HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.a. Stonex EAWCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September, 2004
AGENDA ITEM: Stonex EAW
AGENDA SECTION:
Old Business
PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler,P.E., City Engineer
AQFhlD
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum, Draft Memorandum of
APPROVED BY:
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, Comment Letters and
Resolution
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ISSU NG A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED.
ACTION:
BACKGROUND
The attached documents contain information regarding the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Stonex Sand and Gravel. Following the end of the
public comment period on September 1, 2004, the attached draft responses have been
prepared for the comments received. These documents are being submitted to the City
Council to determine whether an EIS is necessary for the project.
SUMMARY
Andi Moffatt with WSB & Associates, Inc. will be in attendance at the meeting to review
the comments received and proposed responses.
SEP -14 -2004 12:07 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.03/27
x
i ' WS B .
& Associales, Inc.
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Rosemount
Copy: Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount
Andy Brotzler, City o
Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount
Dave Hutton, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jonathan Wilmshurst
From: Andi Moffatt, Environmental Scientist 0,
WSB & Associates
*`
Date: September 14, 2004
Re: Stonex, LLC Sand and Gravel Mine
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
:•:.,.
WSB Project Na 1191 -24
The public comment period for the Stonex, LLC Sand and Gravel Mine Environmental
x:
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended September I, 2004. The purpose of the EAW is to
identify potential environmental impacts and determine whether or not an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is required. An EIS is a more extensive environmental review
process. Determining whether or not an EIS is needed does not relate to providing approval
or denial for the project.
Based on the information in the EAW and review agency comments regarding the EAW, the
_
gravel mine does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts that cannot be
addressed as part of the permitting process. Therefore, it is our recommendation that an EIS
is not required
. >
Enclosed, please find the following items for your review relating to this EAW:
tt
Draft memo dated September 3, 2004 to the review agencies responding to
comments received on the EAW (hereby referred to as the comment/response
memo). This memo restates the agencies comments and then responds to
each issue.
T 4150. bison.
The Findings of Fact on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement
'_. Memc rJ Ighway
_.
(EIS ).
Suite 300 :,..
,Minneapolis.
• A copy of the agencies' comment letters.
"'. 'Minn"
4' 55422
70•541!SO0
" 763.54fi* FAX
Minneapolis • St. Cloud • Equal Opportunity Employer
4� 6 1 6RWWXAIRW me ••
SEP -14 -2004 12:08 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.O4i27
September 14, 2004
Page 2
• Draft resolution relating to a Negative Declaration of Need.
• Copy of letter sent to "non- commenting" agencies.
Summary of Major Comments
As part of the public comment period, comments were received from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of
Natural Resources, Dakota County, and Metropolitan Council. No significant comments
were received as part of this process.
Dakota County had comments regarding the traffic impact on the County Roads in the area.
The project proposer will work with the County as needed to address their comments.
Additionally, a letter was sent on September 2, 2404 to non- commenting agencies to confirm
that they had no comments on the EAW.
City Council Decision Action
The decision before the City Council regarding the EAW is to decide whether or not the
project has the potential for significant environmental impacts that cannot be addressed
through the permitting processes. If the Council determines that the project does not have
the potential for these significant environmental impacts, the Council should issue a
Negative Declaration of Need for an EIS. If the Council determines that the project does
have the potential for significant environmental impact that cannot be addressed through the
permitting and approval process, the Council should require an EIS. Based on our review, it
is our recommendation that an EIS is not needed for this project.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (763 )287 -7196.
F. 4WPWLM]191- 241MEM04MCC- 091304. doe
•slluuod krussaaau llu ulgigo of paa[nboi aq Him aasod(md loofoid
agZ '/Avg 01 93o 8 lualI ul pa ;salput ale canal VZ)dW oq; ul palsq %!uuad aqZ :osuodsag
•y�ayq aql lt' sioeluoo ivaoai lsoui aqi glr,H aatpoSol `oalnbaa Autu aoafoid aql lt'gi siluuad sagguapl
lsljNoaga posolaua aql •suoiilpuoo jiumd allslnbaa,Cuv 4llm A idutoo of pue siluuad paatnbaa
,Gala aanoos of aasodoad loafoad otpjo fllligisuodsat aui sl 11 `glolumplfl 'dod N oqi Sq pagnbaa
silumd gulpuod Amjo VDdW atp Aq aanilann ainillsuoo iou saop mdg aql tAalnaa of lou aolsloap
sitQ, •flf) -d aql apinoad of sluatutuoo ogloods ou st'q HOdW agl `aaojaaogj ioofoad slgl ao3 Md'g
agi pamalnal loa sea VDdq oU •(nrJg) ltun Iuatuuaanof) alq!suodsall `lunoutasog3o f4l3 oql Sq
pu edaad `loofoad anoqu ail ao3 paaudaad myg agi3o saldoo pantaoaa sgcl VOdW atld :1# laammoz)
vadiK wOj 4mow of
•uolleuuojul inog ao3 pagoelit' osp m saanal luoumoo ou •sluatutuoo
asagl of sasuodsaa Aq pamolloj Aouo& got'a tuag sluaattuoo atp pug mold Imoloq paullinO
-9^VU Isom nnatnaa of olgla aaguol ou am Amp `slno
105pnq of anP Imp paro!put OdHS aqs •sluowwoo Sue ant'q iou PIP lnq `MVg aql Pannalnaa data
paluolpul QOms PE LL •salouaila asagi MOIJ panlaoal iou aaaM s uaanuoa aa urs polonpum seen aolUO
aollunlasaad ouolstH allalS aui put' lolaisM u ollt'naa OD a�AA P IIQS t.lo3leQ agi girnn do nnalle3
'pounoo aelqodo4aW atp pue °,tlunoo %o3M(j `Aoua2d loaluoo
uollnllod t'losauu W `soomosog lunoN jo luatulmdoa rlosauuly�l °uoii xodstzgay3o luautlaudaQ
t'iosauu aql tuog panlaoa� aaann siaaanao� - VOOZ `I jaquiaidoS papuo (mda) 12ags3liom
luatussassd lt'luatuuoalnug outW lams D pue pueS xauoiS aqi ao3 polaad luounttoo otlgnd aqy
PZ *OM 1
,!1V9 aKIN ladva9 xauo ;s
s ;uaunuoq o; sasuodsag :Off
6002 `67 daqura ;das :ama
1stnilsrulilm uvgl # vuof
- Jul 'sa ;vlaossy T SSA `UOIMH adva
;unowasog, fo "r3 lsmbpw unx
lrunowasog fo SO 'damodg ifpw
;unowasog fo 03 luosxvad -yng *Xdoj
I
ow Ou I 'sa ;raosw v SSA `n„ ffom rpuv model
pounoa uv;llodod;aly'uosuuH S1111fl[d
4unoa VjoxnQ IIVVz;vxOM UU4
afpg sda;vAl .L4Q/ullt `;AlOA PPuvnr
saadnosag lvdn;vAt fo;uawljvdaa °pv;sdvg aud'vM
djuaf'V1od ;uo3 uo Mllod vlosauKiN 12jagpx ardg :os
umpuvlowaly
LZIGO•d OOLTTPG29L S31UIOOSSU '8 HSM $O:ZT tOOZ— VT—d3S
•• •• . ••
SE0-14 -2004 12 :08 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.06i27
September 14, 2004
Page 2 of 5
Comments from DNR
Comment #1: The EAW acknowledges the needs for a DNR Water Appropriation permit for
washing. The estimate of 4 -5 million gallons appears to be slightly on the low side. As part of the
permit application, the DNR will require an analysis to predict the impacts of pumping on
neighboring domestic wells. Considering the project's location, pumping is unlikely to affect
contaminant plumes emanating from the Flint Hills Refinery. The DNR will require the project
proposer to verify this as well.
Response: The project proposer will work with the DNR to provide the necessary
information and obtain the required permits.
Comments from Mn/DOT
Comment #1: Mn/DOT has reviewed the above- referenced EAW and has no comments, as the
proposed project should have little to no impact on Mn/DOT's highway system.
As a reminder, please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats and
site plans to Development Reviews Coordinator
Mn/DOT — Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
Response: No response is necessary.
Comments from Dakota County
Comment #1: Item 13- Water Use: The Kraft Farm well was constructed in 1980, but the farm was
in existence before 1945. County staff believe there is at least one more well on this property that
needs to be properly sealed. A state - licensed well contractor will need to apply to Dakota County for
well sealing permits in order to seal all unused wells on the property.
Response: This information will be provided to the project proposer. The project proposer
is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and sealing wells in conformance with state
regulations and will make additional investigations to determine whether in fact there are any
unsealed wells on site, and will seal them properly if any are located
Comment #2: Item 20- Solid and Hazardous Wastes: Depending on the amount of solvent or other
hazardous wastes that my have been generated, a hazardous waste license from or registration with
Dakota County may be required. After the volume and types of wastes are determined, the property
owner should contact the Dakota County Environmental Management Department of licensure
requirements and assistance.
Response: As indicated in the EAW, the only waste anticipated to be generated from the
facility is a solvent based parts cleaner. The project proposer will be responsible for
obtaining any permits or approvals and this information will be provided to the project
proposer.
F. 1WPWX 1191- 24WEYO- agency- CR091404. doe
SEP -14 -2004 12:09 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.07i27
September 14, 2004
Page 3 of S
Comment #3: Item 21- Traffic. Cumulative impacts. The Stonex Sand and Gravel mine consists of
an 80 -acre parcel location 0.25 miles south of CR38 and 0.25 miles west of CSAH 71. The proposal
involves accessing CSAH 71 at the 138 Street intersection. The Vesterra Sand and Gravel mine is a
75-acre area located immediately south of CR38 and 0.25 miles west of CSAH 71 in Rosemount.
The proposed access is at a driveway along CR38 to allow trucks to turn onto CR71 to access TH52
and CSAH 42. The two mining proposals are directly adjacent to each other. The EAW for the
Stonex mining project is a separate study covering impacts to one specific business. Both
developments will each generate 200 loads (400 trips) per day and 60 total trips in the peak hour. The
impacts to the County road system from these two adjacent sites should be evaluated as one site.
In addition, several locations in Empire are planned for sand and gravel mining, and an EIS is being
prepared. The cumulative impact from mining in that part of Rosemount between TH3 and US52
would be better understood in the three studies were coordinated.
Response: Combining the peak hauling operations from the two mining sites in a worst case
scenario would double the number of trips to 60 in the peak hour. (It should be noted that
while this worst case scenario is certainly possible, it is somewhat improbable that the peak
demand for each of the sites would consistently coincide given the variability of the types of
projects and the variability in the demand for gravel that their individual schedules of
operations would entail.) Doubling the hauling activity would add a total of 120 turning
movements to the 138 Street access to the sites (assuming that both sites are served by that
access). This would increase the turning movements from 20% of the traffic at the
intersection to 34 in the AM peak hour.
