Loading...
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: