
fax: 651.423.8775
toll free: 877.937.3282
TTY services: 651.423.8621
web: www.dctc.edu
SKB Environmental has been an active and supportive member of the Rosemount community
for years. They are involved in community, chamber, and business meetings/events which
benefit our residents.
Many community activities and youth programs have benefited from the donations available
because of this facility. Through the support of SKB Environmental Rosemount Community
Trust, Dakota County Technical College has been able to offer scholarship support to students
who reside in Rosemount. Many of these students would not be able to attend college without
this support.
To our knowledge, SKB Environmental has operated within safe environmental standards and
has always followed through on their commitments to the Rosemount Community.
We at Dakota County Technical College believe SKB Environmental is a valued community
partner and strongly support their application for expansion.
Sincerely,
Sharon LaComb
Vice President
An Equal Oppo.tumt* EducotOr /Empbyyer
A member of the Minnesota State Colleges 8 Universities Sp
Accredited by the Cc n oission on Institutions of Higher Education
of the North Centroi Association of Colleges and Schools
July 13, 2008
Rosemount City Planning Commission
Rosemount City Council
RE: SKB Environmental, Inc.
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Kevin Pauly and I have lived in Rosemount since 1993. I understand SKB
has asked to expand the Rosemount landfill. As a citizen of the community and an
advocate of keeping and growing our businesses, I wanted to share my thoughts with you
on this expansion.
The Rosemount community receives not only the benefits of the SKB business, but has
also received many financial contributions from them as well. SKB has been a strong
supporter of non profit organizations in need of financial help, throughout the Rosemount
community. SKB has supported many of the volunteer organizations that I have been a
part of, which has helped us maintain and grow those organizations. SKB's support has
made it possible for volunteer groups to have adequate funds to provide many services
throughout the Rosemount community, which may not have been possible without their
help.
SKB is a strong supporter of the community and I have seen nothing that tells me they
are not environmentally sound and a first rate company. Giving the expansion that they
are requesting allows them to grow their business and also helps the City of Rosemount
grow theirs.
If you have any questions do not hesitate to call.
July 14, 2008
bear Commissioners,
ri
Ittitttite
Rosemount Planning Commission
c/o Rosemount City Hall
2875 -145 St W
Rosemount, MN 55068
14450 5. Robert Trail, Ste 204
Rosemount, MN 55068
651.423.3535
paul@pauleggen.com
I am writing in support of SKB Environmental's expansion of its Rosemount landfill site.
I have been a member of the Rosemount business community since 1983. I was present
during the company's first proposal for their facility and read a letter of support from
fhe:Rosemount Chamber. We were interested in the integrity and the safety of its
Operation. I am pleased to observe SKB Environmental has followed safe environmental
t andards, and their expansion would be a positive business decision. They have also
eetl neighbor in the Rosemount Community with their support of many
.activities and initiatives.
Paul Eggen
fully submitted,
e.
July 14, 2008
Rosemount Planning Commission
C/O City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: SKB Environmental, Inc.
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been a citizen of Rosemount since 1991 and have been involved for many years in
community efforts, such as the Board of Directors of the Rosemount Area Athletic
Association and the Rosemount High School Football Booster Board. It has been my
experience that SKB Environmental, Inc. has been a strong supporter of community
activities, particularly youth athletics.
I believe that SKB's proposal to expand its operations is in the best interest of the City of
Rosemount and urge your approval.
Respectfully,
rald M. Pros olio
13401 Cormack Circle
Rosemount, MN 55068
CC: Rosemount City Council
July 14, 2008
Rosemount City Council
C/O City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: SKB Environmental, Inc.
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been a citizen of Rosemount since 1991 and have been involved for many years in
community efforts, such as the Board of Directors of the Rosemount Area Athletic
Association and the Rosemount High School Football Booster Board. It has been my
experience that SKB Environmental, Inc. has been a strong supporter of community
activities, particularly youth athletics.
I believe that SKB's proposal to expand its operations is in the best interest of the City of
Rosemount and urge your approval.
Respectfully
erald M. Pro ollo
13401 Cormack Circle
Rosemount, MN 55068
CC: Rosemount Planning Commission
July 9, 2008
City of Rosemount
2845 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
To Whom it May Concern,
My daughter and a group of students from Red Pine Elementary were fortunate
enough to participate in the Global competition of DestiNation Imagination which
is a creative problem solving organization. The event was held in Knoxville, TN
and came with quite a large registration fee for our team. We knew we would
need the help of local businesses and other fundraising to make this goal
happen and immediately we thought of SKB Environmental. We had known of
their generosity with Rosemount athletic teams and had heard what great
corporate neighbors they were. Our experience was no different. Beth, from
the St. Paul office couldn't not have been more helpful and encouraging when
approached her with our situation. I heard back from her immediately with a
pledge of monetary support for our team. Without local businesses like SKB
Environmental, we would not have been able to reach our financial goal and take
our DestiNation Imagination team to Knoxville where they competed against
children from China, Korea, Mexico, Guatemala, Canada, the UK and many
other countries and states. It was an amazing experience and we thank SKB for
helping to make it happen.
Sincerely,
Lis Nelson
10849 Andes Circle
Inver Grove Heights, MN
55077
Maureen Geraghty Bouchard
3130 145 St. W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
July 11, 2008
Rosemount Planning Commission
C/O City of Rosemount
2875 145 St. W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Commissioners:
RECEIVED
JUL 14 2008
CXY OF ItOSEMOUVT
I am writing this in reference to a matter concerning SKB Environmental, Inc. expansion.
The City of Rosemount has seen substantial growth in the past few years and is expected
to continue to grow. With this growth, comes the need for more environmental safe
landfills.
Many of the community groups that I have had the pleasure to be part of, Rosemount
Area Historical Society, Rosemount Leprechaun Days and Rosemount Haunted Trail,
have benefited from donations from SKB Environmental Inc. Some of these
organizations would be unable to provide as much to the community without the
donations that they receive from SKB Environmental Inc.
I feel SKB Environmental Inc. has operated an environmental safe landfill and would
continue to meet this standard.
Thank you for your time.
Fondly,
Maureen Geraghty Bouchard
Rosemount Planning Commission
City of Rosemount
2874 145 St W
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Application for Expansion of the Rosemount Landfill Site
As long time resident and business owner in Rosemount, I have watched as this site was
built and managed throughout the years. There are a number of items that SKB and this
site adds to the City of Rosemount.
First; SKB is an excellent neighbor in they way they run their business and manage the
current landfill site. This facility has been a benefit to not only the city of Rosemount but
the surrounding community as well. This is a state of the art facility and the City should
feel proud to have this facility in the City of Rosemount. This facility has always
operated within the environmental standards set forth by the MPCA, the EPA and the
requirements set forth by the City of Rosemount.
Second; SKB iS a community partner with the City of Rosemount and the area Business
as well. They give back to the community with their time, talent and money to benefit the
community. This benefits the community of Rosemount in various ways as seed money
for projects, or the funds to finish a project or the talent to assist a community business.
Finally; this type of facility can and will spear growth in the City of Rosemount. With the
proper planning this type of facility will bring business into the area that needs this
specialized landfill site. This will grow the tax base for the city and assist in the future
growth of the commercial and industrial business in the city.
I hope that you approve the application for the Expansion of the Rosemount Landfill Site
for SKB.
Sincerely
Donald E Sinnwell
3335.145 St W
Rosemount, MN 55068
651261 -0499
11 July 2005
4. Use of the Trust. The Trustees shall apply the trust fund, at such times, in
such manner, and in such amounts as they may determine, to the uses and purposes set forth
in paragraph 1, or they may make contributions distributions to the City of Rosemount or to
other charitable organizations to be used within the City of Rosemount, for the uses and
purposes set forth in paragraph 1. For this purpose, the term "charitable organizations"
shall mean a corporation, trust or community chest, fund or foundation, created or
organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or any state, organized
and operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes, no part of the net earnings
of which insures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, and no substantial
part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to
influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the
publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate
for public office. Subject to the foregoing limitations:
(a) During calendar year 2009, the Trustees shall distribute trust funds in
an amount equal to fifty percent (50 of the donations received from the Donor
during 2008 to the City of Rosemount to be used by the City of Rosemount for any
lawful public purpose, which trust funds shall be distributed no later than January 31,
2009. Total contributions distributions from the Trust during 2009 shall not exceed
One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), excluding the amount distributed to the
City;
(b) During calendar year 2010, total contributions distributions from the
Trust shall not exceed Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000). Any part of such
moons distributions may be, but is not required to be, made to the City;
(c) Trustees will endeavor to so manage the Trust assets as to maintain a
Trust value, in assets invested as the Board
deems prudent and meets the objective of the Fund, of at least One Million Five
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) as of December 31, 2010, and at all times
thereafter. Each year, commencing on December 31, 2010, the Trustees will
determine the value of the Trust assets as of December 31" of that year.
(d) Genteibutiens Distributions for each calendar year commencing in
2011 and thereafter shall be made as follows:
(I) If the value of the Trust assets at any time is equal to or less
than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000), no
distributions will be made until the value increases to such amount.
(ii) If the value of the Trust assets exceed One Million Five
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000), the Trustees shall make
distributions as follows:
Up to Sixty -Two Thousand Dollars ($62,000) may be
distributed during the calendar year in accordance with
this instrument to parties or entities other than the City.
Any distribution in excess of Sixty -Two Thousand Dollars
($62,000) in any calendar year shall be made to the City.
An amount equal to any excess of the fund value over
One Million Five Hundred Twenty -Five Thousand
Dollars ($1,525,000) on any December 31 shall be paid
to the City by the following January 31St
In no event shall the Trustees be required after January 31, 2009, to distribute sums that will
reduce the value of the Trust assets to an amount less than One Million Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000). Any other provisions of this Trust Agreement
notwithstanding, the Trustees shall distribute the trust income for each taxable year at such
time and in such manner as not to become subject to the tax on undistributed income
imposed by Section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or corresponding
provisions of any subsequent federal tax laws.