At the 117' street intersection, the increase in the added turning movements would be from
6% with one of the sites to 11 % with both sites. (These numbers are considerably smaller for
the CSAH 42 intersection.) Considering only one site adds about one truck every ten minutes
to each leg of the intersection. Combining both sites would bring one truck to each leg about
every five minutes.
It can be assumed that doubling the number of trucks could not double the average delay for
all of the vehicles at the intersections. But even if it did, it would only reduce the level of
service to Level B for three of the four intersections covered in the study. The fourth - CSAH
42 would be reduced to Level C. (Note that Level D is considered to be acceptable.) Again, it
should be understood that with the low probability of the two sites peaking at the same time
along with the fact that average delays would not double with the doubling of the hauling
trips is an indication that anticipated levels of service would be impacted to a quite limited
degree. It should also be noted that trips from the Vesterra site are already accounted for in
the background traffic that was counted in the Stonex study.
In response to the comment regarding coordinating the gravel mining studies in the Empire
Township area, the City is not undertaking the EIS /AUAR in Empire and therefore does not
have control over that study. The City would be willing to provide information about the
Stonex and Vesterra site, but has no authority or responsibility to complete that environmental
review.
Comment #4: County Road System. CR 38 is a gravel road with a daily trip volume of 97 Annual
Average Daily Traffic (AADT). CSAH 38 is a gravel road and is not constructed for heavy loads of
20 tons per truck. This section of roadway is a poor road that is one of the first to fail in the spring.
F.- t WPWIM 1191 -241 MEMO- age wy- CR091404. d oc
SEP-14 -2004 12:09 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.08i27
September 14, 2 004
Page 4 of 5
Dakota County may need to permanently post this road a 5 ton limit, if the road cannot handle heavier
loads. ,
Response: The County will need to evaluate the load bearing capacity of the road. The
Stonex and Vesterra sites will also be able to use the access onto CSAH 71, thus limiting the
CR 38 access if needed. Either CR 38 or 71 can be used for access. The project proposer
will abide by load postings.
Comment #5: CSAH 71 is a two -lane undivided roadway with narrow shoulders with 1500 AADT
(2002 data). The two mining proposals would collectively increase the current traffic on CSAH 71 by
50 %. The increase in trips to and from these two gravel mines is primarily from truck traffic, and is
an overwhelmingly high percentage of truck traffic for this road. Typically, truck traffic on County
highways accounts for 3 -5% of all trips.
CSAH 71 cannot handle a 50 % increase in truck traffic (20% increase from today's traffic of full
loads from the Stonex property alone) without upgrades to both the ingress/egress roadway (CSAH
38) and CSAH 71 itself. CSAH 71 previously was posted to a 5 -ton axle load limit all year long. The
5 -tan restriction was recently lifted, because structural testing showed an 8 -ton road limit capacity.
Currently, CSAH 71 is at a 9 -ton posting except for spring restrictions. This roadway has shown
increased structural distress over the past year, since the load limit restriction was lifted. If the
roadway structure continues to show distress, CSAH 71 will need to have a permanent load restriction
posting to avoid further distress. CSAH 71 may need to be strengthened to allow higher axle loading.
The trucks coming onto CSAH 71 and traveling with heavy loads will have a significant impact on
the County road system.
Response: See response to Comment #4.
Comment #6: The study notes "The addition of truck traffic on local county roads will be reviewed
by the County Engineer. The applicant will cooperate with any mitigation measures brought forward
by the County Engineer ". Modifications to CSAH 71 at the Stonex driveway to address turning
and /or by-pass traffic need to be implemented to provide the best ingress /egress for the business and
minimize impacts to through highway users as mush as possible. If the roads can be made to handle
the loads, the turn lanes will be needed before truck trips from the mining sites begin. The needs for
right turn lanes on CR38 at CSAH 71, CSAH 71 at 117 Street, and CSAH 71 at CSAH 42 should be
monitored as hauling operations begin.
Considerable work may be necessary on both CSAH 38 and CSAH 71 before additional truck traffic
can be accommodated. However, these roadways are not identified in the County's 5 -year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). The Vesterra mine and Stonex mine owners should contribute towards
the cost of structural improvements to both roadways, if they want to ensure the ability to haul 9 -ton
axle loads (except during the spring road restrictions). If the aggregate operations contribute
significantly to the need for right turn Ianes, Vesterra and Stones also should be responsible for
contributing towards the cost of constructing the turn lanes.
Response: The need for turn lanes is not born out by the anticipated levels of service at the
key intersections. Although turn lanes could be considered as a safety measure, since the three
northerly intersections are all "Ts," intersection safety may not be issue. However, the
County should monitor operation during peak periods to determine if turn lanes are warranted
as indicated in their comment. Turn lanes would ease any annoyance that might be
K 1 WPWIN1 1191- 24WEMQ- agency- CR091404. doc
SEP -14 -2004 12:10 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.09i27
September 14, 2004
Page 5 of 5
experienced by through -trip drivers.
Comments from Metropolitan Council
Comment #1: ...The staff review finds the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional
concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An Environmental Impact
Statement is not necessary for regional purposes. Staff provides the following comments for your
consideration.
Item #25 - The City's long term plan for this site is indicated as agriculture with a caveat that the area
may develop as a park or recreation area. The City is encouraged to work with Stonex Inc. on a
reclamation plant that would encompass potential varied topographies for parkland.
Response: The City will work with Stonex to develop an end -use plan that meets the needs
of the surrounding land uses and the community and will take this comment into
consideration.
This concludes our responses to comments on behalf of the City. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me at (763)287- 7196.
F. I WPWLV I l l 91 -141 MEMO- agency- CRO91404. doc
SEP, •• • 14 -2004 12 10 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.10i27
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
In the matter of the
Decision on the Need for an
Environmental Impact FINDINGS OF FACT
Statement (EIS) for Stonex, AND CONCLUSIONS
LLC Sand and Gravel Mine
in Rosemount, MN
Stonex, LLC proposes to operate a sand and gravel mine with a crushing, washing, and
screening plant to provide construction aggregates for the Twin Cities Metropolitan area.
The 80 -acre site will be located in an agricultural area 0.25 miles south of County Road
38 and 0.25 miles west of CSAH 71/Blaine Avenue. Pursuant to Minnesota R
4410.4300, subp. 12, the City of Rosemount has prepared an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for this proposed project. As to the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on the 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:
FINDINGS OF FACT
L PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project
The proposed project involves sand and gravel mining on 80- acres. The mine
will remove up to 50 feet of material from the higher ground covering all but
the east end of the property. A washing operation on site will require the use
of a well and a two - stage settling pond system. The duration of the operation
is expected to be approximately 14 years and assumes a production rate of
approximately 500,000 tons annually. The ultimate end -use plan for this
property will depend on zoning in the area as determined by the City.
B. Project Site
The proposed project is located within an 80 -acre area 0.25 miles south of
County Road 38 and 0.25 miles west of CSAH 71/Blaine Avenue within the
Section 23, T1 15N, R19W in the City of Rosemount. This is generally south
and west of the Flint Hills refinery. The site currently contains 10 acres of
brush/grassland, 67.5 acres of cropland, and 0.5 acres of wooded area.
II. PROJECT HISTORY
A. The project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under
Minnesota R. 4410.43 00 subp. 12.
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 22, 2004.
F: I WPWIN1119114WOF -091404460
•• •• •• ••
SEP -14 -2004 12 11 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.11i27
C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for
public review was published in the Rosemount Town Pages the week of July
23, 2004.
D. The EAW was noticed in the August 2, 2004 EQB Monitor. The public
comment period ended September 1, 2004. Comments were received from
the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Dakota County, and Metropolitan
Council. Copies of these letters are hereby incorporated by reference.
Responses to the comments are also incorporated by reference.
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 finds 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. Traffic Impacts: The addition of truck traffic on local county
roads is anticipated as part of this development. This traffic
impact will be reviewed by the County Engineer and City as
part of the permitting process. The applicant will cooperate
with any mitigation measures brought forward by the County
Engineer.
b. Noise and Dust: All operations will be conducted in a
professional manner and will fall within state guidelines. The
applicant will work closely with the neighbors to address any
issues that may arise. It is untended to locate the processing
plant and associated activities as far back into the hillside as
practical to maximize the screening.
F.•IWPWINV 1912AF0F -091404Aoc
•• •' • ••
SEP -14 -2004 12:11 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.12i27
c. Visual Impacts: Berms and plantings will be used to screen
those parts of the operation that are open to view. However,
the activities will be surrounded on three sides by the natural
landscape, resulting in a relatively low visual impact as far as
the general public in concerned.
d. Storm Water, The project is anticipated to generate some
additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated
within on -site ponding facilities to reduce the runoff rate
leaving the site and provide for storm water quality treatment.
e. Groundwater Appropriations: The maximum amount of
groundwater use at the Stonex site is estimated at 4 -5 million
gallons per year. The mining operations will work to eliminate
interference with residential well operations and correct any
problems, if they do arise. Additionally, the project proposer
will obtain and adhere to the DNR groundwater appropriation
permit as well as supply DNR with any information they need
regarding this operation.
2. The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent
with those of a mining operation.
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 fixture projects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700
subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below.
The City of Rosemount recently approved mining as an interim use in the
area east of Akron Avenue, south of 135` Street, north of County 42 and
west of County 71, with the exception of properties covered under the
Agricultural Preserve Program. The proposed Stonex sand and gravel
mine is located within the approved mining area.
The Vesterra mine site is located immediately to the north for the Stonex
site. The combined total acreage of the Vesterra and Stonex sites is 155
acres. The cumulative impact on this area includes the removal of up to
14.5 million tons of gravel and sand. Between the two sites' 155 acres,
approximately 30 acres will be open for mining at one time. By phasing
this work, impacts to the area will be minimized. These areas combined,
while offering open space, do not offer significant habitat for wildlife.
Wildlife that may be present on these properties are those that are adapted
to agricultural settings with frequent plowing, harvesting, and soil
F.-1WPWINi 1141 -241 FOF- 041404. doc
.. .• .. •.
SEP -14 -2004 12:12 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.13i27
disruption. There is a wooded area located off of the property to the
southeast. This area will not be disturbed as part of the mining operations,
so this cover will continue to be available for wildlife in the area.
Additionally, the end -use of the site will either return to an agricultural use
or be used for park and open space, thus mitigating the long -term impacts
on the site.
Currently, the Vesterra site is processing dry and no groundwater is being
pumped. This could also occur on the Stonex site. If a well and
groundwater pumping is needed at some "point in the future, permits from
the DNR will be required. If, however, a well is needed, the maximum
potential groundwater use for the two mines is 8 -10 million gallons per
year. The exact amount of water required will depend on the final plant
configuration and the loss of water through evaporation and infiltration.
Groundwater appropriation will be addressed through the DNR permitting
process.
The additional truck traffic with two mining operations in the area is
anticipated to have a temporary cumulative impact on the area. As the two
sites are very similar in terms of the quantities to be removed and the type
of mining and hauling operations, it is conceivable, although rather
unlikely, that as many, as 400 loads per day or 60 loads in the peak hour
could be leaving the two sites in the event that peak operations occur
simultaneously at the two sites. It should be noted, however, that the
traffic levels of service and delay anticipated at the key intersection on the
designated haul road intersections was determined with the assumption
that hauling operation from the Vesterra site would be underway.
Therefore, the combined operations were already accounted for in the
traffic study.
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:
Unit of Government
Permit/Approval Required
Rosemount
Mine permit
Rosemount
WCA permit (if applicable)
MPCA
NPDES permit
MPCA
Air permit, if needed
MDNR
Water appropriations
Dakota County Highway
Access permit
Mine Safety and Health Administration Mine registration
F. 1WPWftA1191- 141F0F -091404.doc
SEP -14 -2004 12 12 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.14i27
2. The City finds 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. 7.1). The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below:
The proposed project is subject to the following plans prepared by the City:
1 City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan
2. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
3. City of Rosemount Wetland Management Plan
The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated
and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and
permitting processes.
CONCLUSIONS
The preparation of Stonex, LLC Sand and Gravel Mine 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 sand and gravel mine 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.
F.• tWFW1M1191- 74W0E- 091404.dac
SEP -14 -2004 12:12 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.15i27
RESOLUTION 2004 -
RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED
WHEREAS, the preparation of the Stonex, LLC Sand and Gravel Mine EAW and continents
received: on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed mine
site 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 Stonex, LLC Sand and Gravel Mine 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 by the Rosemount City Council this 21" day of September, 2004.
ATTEST:
City Administrator
Mayor
F. -241 Zwolutton.rff
SEP -14 -2004 12:13 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.16i27
W - Few ev -.x rWz>g11 (kW r.ule /lad
08/08/1004 07:80 AM City of Rosemount 6514194424 2/2
Met! pofitm Court l
August 31, 2004
Rick Pearson
City of Rosemount
2875145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997
RE: City of Rosemount - Stonex Sand and Gravel Mine Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Metropolitan Council District 16 (Brian McDaniel, 952-997 -7731)
Reviews File No. 19276 -I
Dear Mr. Pearson:
The Stones sand and gravel mine project proposes to mine 80 acres of land currently designated as
agriculture. The project is located south of County Road 38 and west of County State Aid Highway 7. The
Vesterra gavel minting operation is located immediately south of the proposed project. The staff review
finds the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of
consistency with Council policies. An Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for regional
purposes. Staff provides the following comments for your consideration:
Item #25 — Nearby resource's: designated parks, recreation areas or trails
The City's long term plan for this site is indicated as agriculture with a caveat that the area may develop as a
park or recreation area. The City is encouraged to work with Stonex Inc. on a reclamation plan that would
encompass potential varied topographies for parkland.
This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. The Council will take no formal action on the EAW.
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Christy Mackaman, principal reviewer,
at 651 - 602 -1750.
Sine3erely, /
�j r
a
Phyl 's arson, Manager
Pl ' ' a and Technical Assistance
cc: Lynn Moratzka, Dakota County
Jack Jackson, MHFA
Todd Sherman, MN DOT Metropolitan Division
Brian McDaniel, Metropolitan Council District 16
Cheryl Olsen, Referrals Coordinator
V:`JCYItK'SfiOlhti)UIIIF1iS mnunt`,t ctrcrs !'tn� mnum'iK�4 FAW Stonex Sand wed Grani Minc 19270•1
www.metrocouacg.org Metro Info Une 602 -1885
230 East Fifth Street • st. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1626 * (651) 602 -1000 • Fax 542 -1550 & TTY 291-M
TOTAL P.02
SEP -14 -2004 12:13 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.17i27
OS/30/Y004 11:51 AM City of Rosemount 6514234424 2/3
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
August 27, 2404
Mr. Rick Pearson
City of Rosemount
City Hall
2875 —145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997
RE: Stonex, LLC Sand and Gravel Mine
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Mr. Pearson:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has received copies of the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared for the above project, prepared by the city of
Rosemount, Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). The MPCA has not reviewed the EAW for
this project. Therefore, the MPCA has no specific comments to provide the RGU, This decision
not to review the EAW does not constitute waiver by the NIPCA of any pending permits required
by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the project proposer to secure any required -
permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. The enclosed checklist identifies
permits that the project may require, together with the most recent contacts at the MPCA.
We remind the RGU that, pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 5 (Environmental Quality
Board Rules), a copy of the RGU's decision on this EAW needs to be sent to the MPCA.
Sincerely,
Eric Kslberg
Project Manager
Operations and Environmental Review Section
Regional Environmental Management Division
EK:gs
Enclosure
cc: Jonathan J. Wilmsburs4 Proposer
520 Latayette Rd. N.; Saint Paul, MN 55155 -4194; (651) 2WWW (yqe); (a5i) 282.&332 (17M; .POIL xin.us
St. Paul a Brainerd • Detroit Lakes a Duluth • Mankato a Marshd a Rochester a WilIrnar
Equal Opporlunity Ell pbyer • PdnW on rwycw per cw*iift at least 20 aerewt f bm from aaoer nay by mnarrra.r.
• •• •• ••
SEP -14 -2004 12:13 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.18i27
r1%J%A JV GNV •? 1 G • JJ VJ:JL O[ MY: OLPL 1 n 1 F.7 (OJ.J -f j L f CJCI I . KIJ/ YJJ
08/90!2004 ti:tii AM City of Rosemount 6514234424 3/3
CHECKLIST
After reviewing the proposed project, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff noted areas that
may need additional follow -up and/or a permit from the MPCA. Those specific areas are checked below:
❑ SDS Permit -- Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit
A State Disposal System (SDS) Permit is required for any extension of a sanitary sewer. if a sanitary
sewer is proposed as a part of this project, an application for the SDS Permit should be made to the
MPCA - by contacting David Sahli, Regional Environmental Management Division (REM), Metro
Region, at 651/296-8722.
El NPDES /SDS Permit for dredged material disposal. If disposal of dredged material is anticipated, then
Brett Ballavance (Duluth office) at 218/723 -4837 or Jaramie Logelin (Duluth office) at 218/529 -6257
(northern), or Elise Doucette (REM/Metro Region) at 651/296 -7290 or Jeff' Smith (REM/Metro
Region) at 651/296 -7367 (southern) should be contacted.
9 NPDES Permit - Stormwater
A General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the MPCA for
construction activities will be required for all projects that disturb one (1) or more acres of land. The
NPDES Permit specifically requires Best Management Practices which are detailed in the permit
(additional information can be found in the MPCA document Protecting Water Quality in Urban
Area) to prevent erosion and control sedimentation during construction and a stormwater pollution
prevention plan to manage pollutants in storm -water runoff from the site that will occur after
construction is complete. As a requirement of the NPDES Permit, storm -water wet- detention ponds
must be installed to treat the storm -water runoff whenever a project replaces surface vegetation with
one or more cumulative acres of impervious surface. If you have need of technical assistance
regarding this, please contact Michael Findorff' (REM/Metro Region) at 651/296-6798 or Todd Smith
at 651/215 -6008. For more general infbi tnation, please contact the appropriate MPCA Regional
Office staff below:
Construction Stormwater
❑ Brainerd, Lisa Woog at 218/855 -5017
❑ Duluth, Jim Dexter at 218/529 -6253
❑ Detroit Lakes, Joyce Cieluch at 218/846 -7387
❑ Willmar/Marshall, Judy Mader (St. Paul office) at 651/296 -7315 or
Mark Hanson (Marshall Office) at 5071537 -6000
❑ Rochester, Dave Morrison 5071281 -7763
Me", Brian C3ove (REM/Metm Region) at 651/296-7597 or
Duane Duncanson (REM/Metro Region) at 6511296 -7072
❑ Industrial Stormwater
Brainerd, Robin Novotny at 218/828 -6114
❑ Duluth, John Thomas at 218/723-0928
Detroit Lakes, Jack Frederick at 218/846 -0734
❑ Marshall, Brad Gillingham at 507/537 -6381
❑ Mankato, Teri Roth at 507/389-5235
❑ Rochester, Dennis Hayes at 507/280 -2991
❑ Southeast Region, Jeff Smith (REM/Metro Region) at 651/296 -7367
Q 'Major Facilities, Eiiae Doucette (REM/Metro Region) at 651/296 -7290
Willmar, Ben Koplin at 320/231 -5321
1
TOTAL P.03
.•- • •. •
SEP -14 -2004 12:14 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.19i27
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55106
651.772.7900
Rick Pearson, City Planner
City of Rosemount
City Hall
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997
RE: Stonex, LLC Sand and Gravel Mine
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
August 25, 2004
Dear Mr. Pearson:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the proposed Stonex Sand and
Gravel Mine in the City of Rosemount. From a natural resources management perspective, the EAW
appears to be complete and accurate. We offer the following comment for your consideration.
Water Use (Item No. 13)
The EAW acknowledges the need for a DNR Water Appropriation permit for washing. The estimate of 4-
5 million gallons appears to be slightly on the low side. As part of the permit application, the DNR will
require an analysis to predict the impacts of pumping on neighboring domestic wells. Considering the
project's location, pumping is unlikely to affect contaminant plumes emanating from the Flint Hills
Refinery. The DNR will require the project proposer to verify this as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving your
record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. Minnesota
Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 and 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days
of deciding on this action. If you have any questions about these comments, please call Wayne Barstad,
the Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, at 651 -772 -7940.
Sincerely,
G (/ for
Kathleen Wallace
Regional Director
An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity
DNR Information: 651 - 296-6157 1- 888 - 646 -6367 TTY: 651 - 296 -5484 1- 800 -657 -3929
so
SEP -14 -2004 12:14 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.20i27
Rick Pearson, August 25, 2044
Page 2
C: Steve Colvin, Wayne Barstad, Sarah Hoffmann, Diana Regenscheid, Pat Lynch
Dave Zappetillo, Diane Anderson; DNR
Jon Larsen, EQB
Nick Rowse, USFWS
#20040812
RM04Stonex.doc
An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity
DNR Information: 651 - 296 -6157 1- 688 - 646-6367 TTY: 651- 296 -5484 1 -8QD -657 -3929
SEP -14 -2004 12:15 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.21i27
s0 24
A Minnesota Department of Transportation
%91 Metropolitan Division
OF
Waters Edge _ -- _ �., i . L)
1500 West County Road B2 AUG 1 2 1004
Roseville, MN 55113
August 10, 2004 S & AS80UPI ATE S
Rick Pearson
City Planner
Planning Department, City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 _
SUBJECT: Stonex Sand & Gravel Mine EAW
Rosemount, Dakota County
Dear Mr. Pearson:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above-
referenced EAW and has no comments, as the proposed project should have little or no
impact on Mn/DOT's highway system.
As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity
such as plats and site plans to:
Development Reviews Coordinator
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and
two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three
(3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a
submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development
proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary
number of copies, as this -will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete
submittals.
'If youhave any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at ( 1
634- 2083.
cerely,
Juanita Voigt
Transportation Planner
Copy: Andy Brotzler / City of Rosemount Engineer
Andi Moffatt / WSB & Associates
An equal opportunity employer -
SEP -14 -20 12__15 W & AS 7635411700 P.22i27
�SEP, 1. 2004 4 _ 17PM DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN N0,�0036 P. 2 •� vT
C O U N T Y
Office of Planning
Lynn G. M O radil a,A1GP
D lr ea or
Dakota County
Weswrn service Cenrer
1495S Galwde Averm
Apple valley. MN 55 124
952.991.7030
Fax 952.991.7031
www Adakoca mus
August31, 2004
Rick Pearson
City Planner
City of Rosemount
2875145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55065
RE: EAW for the Stonex LLC Sand and Gravel Mine
Dear Mr. Pearson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental
Woficsheet (EAW) for the proposed Stonex LLC sand and gravel mine in the City
of Rosemount We have coordinated the County's review by the Environmental
Management Department, the Transportation Department, and the Office of
Planning. our comments are noted in the attachment to this letter.
The County's traffic analysis indicates that the Stonex and nearby Vesterra
mining sites would collectively Increase the current traffic on CSAH 71 by 50%.
The roadway cannot handle a 50% increase In truck traffic without upgrades to
both the ingresslegress roadway (CSAH $8) and CSAH 71. These roadways
are not identified in either the current or proposed County 5-year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
V you have questions about the County's review, please call me at (952) 891-
7053. We look forward to continuing to work with you as this project progresses.
Sincerely,
�Mka. Manager
Offige of Planning
End
C: Willis E. Branning, Dakota County Commissioner — Distriat 7
Brandt Richardson, Dakota County Administrator
Greg Konat, Physical Development Division Director
Phyllis Harmon, Metropolitan Council
d�
ON am r/•txnwir"MM
SEP -14 -2004 12 :15 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.23i27
--- v I I..I.J`I - 1V V 1 . 1_1..JI G/`7
SEP, 1.2004 4:17PY DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN NO.0036 P. 3
Dakota County Comments: EAW — Stonex LLC Sand and Gravel Mine
13. Water Use
The Kraft Farm well was constructed in 1880, but the farm was in existence before 1945. County
staff believe there is at least one more well on this property that needs to be property sealed. A
state - licensed well contractor will need to apply to Dakota County for well sealing permits in order
to seal all unused wells on the property.
20. Solid and Hazardous Wastes
Depending on the amount of solvent or other hazardous wastes that may have been generated, a
hazardous waste license from or registration with Dakota County may be required. After the
volume and types of wastes are determined, the property owner should contact the Dakota
County Environmental Management Department for 11censure requirements and assistance.
21. Traffic
Cumulath+e IMDaft
The Stonex Sand and Gravel mine consists of an 80 -acre parcel located 0.25 miles south of
OR 38 and 0.25 miles west of CSAH 71. The proposal involves accessing CSAH 71 at the 138th
Street intersection. The Vasterra Sand and Gravel mine is a 75 -acre area located Immediately
south of CR 38 and .25 miles west of CSAH 71 in Rosemount. The proposed access is at a
driveway along OR 38 to allow trucks to turn onto CR 71 to access TH 52 and CSAH 42. The two
mining proposals are directly adjacent to each other. The EAW for the Stonex mining project is a
separate study covering impacts to one specific business. Both developments will each generate
200 loads (400 trips) per day and 80 total trips in the peak hour. The impacts to the County road
system from these two adjacent sites should be evaluated as one site.
In addition, several locations in Empire are planned for send and gravel mining, and an EIS in
being prepared. The cumulative impacts from mining in that part of Rosemount between TH 3
and US 52 would be better understood Ithe three studies were coordinated.
County Road System
CR 38 is a gravel road with a daily trip volume of 97 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). CSAH
38 is a gravel road and is not constructed for heavy loads of 20 tons per truck. This section of
roadway is a poor road that is one of the first to fail in the spring. Dakota County may need to
permanently post this road at a 5 ton limit, if the road cannot handle heavier loads.
CSAH 71 is a tyro -lene undivided roadway with narrow shoulders with 1500 AADT (2002 data).
The two mining proposals would collectively Increase the current traffic on CSAH 71 by 50 %.
The increase in trips to and from these two gravel mines is primarily from truck traffic, and is an
overwhelmingly high percentage of truck traffic for this road. Typically, truck traffic on County
highways accounts for 3 -596 of all trips.
CSAH 71 cannot handle a 50% increase in truck traffic (20% Increase from today's traffic of full
loads from the Stonex property alone) without upgrades to both the ingress/egress roadway
(CSAH 38) and CSAH 71 itself. CSAH 71 previously was posted to a 5-ton axle load limit all year
long. The 5 -ton restriction was recently lifted, because structural testing showed an 8 -tan road
limit capacity. Currently, CSAH 71 is at a9-ton posting except for spring restrictions. This
roadway has shown increased structural distress over the past year, since the load limit
restriction was lifted. If the roadway structure continues to show distress, CSAH 71 will need to
have a permanent load restriction posting to avoid further distress. CSAH 71 may need to be
strengthened to allow higher axis loading. The trucks turning onto CSAH 71 and traveling with
heavy loads will have a significant impact on the County road system.
••• •• • .•
SEP -14 -2004 12_ 16 W & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.24i27
SEP _ 1.2004 V 4y18PM DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN NO. 0036 P. 4 y v
The study notes 'The addition of -truck traffic on local county roads will be reviewed by the County
Engineer. The applicant will cooperate with any mitigation measures brought forward by the
County Engineer". Modifications to CSAH 71 at the Stonex driveway to address turning andtor
by -pass traffic need to be Implemented, to provide the best ingressftmms for the business and
minimize impacts to through highway users as much as possible. If the roads can be made to
handle the loads, the turn lanes will be needed before truck taps from the mining sites begin. The
need for right turn lanes on CR 38 at CSAH 71 CSAH 71 at 117` Street, and CSAH 71 at CSAH
42 should be monitored as hauting operations begin.
Considerable work may be necessary on both CSAH 38 and CSAH 71 before additional truck
traffic can be accommodated. However, these roadways am not identified in the County's 5 -year
Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Vesterra mine and Stonex mine owners should
contribute towards the cost of structural improvements to both roadways, if they want to ensure
the ability to haul 8 -ton aide loads (except during spring road restrictions). If the aggregate
operations contribute significantly to the need for right turn lanes, Vesterra and Stonex also
should be responsible for contributing towards the cost of constructing the turn lanes.
TOTAL P.04
SEP -14 -2004 12:16 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.25i27
WS B
t4c Assoclales, Inc.
September 2, 2004
^"
Metropolitan Council
r
Planning & Technical Assistance
ATTN: Referrals Coordinator
`
230 E. Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101 -1626
yy
Re: Stonex EAW
City of Rosemount
WSB Project No. 1191 -24
,a>
' a L
a
On behalf of the City of Rosemount, a copy of the above referenced EAW was sent to you
.
r_I-
for your review on July 22, 2004. The comment period ended September 1, 2004, and the
f _
City has not received comments from your agency. Therefore, the City assumes that your
agency has no comments on this EAW and will proceed with a decision as to the need for
an EAW.
If you should have any questions or comments, please call me at 763- 287 -7196.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Ina
Andrea Moffatt
Environmental Scientist
415Q 01
Memona� Mig�way
'
5uite3Q0 ..4
Inne£�ol�s
76
F.-241LE TF.R- agency- 090204.doe
_: 763•541 7.00 FAX
Minneapolis • St Cloud • Equal Opportunity Employer
SEP-14-2004 12:17 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.26/27
WSB
& Associates, Inc.
September 2, 2004
t - IL .".:
1.
N '
On behalf of the City of Rosemount, a copy of the above referenced. EAW was sent to you
for your review on July 22, 2004. The comment period ended September 1, 2004, and the
City has not received comments from your agency. Therefore, the City assumes that your
agency has no comments on this EAW and will proceed with a decision as to the need for
an EAW.
If you should have any questions or comments, please call me at 763-287-7196.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
��
- 2�
Andrea Moffatt
Environmental Scientist
F;IWPWIM]191-241LE7TER-agenc,v-090204.doc
Minneapolis • St. Cloud • Equal Opportunity Employer
763-541 . -17 - f AX
Minnesota Historical society
State Historic Preservation Office
ATTN: Reviewer
345 Kellogg Blvd. W. Level A
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Stonex EAW
City of Rosemount
WSB Project No. 11 91-24
1.
N '
On behalf of the City of Rosemount, a copy of the above referenced. EAW was sent to you
for your review on July 22, 2004. The comment period ended September 1, 2004, and the
City has not received comments from your agency. Therefore, the City assumes that your
agency has no comments on this EAW and will proceed with a decision as to the need for
an EAW.
If you should have any questions or comments, please call me at 763-287-7196.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
��
- 2�
Andrea Moffatt
Environmental Scientist
F;IWPWIM]191-241LE7TER-agenc,v-090204.doc
Minneapolis • St. Cloud • Equal Opportunity Employer
763-541 . -17 - f AX
SEP -14 -2004 12:17 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.27i27
WS B
&.6soclates, Inc. - -
y
;Y
I� L
a
4150 0114•
Merni ri .44ighway
Suite-'300. ;
��vlinne�po�Is :�
:3 -
(�Jlinngsota'
53422 ::.
763 •S.4'i'h4�`8tI6.. .
7636 "TAX
September 2, 2004
Mr. Brian Watson
Dakota County SWCD
4100 220` Street W.
Farmington, MN 55024
Re: Stonex EAW
City of Rosemount
WSB Pro j ect No. 1191 -24
q /z loY
Dear Mr. Watson:
On behalf of the City of Rosemount, a copy of the above referenced EAW was sent to you
for your review on July 22, 2004. The comment period ended September 1, 2004, and the
City has not received comments from your agency. Therefore, the City assumes that your
agency has no comments on this EAW and will proceed with a decision as to the need for
an EAW.
If you should have any questions or comments, please call me at 763- 287 -7196.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Andrea Moffatt
Environmental Scientist
F.IWPWAYIll9! 24" - -TER- agency- 090204.doc
Minneapolis • St. Cloud • Equal Opportunity Employer
TOTAL P.27
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2004 —
A RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED
WHEREAS, the preparation of the Stonex Sand and Gravel Mine EAW and comments received on the
EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed mine site 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 Stonex Sand and Gravel Mine 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 deterrnined that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 2004.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted In Favor:
Voted Against: