HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.h. Authorize Distribution of SKB Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for 30-Day Comment Period
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Regular Meeting: January 16, 2018
AGENDA ITEM: Authorize Distribution of SKB
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for 30-Day Comment Period
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 6.h.
ATTACHMENTS: SKB Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW ) APPROVED BY: LJM
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to authorize distribution of the SKB Environmental
Assessment Worksheet for the 30-day public comment period.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to identify potential environmental
impacts associated with a project and determine whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement is
needed. The EAW process does not constitute approval of a project. The City of Rosemount is the
Responsible Government Unit (RGU) to complete the EAW. An EAW follows a specific form and
guidance developed by the Environmental Quality Board and evaluates a wide variety of environmental
items such as stormwater, wildlife, erosion, traffic, air, noise, and compatibility with adjacent land uses.
The attached EAW has been developed for the SKB Waste Exchange and Metal Recycling Facilities
development. SKB Environmental is proposing to excavate 1.4 million cubic yards of sand and gravel
from 52 acres of agricultural land immediately east of their current operation for the purposes of waste
exchange, followed by the development of three buildings for processing recyclable metals and one
building for maintenance activities. A mandatory EAW is triggered pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.4300
Subpart 12 (Nonmetallic Mineral Mining) due to the depth of the sand and gravel excavation.
The City has previously considered an application for a PUD Master Development Plan for this project.
Upon determining that an EAW was required due to the size and scope of the proposed mineral
extraction, the City suspended its zoning review pending completion of the EAW.
Once authorized by the City Council for distribution, the EAW will be submitted to the required local,
state, and federal review agencies, as well as made available to the public, for the required 30 calendar day
comment period. Any person may review and comment in writing on an EAW. After the 30 day
comment period, WSB will coordinate with City Staff to respond to the comments received and bring the
EAW back to the City Council to determine whether or not an EIS is needed. By action tonight the
comment period will be from January 22-February 21, 2018.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends Council motion to authorize distribution of the SKB EAW for the required 30-day
comment period.
page 1
July 2013 version
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the
Environmental Quality Board’s website at:
http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information
about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines
provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form.
Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be
addresses collectively under EAW Item 19.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title: SKB Environmental Waste Exchange Excavation and Metal Recycling Facilities
Development, Rosemount.
2. Proposer: SKB Environmental, Inc. 3. RGU: City of Rosemount
Contact person: John Domke Contact person: Kyle Klatt
Title: Division Vice President Title: Senior Planner
Address: 251 Starkey Street Address: 2875 145th Street West
City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN 55107 City, State, ZIP: Rosemount, MN 55068
Phone: 651-224-6329 Phone: 651-322-2052
Fax: 651-223-5053 Fax: 651-423-4424
Email: johndo@wasteconnections.com Email: Kyle.Klatt@ci.rosemount.mn.us
4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
Required: Discretionary:
EIS Scoping Citizen petition
X Mandatory EAW RGU discretion
Proposer initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):
4410.4300 Subpart 12. Nonmetallic Mineral Mining
5. Project Location: Figure 1, 2, & 3, Appendix A
County: Dakota
City/Township: City of Rosemount
PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): SW, SE, 20, 115, 18
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River (Red Wing) and Lake Pepin (38)
GPS Coordinates: 44.747932, -93.002923
Tax Parcel Number: PID 340200082010 and PID 340290020020
At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:
· County map showing the general location of the project;
· U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy
acceptable); and
page 2
· Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and
post-construction site plan.
Attached:
Appendix A – Figures
Figure 1 – Project Location, County Location
Figure 2 – Project Location, USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 – Project Location, Aerial
Figure 4 – Existing Land Cover
Figure 5 – Planned Land Use
Figure 6 – Existing Zoning
Figure 7 – Parks and Trails
Figure 8 – Surficial Geology
Figure 9 – Bedrock Geology
Figure 10 – Soil Survey of Dakota County
Figure 11 – Surface Water Resources
Figure 12 – Well Locations and Groundwater Resources
Figure 13 – Potential Contamination Areas
Figure 14 – Existing Traffic Conditions
Figure 15 – Projected 2021 Traffic Conditions
Figure 16 – Projected 2040 Traffic Conditions
Appendix B – Preliminary Plans
Appendix C – Soil Borings
Appendix D – Agency Correspondence
page 3
6. Project Description:
a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50
words).
SKB Environmental Inc. (SKB) is proposing to excavate 1.4 million cubic yards of sand and
gravel from 52 acres of land located adjacent to the existing SKB disposal facility for the
purposes of waste exchange, followed by the development of three buildings for processing
recyclable metals and one building for maintenance activities.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including
infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility.
Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment
or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures,
and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
The proposed project will result in the development of 52 acres from an existing agricultural field
to General Industrial area consisting of four industrial buildings that will support and expand the
recycling and maintenance operations of the existing SKB disposal facility.
The existing SKB disposal facility in Rosemount consists of approximately 170 acres designed to
accept non-hazardous industrial wastes, mixed municipal solid waste incinerator ash, and non-
hazardous debris resulting from construction and demolition including asbestos into the landfill.
The proposed project will expand upon and support the recycling operations and maintenance of
the existing SKB facility.
Approximately 52 acres of the existing agricultural project area will be disturbed and graded as a
part of this project and 1,472,000 cubic yards (18-foot average depth) of sand and gravel will be
excavated and removed from the site. Excavated material will be used in a waste exchange
program at the current landfill. Waste exchange is the practice where landfill customers dump
industrial and demolition debris in exchange for a load of sand which the customer hauls off site.
Excavation of the 1.4 million cubic yards of material will occur on an as-needed basis over a 15-
month timeframe, dependent on the need by customers participating in the waste exchange
program. Equipment such as excavators and graders will be used to move the soils. During
excavation, the material will be loaded directly into dump trucks or will be temporarily stockpiled
onsite prior to loading into dump trucks and being hauled away from the site. Stockpiling of
excavated material will take place on-site to aid in the efficient loading of trucks that will haul the
material off site. Stockpiles are expected to be in place for a short term, depending on traffic
flows.
SKB is proposing to grade the site in a manner to provide screening of the proposed buildings,
promote proper stormwater drainage, and provide slopes that assist in proper traffic flow through
the site. The site will generally slope from north to south with grades ranging from one to four
percent (1-4%). The proposed public entrance is located at the southwest corner of the site along
140th Street (856 feet AMSL) and the proposed private entrance is connected to the existing SKB
facility (900 feet AMSL) at the northwest corner of the site. The site will be graded to bridge the
elevations of these two access points, where site access is at a maximum grade of three percent.
The facility buildings will sit below the surrounding landscape at the proposed elevations,
page 4
screened by the grade differential and landscaping surrounding the facility. The proposed grading
plan is included in Appendix B. Excavation and grading of the site is proposed to occur from
April 2018 to April 2020.
Three new pre-engineered steel frame buildings will be constructed on concrete foundation along
the eastern edge of the site. The northern-most building will recover non-ferrous metal from ash,
similar to the existing Gem-Ash building at the landfill. The middle building will serve as an
upgrade facility used to differentiate various metals and prepare the metal for sale to the market.
The southern-most building will be used to further recycle the ash to a lightweight, high strength
aggregate for the concrete industry. A fourth building is proposed near the northwest corner of the
site and will be used as a maintenance facility to support current recycling operations and the
existing landfill. The total surface area of the buildings is 227,000 square feet where the
approximate size of each of the four buildings is as follows:
· North Building – surface area: 52,000 square feet; height: 34 feet
· Middle Building – surface area: 40,500 square feet; height: 34 feet
· South Building – surface area: 70,500 square feet; height: 36 feet
· Maintenance Building – surface area: 64,000 square feet; height: 30 feet
Driving and parking areas around the buildings will be constructed using typical road
construction methods and will consist of mainly bituminous paved roads with a small area of
Class 5 rock near the maintenance building to accommodate heavy vehicle traffic. The road and
parking areas will have curb and gutter to direct stormwater to a pond located near the south end
of the site. The stormwater pond will have an emergency overflow to an existing box culvert
outlet along 140th Street. A landscaping plan has been developed to lessen the visual impacts of
the facility from the surrounding parcels. Approximately 1.5 acres of trees will be removed
during the development of the site. Many trees onsite are Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), a
Minnesota invasive species. Trees and shrubs will be planted after construction to comply with
city ordinances. The proposed trees will be planted along the north and east sides of the site and
the shrubs will be planted along the foundations of the buildings. Most existing trees will remain
along the southern portion of the site and the trees along the hillside will be preserved
This project will include a watermain connection to the existing main line along Trunk Highway
55 (TH 55), northwest of the project. The site is planned to be served by a future city trunk sewer
line; the project site is within the 2030 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), but the sewer
project is not currently planned. A temporary waste holding tank will serve the maintenance
building until the city trunk sewer is extended. The holding tank will be designed to
accommodate estimated flows of the site. Once the city sewer is extended, the temporary holding
tank will be removed. The three recycling buildings will temporarily be accommodated by a
septic system until the sewer connection is complete.
After completion, the new recycling buildings will operate 24 hours per day. The new buildings
will employ approximately 20 people, with eight employees on-site at a time. During routine
operations, the types of vehicles on site will be off-road haul trucks hauling ash and metal to the
recycling buildings for processing. Semi-tractor trailers will also be used to haul recyclable metal
and lightweight aggregate from the site.
page 5
The proposed excavation and grading of this site is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2018 and
be completed by 2020. Construction of the buildings will be phased over two years. The two
northern-most recycling buildings will be constructed from the summer of 2020 to the winter of
2021. The maintenance building will be constructed from the summer of 2020. The southern-
most building will be constructed in the summer of 2021.
c. Project magnitude:
Table 1. Project magnitude of the SKB Expansion site.
Total Project Acreage 52
Linear project length N/A
Number and type of residential units N/A
Commercial building area (in square feet) N/A
Industrial building area (in square feet) 227,000
Institutional building area (in square feet) N/A
Other uses – Excavation 1,472,000 cubic yards to average 18-foot depth
Structure height(s) 34 feet, 34 feet, 36 feet, 30 feet
d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the
need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The purpose of the project is to permit additional recycling, maintenance, and light manufacturing
operations by developing the 52-acre General Industrial property located adjacent to the existing
SKB disposal facility. As part of the project, SKB is proposing to excavate and conduct a waste
exchange program for sand and gravel on the site. The land uses are consistent with the zoning
and guiding for the property, it is the amount of grading and excavation prompting the EAW.
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or
likely to happen? Yes X No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
This project is within a larger 184 total acres of agricultural area owned by SKB and is located to
the east of the existing SKB disposal facility. Currently, there are no future development plans for
the remaining 132 acres to the east of the proposed project.
f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes X No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
page 6
Table 2. Estimated acreage of the site cover types before and after the project.
Before After
Wetlands 0 0
Deep water/streams 0 0
Wooded/forest 10 acres 9 acres
Brush/Grassland 2 acres 0
Cropland 40 acres 0
Lawn/landscaping 0 30 acres
Impervious surface 0 11 acres
Stormwater Pond 0 2 acres
Other (describe) 0 0
TOTAL 52 acres 52 acres
8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals,
certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits,
governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance
including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions
are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules,
Chapter 4410.3100.
Table 3. Known permit approvals and certifications for the SKB Expansion Project.
Unit of government Type of application Status
State
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES construction stormwater permit To be obtained
Minnesota Department of Health Water main plan review To be obtained
Minnesota Department of Transportation Misc. work permit To be obtained
County
Dakota County Solid Waste Processing License Type A To be obtained
Local
City of Rosemount Land use application (PUD) Under review
City of Rosemount Declaration of Need for an EIS To be obtained
City of Rosemount Building and/or grading permit To be obtained
City of Rosemount Platted subdivision To be obtained
City of Rosemount Subsurface Sewage Treatment System
Maintenance Permit
To be obtained
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item
Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19. If
addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in
EAW Item No. 19
9. Land use:
a. Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks,
trails, prime or unique farmlands.
The project area is currently farmland with some woodlands and a steep slope on the
southern edge of the site adjacent to Ehlers Path (Figure 4, Appendix A). The property to
page 7
the west is a licensed industrial waste landfill and a few single-family homes to the north.
The properties to the east and south are farmland with some woodlands. The Spring Land
Park Reserve is located more than 3,000 feet to the northeast and the Mississippi River
Regional Trail is planned more than 2,000 feet to the north (Figure 7, Appendix A).
ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and
any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local,
regional, state, or federal agency.
The project area is guided General Industrial under the Rosemount Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the general industrial classification is to provide for the establishment of
both light and medium manufacturing uses along with warehouse, repair, and business
uses. It is the preferred transition district between the heavy industrial district and may be
compatible with residential uses. The project is within the 2030 Metropolitan Urban
Service Area (MUSA) (Figure 5, Appendix A). The project area is not located within any
additional resource management areas.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and
scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The project area is zoned GI PUD – General Industrial Planned Unit Development (Figure
6, Appendix A). The project is over 4,000 feet from the Mississippi River Pool #2 and
therefore outside of the Shoreland Overlay. The project site is not located within any
additional zoning overlay district and is outside the Mississippi River Critical Corridor
Area (MRCCA).
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a
above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
The property to the west of the project area is guided for WM – Waste Management, the
properties to the south are guided LI – Light Industrial and BP – Business Park, and the properties
to the east are guided BP – Business Park. Recycling operations are a conditional use within the
GI – General Industrial zoning district. These guided uses and the existing industrial businesses to
the northwest are all compatible with the proposed industrial use. Minnesota Trunk Highway 55
is located directly north of the project area and the properties north of MN Hwy 55 are guided AG
– Agriculture and are within the MRCCA. MN Hwy 55 serves as the transition between the
industrial uses to the west and northwest and the agricultural areas to the north and northeast.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility
as discussed in Item 9b above.
The industrial buildings will be located more than 300 feet south of MN Hwy 55 and more than
ten feet lower than elevation of MN Hwy 55. This location is more than 200 feet greater than the
setback required from TH 55 and the lower elevation will help screen the industrial buildings for
TH 55 and the agricultural uses to the north and northeast. Trees (both conifers and deciduous)
will be planted to the north of the industrial buildings to provide for additional screening. The
access to the site will come from the south off of Ehlers Path or through a private access from the
existing landfill site and therefore will not impact the existing traffic on MN Hwy 55.
page 8
10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms:
a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible
geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers,
or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the
project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to
address effects to geologic features.
The surficial geology of the project area is outwash – gravel and sand (Figure 8, Appendix A).
Outwash plains are deposits of sand and gravel carried by running water from the melting ice of a
glacier. Soil borings are included in Appendix C. The sand and gravel within the project area was
deposited from the Superior Lobe - Cromwell Formation during the Late Wisconsin Age of the
Quaternary Period, occurring from 110,000 years to 12,000 years before present time. The
outwash consists of gravel and sand with cobbles and undrained depressions that diminish in
number to the south and east of the plain. In the project area, more than 35 percent of the material
is gravel particles larger than 2 mm in diameter. The outwash in the project area extends
approximately 50-100 feet deep before reaching the first bedrock layer. According to the DNR
Hydrogeology Atlas, groundwater is located at a depth below 30 feet. The bedrock layer under
the project area is the Prairie Du Chen Group (Figure 9, Appendix A). No sinkholes or karst
features have been identified on site. To minimize impacts to groundwater and geological
resources, the amount of excavation was limited by the city and the proposed plan has an average
of 18 feet of excavation on site, including the stormwater pond. Excavation north of the proposed
stormwater pond is at a depth of approximately 14 feet.
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly
permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading.
Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational
activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project
construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other
measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in
response to Item 11.b.ii.
The soils on the project area are Wadena loam (39B), Estherville sandy loam (41B), Hawick
gravelly sandy loam (611C), and Hawick gravelly sandy loam (611D) (Table 4; Figure 10,
Appendix A). The soils are well drained to excessively well drained. The existing site
topography gradually slopes from north to south, where there is a steep slope at an approximately
13% grade along the south end of the project area. Excavation will remove approximately
1,472,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel from the 52-acre project area prior to final site grading.
Sand and gravel material will be hauled off-site. The existing upper one to three feet (1-3’) of soil
is topsoil. Topsoil will be saved and stockpiled onsite during excavation and replaced in locations
of landscaping or used within the landfill after construction.
After final grading, the majority of the site will sit at an elevation that is an average of
approximately 18 feet lower than existing conditions. The site will slope north to south at a grade
between one and three percent (1-3%) with 25% side slopes (4:1) surrounding the site. The side
slopes will be stabilized with seed and Category 3 Erosion Control Blanket after construction to
page 9
limit erosion. All soils will be stabilized to comply with the NPDES Construction Stormwater
Permit. The remainder of the site will be landscaping, stormwater pond, or will be impervious
surface of buildings, bituminous, or gravel. The project will comply with NPDES permit
conditions to ensure proper stabilization of the site during and after construction.
Table 4: Soils within SKB Expansion project area.
Dakota County Soil Survey, Minnesota
Map
Symbol
Name Percent
Slopes
Erodibility
Status
Acres Percent of
Project Limits
39B Wadena loam 2% to 6% Not highly
erodible land
34.6 66.5%
41B Estherville sandy
loam
2% to 6% Not highly
erodible land
3.4 6.5%
611C Hawick gravelly
sandy loam
6% to 12% Not highly
erodible land
6 11.5%
611D Hawick gravelly
sandy loam
12% to
20%
Highly erodible
land
8 15.5%
NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the
potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an
increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of
water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the
geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10.
11. Water resources:
a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below.
i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include
any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl
feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or
special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of
the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
The DNR Public Waters Inventory and the National Wetlands Inventory were reviewed and
there are no surface water features within the project area (Figure 11, Appendix A). Spring
Lake, a portion of Pool 2 along the Mississippi River, is located one mile to the northeast of
the project area. The channel of the Mississippi River is located approximately 1.5 miles to
the northeast from the project area. This reach (Rock Island RR Bridge to Lock and Dam #2)
of the Mississippi River is included on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
303d Impaired Waters List and has an approved TMDL for Mercury in fish tissue, Mercury
in the water column, and total suspended solids (TSS). A TMDL is needed for PCB in fish
tissue, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in fish tissue, and PFOS in the water column. Some
of these impairments are construction related parameters and may require additional Best
Management Practices (BMPs) per the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit.
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is
within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells,
including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or
nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
page 10
The Minnesota Well Index was reviewed and no wells are depicted within the project area
(Figure 12, Appendix A). However, an irrigation well is visible on aerial photographs near
the center portion of the project area.
Four verified wells were depicted adjacent to the project area within 500 feet. The wells are
listed as domestic, monitoring, and irrigation. Table 5 shows the details of the adjacent
verified wells. An irrigation well is also visible on the adjacent site located east of the project
area on aerial photographs. The adjacent well services a center pivot irrigation system used
for agricultural purposes.
Table 5. Verified wells adjacent to the SKB Expansion project area.
Well ID Type Location from Project Area Depth (ft.)
441886 Domestic North 340
766141 Monitoring West 137
462921 Monitoring West 131
469358 Monitoring West 113
The project is located over the St. Peter-Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifer. The Minnesota
Geological Survey classifies the project area as having high sensitivity to pollution of the
Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifer, with no bedrock confining layer above the aquifer. High
sensitivity does not indicate that water quality has been or will become degraded. The
estimated travel time of water-borne surface contaminants to reach the aquifer is weeks to
years. Based on available geotechnical boring information, the anticipated depth to shallow
groundwater at the site is greater than 40 feet below grade. This is below the proposed
excavation grade of the project. The static water level recorded at adjacent monitoring wells
are listed at 108 feet below grade. It should be noted that static water level does not always
correlate with shallow water level depths and groundwater depths can fluctuate due to
seasonal and manmade events. According to the Minnesota DNR Hydrogeology Atlas (series
HG-03), the depth to groundwater within the project area is generally deeper than 30 feet,
consistent with the geotechnical boring results. The depth to groundwater in the northwest
portion of the project area is greater than 50 feet and becomes shallower to southeast.
The City of Rosemount and Empire Township’s well head protection plan was reviewed and
the project area is not located within the Drinking Water Supply Management Areas or
Wellhead Protection Areas.
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate
the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition
of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the
site.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and
waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
wastewater infrastructure.
page 11
No connection to city sanitary services is proposed during the construction of this
project. A future trunk sewer line will be constructed along 140th Street within the
2030 MUSA. Upon construction of the city trunk sewer line, the SKB will install a
sanitary sewer line extending from the new recycling buildings to the city trunk
sewer line along 140th Street. The future trunk sewer line is not currently planned and
is not part of this project.
The proposed upgrade facility will utilize water as a part of system process. Water
used in this operation will be processed on-site through filter presses and other
filtration devices. The water will be recirculated and reused. The recycling operation
will not add to the wastewater production of the site.
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS),
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a
system.
Until the city trunk sewer line along 140th Street is constructed, the three proposed
recycling buildings will be serviced by a septic system. Daily wastewater flow for the
three proposed recycling buildings was calculated for 20 employees at approximately
350 gallons per day. The maintenance building will be serviced by a 1,000-gallon
wastewater holding tank during the planning and construction phases of the future
city trunk sewer line. Daily wastewater flow was calculated for one to two employees
at the maintenance facility at a total of approximately 40 gallons per day. The holding
tank will also receive wastewater from periodic wash downs of the maintenance area
floor. The shop will produce an estimated 600 gallons per week or approximately 90
gallons per day from washing. Therefore, the total wastewater flow to the proposed
holding tank is 130 gallons per day. The tank will be equipped with an audio and
visual alarm system that would be triggered when the tank reaches 75% of its
capacity. SKB will empty the tank approximately every seven days.
The septic drain field is located south of the three recycling buildings. The septic
system design will conform with city standards to provide adequate separation
between the drain field and the groundwater
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment
methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate
impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
Wastewater will not discharge to surface waters.
ii. Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to
and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the
site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss
any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution
prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP
site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control,
sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and
after project construction.
page 12
The existing site consists of farmland that generates approximately 19 ac-ft of runoff in
the 100-year, 24-hour, Atlas 14 rainfall event. In the proposed condition, all the site’s
runoff in the 100-year, 24-hour, Atlas 14 rainfall event will be infiltrated on site, per this
City of Rosemount’s stormwater requirements. The proposed runoff volume to be
infiltrated is 24.85 ac-ft. A 6.4 ac-ft National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) pond will
be constructed as pretreatment.
The exiting runoff discharges the property on the south side. The water travels south and
east over farm fields. Most of the water infiltrates in the sandy soils. Water that does not
infiltrate in the existing conditions would eventually make its way to the Mississippi
River. In the proposed condition, runoff from events larger than the 100-year, 24-hour,
Atlas 14 rainfall event will follow the same flow path as in exiting conditions.
This project will be creating several steep slopes. These slopes will be covered with
erosion control blanket and seeded in conformance with the NPDES permit. The NURP
pond will be constructed early in the construction phasing to ensure treatment of
stormwater runoff during construction and facility operations, as well as to prevent
erosion downstream. Silt fence will be constructed around the NURP basin to prevent
sedimentation in the basin during construction. Inlet protection will be installed at all
existing and proposed impacted catch basins to protect against sedimentation from runoff.
The project will be covered under the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit and will
develop a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent
stormwater pollution during construction.
iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and
purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe
any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the
wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of,
municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation,
including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any
measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water
appropriation.
Water appropriation of groundwater will not occur during the construction of this project.
There is an irrigation well within the site and it will be abandoned in accordance with
Minnesota Department of Health regulations.
Water to the project will be supplied by the Rosemount City water supply. Once at final
grades, water service connections will be constructed between all four proposed buildings
within the project area. A 16-inch water main will be constructed from the existing water
main along TH 55, located northwest of the project area, and will extend to the east along
TH 55 for approximately 2,400 linear feet where it will be plugged for a future water
main connection. The facilities will use an average total of approximately 350 gallons per
day of water for employee uses.
page 13
iv. Surface Waters
a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland
features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative
removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical
modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland
alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g.,
available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental
effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation
for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed,
and identify those probable locations.
No wetlands are located within the project area so no wetland impacts will occur as a
result of this project.
b) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to
surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial
ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream
diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss
direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water
features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to
surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are
proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the
water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft
on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.
There are no surface waters within the project area. The project will not change the
number and type of watercraft on any waterbody.
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes:
a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards
on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination,
abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or
gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that
would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to
avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential
environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Minnesota Department of Agriculture
(MDA) databases were reviewed to identify verified and potentially contaminated sites that may
be encountered during the proposed project. The following databases were reviewed:
· MPCA "What's in My Neighborhood?" website search
· MDA "What's in My Neighborhood?" website search
No environmental sites were identified at the project area (Figure 13, Appendix A). Two sites
were identified immediately adjacent to the project area. The sites are associated with multiple
MPCA database listings. The following adjacent listings were identified:
page 14
Site 13 – SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Facility, Nitti Rolloff Service, Inc. at SKB,
Cell 4F Liner Construction, and SKB Environmental Rosemount located east of the
Project Area at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard Road, Rosemount, Minnesota. The Solid
Waste Facility and Emergency Management listings indicate the presence of regulated
materials and/or a hazardous substance release at Site 13. The regulated materials are
assumed to be present in the permitted landfill cells and location and detail of the releases
is unknown. This site is associated with the following database listings:
Multiple Activities – Indicating the site is listed on more than one MPCA tracked
database.
Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator – Indicating the site generates
between 220-2,200 pounds of hazardous waste per month or less than 2.2 pounds
of acute hazardous waste per month.
Solid Waste Facility – Indicating the site is permitted to accept waste including;
household garbage, industrial waste and/or debris from construction and
demolition sites. The permit is listed as active.
Industrial Stormwater Permit – Indicating a permit is in place to limit stormwater
from coming in contact with harmful pollutants such as toxic metals, oil, grease
and de-icing salts.
Emergency Management (two listings) – Indicating a chemical spill or some
other environmental incident occurred at the site requiring immediate action. The
Emergency Management incidents (55809 and 87298) was reported on
November 29, 2011 and June 14, 2013 and no further incident details were
provided.
Construction Stormwater – Indicating a permit is in place to limit sediment and
pollutant runoff from the site during and after construction.
Tanks – Indicating a tank of a certain size is present, or was present, at the site.
Reportedly, eight aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) are associated with the site
ranging from 500 to 25,000 gallons in size. The associated tank product is listed
as diesel fuel and other
Site 20 – GEM Ash Processing, LLC located east of the project area at 13425 Courthouse
Boulevard Road, Rosemount, Minnesota. This site is associated with the following
listing:
Tanks - One 500-gallon AST is listed for the site containing diesel fuel.
Three (3) surrounding area site listings (beyond adjacent) were identified within 1,000 feet of the
project area. One site is associated with multiple MPCA database listings. The following
surrounding area listings were identified:
Site 1 – Willy Severson Farm located north of the project area. This site is associated
with the following listing:
Feedlots – Indicating livestock are confined in areas where manure may
accumulate.
page 15
Site 2 – Pine Bend Property located south of the project area. The Brownfields VIC
listing indicates the potential presence of regulated materials and/or a hazardous
substance release at Site 2. The details of the VIC listing are unknown. This site is
associated with the following listing:
Brownfields Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) – Indicating the site is
potentially contaminated with non-petroleum contamination. The identified VIC
site (VP19960) is listed as inactive.
Site 14 – Endres Processing LLC & Endres Farms located north of the project area at
13420 Courthouse Boulevard, Rosemount, Minnesota. The Solid Waste Utilization listing
indicates the presence of regulated materials and/or a hazardous substance release at Site
14. The location and details of the solid waste reuse is unknown. This site is associated
with the following listings:
Multiple Activities – See above for description.
Air Quality – Indicating the site generates air pollutants during operation.
Very Small Quantity Generator – Indicating the site generates less than 220
pounds of hazardous waste per month or less than 2.2 pounds of acute hazardous
waste per month.
Solid Waste Utilization – Indicating certain wastes have been beneficially reused
at the site instead of disposing in a landfill.
Construction Stormwater – See above for description.
Industrial Stormwater – See above for description.
Industrial SDS – Indicating the site discharges process water into surface or
groundwater of the state.
No sites with environmental listings were identified at the project area and two sites with multiple
listings were determined to be located adjacent to the project area. The Solid Waste Facility and
Emergency Management listings associated with Site 13, Brownfields VIC listing associated with
Site 2, and Solid Waste Utilization listings associated Site 14, indicate the presence of regulated
materials and/or a hazardous substance release. However, based on their regulatory status (all
incidents have been investigated and closed) and distance from the project area, it is unlikely that
the identified listings will result in project area impacts.
If contamination or regulated materials are discovered during project area redevelopment,
materials will be handled and managed in accordance with state and federal regulations.
b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored
during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss
potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify
measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid
waste including source reduction and recycling.
During construction, solid wastes generated will by typical of an industrial construction project.
Construction waste produced during the construction of the project will be disposed of properly.
page 16
For the post development period, the sanitary wastes generated by the maintenance building will
be stored in a 3,000 gallon onsite holding tank that will be emptied by a licensed septic hauler.
Waste water from the maintenance facility may include oil, grease, and other automotive fluids.
An oil/water separator will be installed beneath the maintenance area. Septic waste from the
recycling buildings will be serviced by an on-site septic system.
The recycling operations will receive ash from the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) or
ash that has been previously landfilled. No water will be removed from the ash stream during
operations. The proposed project will reduce the amount of landfilled ash by recovering
nonferrous metal from ash, differentiating and preparing metals for market, and recycling ash into
a high strength aggregate for the concrete industry.
The upgrade facility will use water as a part of the separation and cleaning process. The utilized
water will be cleaned onsite through filter presses and other filtration devices. The material
filtered from the water will be disposed of in the landfill and the water will be recirculated.
c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials
used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage.
Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or
other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of
hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the
use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include
development of a spill prevention plan.
During construction, some hazardous materials typical of a construction site (e.g., fuel oil,
hydraulic fluid, etc.) will be stored in approved containers. As required by the NPDES
Construction Stormwater Permit, all products that have the potential to leach pollutants will be
stored under cover, or similar protection, to prevent discharge. All hazardous materials will be
properly stored in sealed containers to prevent spills, leaks, or other discharges. Trucks will not
be washed out on site.
During recycling operations, there will be no outdoor storage of ash material and all ash initially
received by the facility will be stockpiled within the lined landfill. It is likely that a 1,000-gallon
double walled fuel tank will be located onsite for refueling. The existing landfill site has a Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan that can be amended to include the
proposed site.
d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of
disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and
disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the
generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
No hazardous wastes are anticipated to be generated by the excavation, construction, or operation
of the project.
13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features):
a) Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.
page 17
The project area is currently an active agricultural field (Figure 4, Appendix A). The site is
bordered by stands of trees along the north and south sides of the property that are approximately
300-feet-wide. The land adjacent to the west is the existing SKB landfill and the land adjacent to
the east is an agricultural field. The trees along the southern side of the project area are located on
a steep slope and are not likely to provide desirable or preferred wildlife habitat. Any wildlife
present within the project area would be species that move through the site or that temporarily
utilize the land. Animal species consistent with an agricultural area or a disturbed area may
include deer, birds, squirrels, racoons, coyotes, rabbits, etc.
b) Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native
plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other
sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement
number (LA- ) and/or correspondence number (ERDB- _) from which the data were obtained and attach
the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has
been conducted within the site and describe the results.
The DNR Natural Heritage Information System was queried for state-listed rare features (LA-
896). An official review was also completed by the DNR and correspondence (ERDB 20180207)
is attached in Appendix D. Three avian species, one endangered and two of special concern, were
sighted within a mile of the project area and were verified in 2012. Based on species life history
information, it is not likely that any of the following identified species are dependent on the
available habitat within the project area:
· Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) – the loggerhead shrike is a state and federally-
listed endangered species that occupies grasslands and other open habitats with areas for
perching and hunting, such as fence posts or telephone poles. Based on the life history
information provided by the DNR, the loggerhead shrike has the potential to be found
within the project area. This species is commonly found nesting in open areas with
scattered trees and shrubs, such as red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), hawthorn (Crataegus
sp.), and plum (Prunus sp.). They nest in early spring from April through July. To avoid
adverse impacts to this species, SKB will clear and grub trees outside of the prime
nesting season, from August through March.
· Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii) – the Bell’s vireo is a state species of special concern that is
found in low, dense shrubs or early successional riparian vegetation. The project area
does not have the desired vegetation for this species and it is unlikely that this species
would be encountered within the project area.
· Lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) – the lark sparrow is a state species of special
concern and is commonly found in open habitats with grass and scattered trees on poor or
sandy soils. The project area lacks grassy habitat for this species and it is unlikely that
this species would be encountered within the project area.
Four federal threatened or endangered species are listed within Dakota County and their
applicability to the project area is as follows:
page 18
· Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) – the northern long-eared bat is a state-listed
species of concern and a federally-listed threatened species found throughout Minnesota.
During the winter, this species hibernates in caves and mines, and during the active season
(approximately April through October) it roosts underneath bark. Tree removal is expected as
a part of this project, but no known hibernacula or roost trees occur within the project
township.
· Higgins pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) – the Higgins pearlymussel is a state and
federally-listed endangered species that occurs in freshwater rivers. This species will not
occur within the project area.
· Rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) – the rusty patched bumble bee is a federally-
endangered species that occurs in grasslands with flowering plants. The project area does not
have grasslands with flowering plants and it is unlikely that this species will occur or be
impacted by the proposed project.
· Prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptostach) – the prairie bush clover is a state and federally-
listed threatened species that occurs on well-drained soils. Given the actively farmed fields
within the project area, it is unlikely that this species will be impacted by the proposed
project.
c) Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be
affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the
project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered
species.
The proposed project involves the removal of topsoil, sand and gravel, and approximately 1.5
acres of trees from the site. The existing site conditions include very few plant communities or
habitat that would support the identified rare wildlife. The trees along the south end of the
property provide the most potential for wildlife habitat, but given that the trees are located on a
steep slope, it is unlikely that this location would be favorable for the rare features identified.
SKB designed the site to maintain and preserve as many existing trees as possible. The are no
DNR Areas of Biodiversity Significance or Regionally Significant Ecological Areas located
within the project area.
The US Department of Agriculture’s National Invasive Species Information Center provides
information regarding Best Management Practices to prevent or mitigate invasive species
establishment or movement. The Minnesota DNR also provides guidance on prevention of
aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. Guidance for implementation can be referenced on the US
Department of Agriculture’s website or the Minnesota DNR’s website.
d) Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
Based on a review of the site, the project area has the potential to contain habitat for the
Loggerhead Shrike, a state and federally-endangered species. Measure will be taken to clear and
grub trees outside of the prime nesting period of this species to avoid impacts to this species.
After the completion of the project, trees (hardwood and coniferous) and shrubs will be planted
throughout the project area per city standards. The replacement of vegetation after construction
will provide a similar or greater amount of habitat as the existing conditions. Wildlife occupancy
page 19
of the site after project completion is expected to be similar to wildlife occupancy before
construction. Based on this information, no short-term or long-term adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, or sensitive ecological resources are expected. Impact minimization
efforts as a part of this project will focus on construction activities and include erosion control
BMPs to prevent erosion and sedimentation in surface water flows.
14. Historic properties:
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in
close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3)
architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation.
Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic
properties.
The State Historic Preservation Office was contacted regarding the presence of architectural or
archeological resources. Cultural and archeological resources are not located within the project area.
One listing of a Lithic Scatter site (a site with only lithic materials; i.e., tools, flakes, fire-cracked
rock, etc.) is located within a mile of the project area to the south but this project will not affect the
identified site. Correspondence is attached in Appendix D.
15. Visual:
Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual
effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the
project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
There are no scenic views or vistas on or near the project area. There are no tall buildings or
residential developments that overlook the project area or that would be blocked by the project area.
There is one home located adjacent to the project area to the north. The project will develop the four
proposed industrial buildings at an elevation that is approximately 10 to 15 feet below the existing
ground elevation. The tallest building will be 36 feet tall and will stand approximately 25 feet above
existing ground level. The grade difference will aid in screening visual impacts from height. The
home to the north will be shielded from the building by a grove of red and white pine trees which can
grow to a height of 100 feet. Overall, SKB is proposing to screen the project area by the grade
differential and landscaping surrounding the facility.
The property will not produce vapor plumes or intense light. All buildings will have external low-
profile LED lighting as well as the entrance and exit driveway areas. To avoid light pollution, outdoor
lighting will have bulb caps or shields and will be aimed downward. Non-essential lighting will be
turned off after business hours. Signage for the property will be placed at the entrance along 140th
Street and will be approved by the City prior to installation.
16. Air:
a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air
pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including
any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of
any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment.
page 20
Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
No stationary sources of emission such as boilers or stacks are anticipated with development in
the area.
b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions.
Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g. traffic
operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or
mitigate vehicle-related emissions.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated all of Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka and
portions of Carver, Scott, Dakota, Washington and Wright Counties as a maintenance area for
carbon monoxide. The EAW study area is in Dakota County that is in this carbon monoxide
maintenance area.
It is expected there will be slightly higher Mobile Source Air Toxins (MSAT) emissions in the
study area with the project relative to the no build condition due to increased Average Daily
Traffic (ADT). There also could be increases in MSAT levels in a few localized areas where
ADT increases. However, the EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations will bring about significantly
lower MSAT levels for the area in the future when compared to today. No significant impacts on
vehicle air emissions are anticipated with the project.
c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and
odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed
under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including
nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or
mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
During construction, particulate emissions will temporary increase due to the generation of
fugitive dust. Construction dust control is required to be in conformance with City ordinances and
the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit.
17. Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during
project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including
1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state
noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the
effects of noise.
The existing site is located within a rural area and is surrounded by agricultural, golf course and
industrial uses. Existing noise sources are those typical of rural areas and consist mainly of traffic on
the area roadways, which include TH 55, 140th Street and surrounding roadways. The nearest
sensitive receptor is a farm house on the south side of TH 55 on the north side of the site,
approximately 300 feet from the proposed grading operation and future building.
page 21
Construction noise levels and types will be typical of construction equipment and will occur as a
result of this project. Construction noise will be limited to daytime hours consistent with the City of
Rosemount’s construction and noise ordinances (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays). Construction equipment will be fitted with mufflers that would
be maintained throughout the construction process. Table 17 summarizes the peak noise levels of
common types of roadway construction equipment.
Table 17: Typical Roadway Construction Equipment Noise Levels at 50 Feet
Equipment Type Manufacturers
Sampled
Total Number of
Models in
Sample
Peak Noise Level
Range Average
Backhoe 5 6 74-92 83
Front Loader 5 30 75-96 85
Dozer 8 41 65-95 85
Grader 3 15 72-92 84
Scraper 2 27 76-98 87
Pile Driver NA NA 95-105 101
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Highway Administration
After project completion, noise from routine operations will be consistent with the existing truck
traffic to and from the landfill, as well as maintenance and recycling operations. All maintenance and
recycling operations will occur inside enclosed buildings.
18. Transportation
a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and
proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3)
estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip
generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative
transportation modes.
The proposed project will result in the development of 52 acres from an existing agricultural field
to a light industrial area consisting of four industrial buildings that will support and expand the
recycling and maintenance operations of the existing SKB disposal facility. The total area of the
buildings will be 227,000 square feet. The approximate size of each of the four buildings is as
follows:
· North Building – 52,000 square feet
· Middle Building – 40,500 square feet
· South Building – 70,500 square feet
· Maintenance Building – 64,000 square feet
page 22
The proposed excavation and grading of this site is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2018 and
be completed by 2020. Construction of the buildings will be phased over two years. The two
northern-most recycling buildings will be constructed from the summer of 2020 to the winter of
2021. The maintenance building will be constructed from the summer of 2020. The southern-
most building will be constructed in the summer of 2021.
During excavation, customers that deliver waste to the landfill will haul a load of sand material
away from the site. The amount of trucks hauling to and from the site will be the same as
existing. Hauling traffic will access the site through the existing landfill at the private entrance
located in the northwest corner of the site.
After completion, the new recycling buildings will operate 24 hours per day. The new buildings
will employ approximately 20 people, with eight employees on-site at a time. During routine
operations, the types of vehicles on site will be off-road haul trucks hauling ash and metal to the
recycling buildings for processing. Semi-tractor trailers will also be used to haul recyclable metal
and lightweight aggregate from the site. The site plans are shown in Appendix B.
The estimated trip generation from the proposed site at full development (following completion
of all buildings) is shown below in Table 18-1. The trip generation used to estimate the proposed
site traffic is based data provided by the project proposer for other similar sites. The table shows
the Daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for each vehicle type from the
proposed site development.
Table 18-1 - Site Trip Generation
Vehicle Type Daily AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Existing Site 1000 80 100
Future Trucks 80 12 16
Future Vehicles/Employees 40 16 16
Total Site 1120 108 132
Source: Project Proposer
There are approximately 30 parking spaces currently on the site adjacent to the existing buildings
in the northwest quadrant of the property. The proposed improvements will add an additional 66
spaces adjacent to the new buildings to be constructed with Phase 1 of the proposed project.
There are no existing Metro Transit routes adjacent to the site in the area.
b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements
necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system.
If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a
traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures
described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual,
Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a
similar local guidance,
page 23
As outlined above the site will generate an additional 120 daily trips and an additional 32 PM
peak hour trips. Based on the EAW guidance a Traffic Impact Study is therefore not required;
however, a traffic analysis outlining the anticipated impacts has been completed and is
summarized below.
The methodology used for traffic operation analysis follows procedures outlined in the
Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for un-signalized and
signalized intersections. The traffic analysis software Synchro/SimTraffic was used, which is
based on HCM methodologies. The software is used to approximate traffic operations and to
estimate delay times and traffic queue lengths at each of the key intersections.
The measure used to describe the traffic operations at an intersection is called Level of Service
(LOS). An intersection is given a LOS grade from “A” to “F” to describe the average amount of
delay per vehicle at the intersection over a one-hour period. LOS “A” is the best traffic operating
condition and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at LOS “A”. LOS
“E” represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity and some drivers may have to
wait through more than one green signal phase to make it through the intersection. LOS “F”
represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection and
many vehicles may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the
intersection. Typically, the LOS “D/E” boundary is considered the minimum acceptable LOS in
urban and urbanizing areas.
The intersections that could be impacted by the proposed development projects are identified
below and include:
· Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) at Existing Site Entrance
· Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) at 145th Street (CSAH 42)
· 145th Street (CSAH 42) at 142nd Street/140th Street
· 140th Street at Proposed Site Entrance
Access to the existing and proposed site for trucks, will be through the current driveway
connection on Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) approximately 1.3 miles northwest of 145th Street
(CSAH 42), and for passenger vehicles (employees) through a new proposed driveway
connection on 140th Street approximately 0.8 west of 145th Street (CSAH 42).
These intersections and driveways were analyzed to determine LOS for the AM and PM peak
period for the: existing 2017, projected 2021 full build of the site, and projected 2040 full build of
the site.
Existing (2017) peak hour traffic volumes were based on recent traffic counts collected in the
area for other proposed developments. The turning movement volumes at the Courthouse
Boulevard (TH 55) and Existing Site Entrance was estimated based on the current traffic
conditions provided by the proposer. Figure 14, Appendix A show the existing 2017 traffic
volumes, lane configurations and traffic control for each of the intersections analyzed. Based on
the existing traffic volumes and traffic control at each of the key intersections, a traffic operations
analysis was conducted. The results of the analysis are shown below in Table 18-2.
page 24
The results of the analysis show that all intersections are operating at an overall LOS B or better
during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour with all movements operating at LOS D or better
except the northbound left turn at the Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) and 145th Street (CSAH 42)
intersection movements that operate at a LOS E.
Table 18-2 – Existing (2017) Level of Service
Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh)
Courthouse Blvd (TH 55) at Existing Site Entrance A (A) 2 A (A) 3
Courthouse Blvd (TH 55) at 145th St (CSAH 42) A (D) 8 B (E) 19
145th St (CSAH 42) at 142nd St/140th St A (A) 2 A (A) 4
C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc.
The projected 2021 analysis assumes the proposed SKB site expansion is fully operational with
all new buildings and site improvements completed. Figure 15, Appendix A shows the projected
traffic volumes, lane configurations and traffic control for each analyzed intersection. Table 18-3
below show the results of the analysis.
The analysis shows that all intersections including the new Site Entrance on 140th Street will
operate at overall LOS C or better in 2021 with all movements at LOS D or better during the AM
peak hour and PM peak hour except the Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) and 145th Street (CSAH
42) intersection that has the northbound Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) left turn operating at a
LOS F. If this intersection was signalized with no other improvements the overall LOS in the PM
peak hour would improve to LOS B with the worst movement at LOS D.
Table 18-3 – Projected 2021 Level of Service
Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh)
Courthouse Blvd (TH 55) at Existing Site Entrance A (A) 3 A (A) 4
Courthouse Blvd (TH 55) at 145th St (CSAH 42) A (D)
B (B)
9
12
C (F)
B (D)
28
18
145th St (CSAH 42) at 142nd St/140th St A (A) 3 A (A) 4
140th St at Proposed Site Entrance A (A) 1 A (A) 1
C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc.
A = Overall with Mitigation, (C) = Worst movement with Mitigation
The projected 2040 analysis assumes the proposed SKB site is fully operational with all new
buildings and site improvements completed. In addition, it is assumed that the background (non-
site related) traffic would increase on the adjacent roadway based on the Dakota County traffic
growth factor of 1.7 over a 20-year period. Figure 16, Appendix A shows the projected traffic
page 25
volumes, lane configurations and traffic control for each analyzed intersection. Table 18-4 below
show the results of the analysis.
The analysis results show that with the increase in background traffic and traffic from the site the
intersection of Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) at 145th Street (CSAH 42) will be operating at
overall LOS F with the existing lane configuration and traffic control. All other intersections
would be operating at overall LOS C or better with all movements at LOS D or better. At the
intersection of Courthouse Blvd (TH 55) and 145th Street (CSAH 42) the intersection would
require addition of a northbound through lane on Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55), a dual left turn
lane in addition to the signalization assumed in the 2021 analysis. With these improvements, the
overall LOS would improve to a LOS B with all movements at LOS C or better.
Table 18-4 – Projected 2040 Level of Service
Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh)
Courthouse Blvd (TH 55) at Existing Site Entrance A (A) 6 A (A) 9
Courthouse Blvd (TH 55) at 145th St (CSAH 42) D (F)
B (B)
41
16
F (F)
C (D)
100+
24
145th St (CSAH 42) at 142nd St/140th St A (A) 6 A (B) 8
140th St at Proposed Site Entrance A (A) 2 A (A) 3
C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc.
A = Overall with Mitigation, (C) = Worst movement with Mitigation
Although the overall and movement operations are at acceptable levels, the safety of trucks
entering and existing the site on Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) will be a concern with the speed
and number of vehicles on Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55). In order to improve the safety of this
intersection an eastbound acceleration lane should be provided at the time the full site
development (2021) is completed.
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
Based on the results of the traffic analysis the development of the site alone would not require
specific improvements to accommodate the increase in traffic. However, the increase in
background traffic and safety of traffic entering and existing the site will require the following
mitigation improvements:
Existing Condition
· No intersection operates below LOS B; therefore, no mitigation is recommended.
· No traffic safety issues are apparent; therefore, no safety mitigation is recommended.
2021 Full Development Condition
page 26
· No intersection operates below LOS C; however, as a result of primarily the background
traffic, Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) at 145th Street (CSAH 42) will experience
unsatisfactory delay in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour. This can be
mitigated by signalization of the intersection.
· Traffic safety issues are anticipated for exiting truck traffic from the site at the
Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) and Existing Site Entrance. This can be mitigated with
the addition of an acceleration lane for exiting traffic.
2040 Full Development Condition
· No intersection operates below LOS C except Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) at 145th
Street (CSAH 42) which will operate at LOS F with the existing conditions, primarily
due to the background traffic. This can be mitigated by signalization of the intersection
and geometric improvements with the addition of a through lane on Courthouse
Boulevard (TH 55) and dual left turn lanes from Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) to 145th
Street (CSAH 42).
· No traffic safety issues are anticipated if the mitigation from 2021 was implemented at
the Courthouse Boulevard (TH 55) and the Existing Site Entrance.
19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are
addressed under the applicable EAW Items)
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that
could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
Project related impacts will include soil disturbance and removal, vegetation removal, grading,
addition of new impervious, stormwater, sanitary, city water use, noise, and added traffic. Future
development of the remaining 132 acres of agricultural land owned by SKB has not been
discussed and there are no current plans for additional development.
Soil Disturbance and Removal: The proposed project will involve the excavation of
approximately 1,472,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel from 52 acres of the existing agricultural
area.
Vegetation Removal: Approximately 1.5 acres of trees will be removed during the construction of
the public access to the property along 140th Street. A tree replacement plan and fee in lieu of the
proposed removal will mitigate for vegetation removal.
Grading: The topography of the site will be graded so that the site is not steeper than one to three
percent (1-3%) grade. The side slopes will be 4:1 or 25%.
New Impervious: Eleven acres of new impervious surface will be added to the project area.
Stormwater: The surface water management system has been designed to manage the 100-year,
24-hour storm event of 7.42 inches. Stormwater will be routed to one pond on the southern
portion of the site via catch basins and stormwater piping.
page 27
Sanitary and Water: The proposed project will utilize an on-site septic system and holding tank
for sanitary wastes during and after construction completion, with the intent of connecting to the
city trunk sewer line in the future. The project will be serviced by a connection to the city water
main.
Noise: The proposed project will cause increased noise levels during construction and during
routine operations. Noise will be typical for construction activities and is expected to meet the
City’s ordinance requirements.
Traffic: Based on the results of the traffic analysis, the site improvements alone would not require
specific improvement to accommodate the increase in traffic. However, some safety
improvements will be warranted in the future.
The project will be constructed from April 2018 through August 2021. Mitigation measures to
address these impacts will occur within the same timeframe and the project impacts are not
expected to combine to create a cumulative potential effect with future projects.
b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been
laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic
scales and timeframes identified above.
SKB owns the remaining 132 acres of agricultural land to the east of the proposed project area.
No detailed plans of additional phases are available now or in the near future. Impacts from
subsequent phases are not expected to combine to create cumulative potential effects.
c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental
effects due to these cumulative effects.
No cumulative potential effects are anticipated.
20. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects
not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be
affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.
No additional environmental effects have been identified or are anticipated.
page 28
RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental
Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.)
I hereby certify that:
· The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
· The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other
than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or
phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively.
· Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature ________________________________ Date _______________________________
Title ________________________________
Appendix A – Figures
Dakota
Goodhue
Rice
WashingtonHennepin
Scott
Ramsey
0 21,000Feet¯
Figure 1 : Project Location- County LocationSKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 21,000 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig1_CountyLocation.mxd Date Saved: 11/1/2017 3:44:50 PMCounty Bo undaries
Proje ct L ocation
0 2,000Feet¯
Figure 2 : Project Location- USGS Topographic MapSKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 2,000 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig2_LocationTopo.mxd Date Saved: 10/23/2017 3:40:55 PMProje ct L ocation
Pine Bend Tr
Courthouse Blvd
DoylePath
145th St E RAMP 416142nd St E
Emery Ave E140th St E
0 1,000Feet¯
Figure 3 : Project Location- AerialSKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 1,000 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig3_AerialLocation.mxd Date Saved: 10/23/2017 3:46:11 PMProje ct L ocation
140th St E
Courthouse Blvd
0 550Feet¯
Figure 4: Existing Land CoverSKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 550 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig4_Landcover.mxd Date Saved: 11/14/2017 12:03:41 PMPro je ct Location
5-10 % Impervious
11 -2 5% Imp ervious
26-50 % Impervious
51-75 % Impervious
76-10 0% Impervious
Sho rt Grasses
Agricultural Land
Maintaine d Tall Grass
Forest
Tall G rasses
Wetland E mergent Veg.
Dry Ta ll Grasses
Wetland O pen W ater
Courthouse Blvd
145th St E
Doyle Path
RAMP 416142nd St E
Emery Ave E140th St E
Pine Bend Tr
0 1,000Feet¯Figure 5 : Planned Land UseSKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 1,000 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig5_PlannedLandUse.mxd Date Saved: 12/5/2017 12:34:08 PMProje ct L ocation
AG Agriculture
CC Commu nity Commercial
LDR Low Density Residential
MDR Med ium Density Residential
HDR High Density Residential
PO Existin g Parks/Open Space
BP Bu siness Park
LI Light Industrial
GI Gene ra l Industrial
WM Waste Man agement
Courthouse Blvd
Pine Bend Tr
DoylePath
145th St E RAMP 416142nd St E
Emery Ave EFahey Ave140th St E
0 1,000Feet¯Figure 6 : Existing ZoningSKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 1,000 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig6_Zoning.mxd Date Saved: 12/5/2017 12:41:56 PMProje ct L ocation
GI - G eneral Industrial
HI - Heavy Industrial
AG - Agricultural
PI - Pu blic/Institutional
WM - Waste Management
Fischer Ave145th St E Fischer Ave150th St E
DoylePath
Hastings Tr
RAMP416Pine Bend Tr
Courthouse Blvd
142ndSt E
Fischer Ave
M-56F u r lo n g T rFahey AveEmery Ave E140th St E
Spring LakePark (DakotaCounty)
0 2,000Feet¯Figure 7: Parks and TrailsSKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 2,000 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig7_Parks and Trails.mxd Date Saved: 11/9/2017 8:07:39 AMProje ct L ocation
Parks
New Ulm Fmoutwash(DesMoines)
CromwellFm; outwash
Floodplainalluvium
CromwellFm; outwash
Floodplainalluvium
St. Marysterrace
FloodplainalluviumFloodplainalluvium
body ofwater
Floodplain alluviumFloodplainalluvium
Ordovician;Prairiedu Chien gp
Langdonterrace
GreyCloudterrace
Langdonterrace;rocksubstrate
Richfieldterrace
body of water
0 2,000Feet¯Figure 8: Surficial GeologySKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 2,000 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig8_Surficial Geology.mxd Date Saved: 10/30/2017 3:37:29 PMProje ct L ocation
150thSt E
Pine Bend Tr
140th St E
145th St E
Courthouse Blvd
DoylePath
RAMP416142ndSt E
Courthouse Blvd
M-56Conl
ey AveFahey AveEmery Ave E0 2,000Feet¯Figure 9: Bedrock GeologySKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 2,000 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig9_BedrockGeo.mxd Date Saved: 11/1/2017 4:08:07 PMProje ct L ocation
Bedrock Geology
St. Peter Sandstone
Prairie du Chien Group
Jordan Sandstone
St. Lawrence Formation
Tun nel City Group
611D
39B
611C41B 611E39B
39B
611C
611C
39B
39B
39B
611C
39B
39B
39B
39B
250
39B
39B 250
250
39B
411A
411A
611C
611C
41B
41B
611C
250
611C
39B
611C7C
27B
39B
39B
39B
415B
611C
41B
611E
611D
611C
611C415B
415B
7B
857A
41B415B
0 550Feet¯
Figure 10: Soil Survey of Dakota CountySKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 550 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig10_Soils.mxd Date Saved: 11/6/2017 10:15:01 AMProje ct L ocation
Soil Survey of Dakota County
Highly Erodible Land
M ap Symbol Name Pe rce nt Slope s
39B Wadena loam 2% to 6%
41B Estherville sandy loam 2% to 6%
611D Hawick gravelly sandy loam 12% to 20%
611C Hawick gravelly sandy loam 6% to 12%
Dakota Co unty Soil Surve y,
Spring
Unnamed
U.S. Lock& Dam #2 Pool(main channel)
BaldwinBaldwinBaldwin
M ississip pi R ive r0 2,000Feet¯
Figure 11: Surface Water ResourcesSKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 2,000 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig11_SurfaceWaters.mxd Date Saved: 11/6/2017 11:51:04 AMProje ct L ocation
1 Mile Buffer
MPCA Impaired Waters
DNR Public Waters Inventory
DNR National Wetlands Inventory
!<!<
!<
!<
!<
!<
!<
!<
!<
!<
!<
!<
!<
!<
!(
!(
!(
00469358
0046292100517506
00493013
00441886
00256785
00698170
00482883
00482882
00493014
00766141
0 550Feet¯Figure 12: Well Locations and Groundwater ResourcesSKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 550 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig12_Wells.mxd Date Saved: 11/16/2017 1:16:26 PMProject Location
500Ft Buffer
!(Soil Boring
!<Wells
DNR Depth to Water Table
Depth (ft.)
0-10
>10-20
>20-30
>30-40
>40-50
>50
")")")")")")")")
1
2
0
4
560
89
10
11
12
131415
16
17
1819
20
21
0 1,000Feet¯
Figure 13: Potential Contamination AreasSKB Expansion EAWRosemount, Minnesota 1 inch = 1,000 f eet Document Path: K:\010901-000\GIS\Maps\Fig13_Contamination.mxd Date Saved: 11/6/2017 10:22:18 AMProje ct L ocation
1000 Ft. Buffer
")Old Emergency Incidents
MPCA Site
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Feedlot
#Tan ks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
Figure 14 :
Conditions
Existing Traffic
20
217
20
(25)
(1045)
(25)Traffic
ConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak
TrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM Peak(25)( 0)(25)2002020
937
20
(25)
(294)
(25)BYP
AS
S20020(25)( 0)(25)Traffic
ConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak
TrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M PeakBYPAS
S
(10)
(1085)
18
239
276
974
(210)
(342)(170)( 2)1703Traffic
ConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak
TrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM Peak1691(215)( 0)(11)
( 7)
8
2 2758(206)( 3)12,800 ADT
Figure 15 :Traffic
ConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak
TrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM Peak(29)( 0)(29)2302323
1025
20
(29)
(346)
(25)BYP
AS
S20020(25)( 0)(25)Traffic
ConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak
TrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M PeakBYPAS
S
(44)
(1146)
(255)
(362)(232)( 39)21539Traffic
ConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak
TrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM Peak2496(298)( 4)(17)
(11)
14
6 29314(218)( 8)12,800 ADT(29)
(1136)
(25)
23
231
20
293
1029
21
253
Traffic
ConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak TrafficConfigurationLanePM PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M PeakAM Peak86( 8)( 0)12
8
( 4)
( 8)
(10)
( 0)
Traffic Conditions
Projected 2021
12
0
Figure 16 :Traffic
ConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak
TrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM Peak(29)( 0)(29)2302323
1250
20
(29)
(473)
(25)20020(25)( 0)(25)Traffic
ConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak
TrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak
(355)
(422)(332)(105)29791Traffic
ConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak
TrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM PeakPM Peak3836(470)( 4)(18)
(13)34614(447)( 8)(29)
(1394)
(25)
23
278
20
344
1202
26
295
Traffic
ConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M Peak TrafficConfigurationLanePM PeakTrafficConfigurationLaneAM Peak
P
M PeakAM Peak86( 8)( 0)12
8
( 4)
( 8)
(23)
( 0)
Traffic Conditions
Projected 2040
14,900 ADT(109)
(1339)
14
7
13
0
Appendix B – Plans
SCALE
M
M
TANK
M
M
M
RIPRAP
TANK
601
W.E.
926.8
SCALE
M
M
M
M
TANK
601
SCA
L
E
SCA
L
E
S
SCA
L
E
TANK
M
M
M
TAN
K
SCAL
E
fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"North Recycling BuildingRosemount, MNSouth ElevationEast ElevationNorth ElevationWest ElevationScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Keynotes1.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type a: warm gray, withhorizontal bands where indicated.2.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type b: light gray / creamcolor; horizontal reveals whereindicated 48" o.c.3.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type c: dark gray / charcoalcolor; horizontal reveals 16" o.c.4.Insulated steel overhead door5.Painted steel door in paintedhollow metal frame6.Thermally broken aluminumstorefront framing with 1 inchinsulated glazing7.Prefinished metal panels8.Prefinished metal coping / flashing9.Wall mounted, downcast full cut-offlight fixtureX268888888845555999996912322223311112231327
fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 132'-0"top of precast - 234'-0"Middle Recycling BuildingRosemount, MNSouth ElevationEast ElevationNorth ElevationWest ElevationScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Keynotes1.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type a: warm gray, withhorizontal bands where indicated.2.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type b: light gray / creamcolor; horizontal reveals whereindicated 48" o.c.3.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type c: dark gray / charcoalcolor; horizontal reveals 16" o.c.4.Insulated steel overhead door5.Painted steel door in paintedhollow metal frame6.Thermally broken aluminumstorefront framing with 1 inchinsulated glazing7.Prefinished metal panels8.Prefinished metal coping / flashing9.Wall mounted, downcast full cut-offlight fixtureX88888888455559999966623213213221237212
fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 134'-0"top of precast - 236'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 134'-0"top of precast - 236'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 134'-0"top of precast - 236'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.24'-0"top of precast - 134'-0"top of precast - 236'-0"South Recycling BuildingRosemount, MNSouth ElevationEast ElevationNorth ElevationWest ElevationScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Keynotes1.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type a: warm gray, withhorizontal bands where indicated.2.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type b: light gray / creamcolor; horizontal reveals whereindicated 48" o.c.3.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type c: dark gray / charcoalcolor; horizontal reveals 16" o.c.4.Insulated steel overhead door5.Painted steel door in paintedhollow metal frame6.Thermally broken aluminumstorefront framing with 1 inchinsulated glazing7.Prefinished metal panels8.Prefinished metal coping / flashing9.Wall mounted, downcast full cut-offlight fixtureX888888884999955566972121222211122212
Maintenance / Operations BuildingRosemount, MNfin.floor0'-0"clear ht.20'-0"top of precast - 128'-0"top of precast - 230'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.20'-0"top of precast - 128'-0"top of precast - 230'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.20'-0"top of precast - 128'-0"top of precast - 230'-0"fin.floor0'-0"clear ht.20'-0"top of precast - 128'-0"top of precast - 230'-0"South ElevationEast ElevationNorth ElevationWest ElevationScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Keynotes1.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type a: warm gray, withhorizontal bands where indicated.2.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type b: light gray / creamcolor; horizontal reveals whereindicated 48" o.c.3.Insulated precast concrete wallpanel - type c: dark gray / charcoalcolor; horizontal reveals 16" o.c.4.Insulated steel overhead door5.Painted steel door in paintedhollow metal frame6.Thermally broken aluminumstorefront framing with 1 inchinsulated glazing7.Prefinished metal panels8.Prefinished metal coping / flashing9.Wall mounted, downcast full cut-offlight fixtureX12354823888888224699996856693321533177221222111323
KEYQtySpeciesLatinSizeHeightWidthCO58HackberryCeltis occidentalis2.5" B&B50+50PR154Pine, red (Norway)Pinus resinosa6' B&B40+25+PS179Pine, eastern whitePinus strobus6' B&B40+25+QE56Oak, Northern PinQuercus ellipsodalis2.5" B&B40+25+CS195Dogwood, Arctic FireCornus stolonifera 'Farrow'#5 POT6'4'DL178Honeysuckle, DwarfDivervilla lonicera#5 POT3'3'
601
SCALE
SCALE
M
M
TANK
M
M
RIPRAP
TANK
601
W.E.
926.8
Appendix C – Soil Borings
Toll Free: 800-472-2232 Email: wenckmp@wenck.com Web: wenck.com
MINNESOTA COLORADO GEORGIA NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA WYOMING
Maple Plain Bloomington New Hope Denver Roswell Fargo Pierre Cheyenne
763-479-4200 952-831-5408 800-368-8831 602-370-7420 678-987-5840 701-297-9600 605-222-1826 307-634-7848
Windom Woodbury Mandan Sheridan
507-831-2703 651-294-4580 701-751-3370 307-675-1148
Williston
800-472-2232
Appendix A
Boring Logs
886.6
866.6
848.1
MAC
1
MAC
2
MAC
3
MAC
4
MAC
5
MAC
6
MAC
7
MAC
8
47
40
70
70
80
80
80
80
SP
SW
TOPSOIL: Dark brown/black silt, some decomposed plant material twigs and roots, slightly sandy and
clayey, moist, soft.
SAND: Tan medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose.
Redox staining present.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet.
1.5
21.5
40.0
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 888.1 ft
LOGGED BY CJA
DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 2.25"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JMW
DATE STARTED 7/20/15 COMPLETED 7/20/15
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER B-1
CLIENT SKB Landfill
PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013
PROJECT NAME Soil Borings
PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Telephone: 763-479-4200
Fax: 763-479-4242
RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
880.8
879.3
866.8
848.8
841.8
MAC
1
MAC
2
MAC
3
MAC
4
MAC
5
MAC
6
MAC
7
MAC
8
40
60
60
57
63
80
0
80
OL
SP
SW
SP
TOPSOIL: Dark brown/black silt, some decomposed plant material grass and roots, slightly sandy and
clayey, moist, soft.
ORGANIC CLAYEY SILT: Tan, slightly sandy, some roots, moist, soft. Low to moderate plasticity and
cohesiveness.
SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
Cobbles present.
SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose.
Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet.
1.0
2.5
15.0
33.0
40.0
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 881.8 ft
LOGGED BY CJA
DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 2.25"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JMW
DATE STARTED 7/20/15 COMPLETED 7/20/15
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER B-2
CLIENT SKB Landfill
PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013
PROJECT NAME Soil Borings
PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Telephone: 763-479-4200
Fax: 763-479-4242
RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
887.4
885.4
869.4
863.4
858.4
853.4
MAC
1
MAC
2
MAC
3
MAC
4
MAC
5
MAC
6
MAC
7
40
40
60
60
60
80
80
OL
SP
SW
SP
SW
TOPSOIL: Dark brown/black silt, some decomposed plant material grass and roots, slightly sandy and
clayey, moist, soft.
ORGANIC CLAYEY SILT: Tan, slightly sandy, some roots, moist, soft. Low to moderate plasticity and
cohesiveness.
SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose.
Some redox staining present.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
Cobbles present.
Bottom of hole at 35.0 feet.
1.0
3.0
19.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 888.4 ft
LOGGED BY CJA
DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 2.25"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JMW
DATE STARTED 7/20/15 COMPLETED 7/20/15
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER B-3
CLIENT SKB Landfill
PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013
PROJECT NAME Soil Borings
PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Telephone: 763-479-4200
Fax: 763-479-4242
RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
899.5
895.5
880.5
871.0
865.5
860.5
MAC
1
MAC
2
MAC
3
MAC
4
MAC
5
MAC
6
MAC
7
MAC
8
37
60
40
3
80
73
80
80
SP
SW
SP
SW
SP
TOPSOIL: Light brown silt, decomposed plant material grass roots and twigs, slightly sandy and clayey,
moist, soft.
SAND: Tan, fine to medium grained, moist, loose.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
Cobles present.
SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, slightly gravely, dry to moist, loose.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, moist, soft.
Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet.
1.0
5.0
20.0
29.5
35.0
40.0
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 900.5 ft
LOGGED BY CJA
DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 2.25"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JMW
DATE STARTED 7/20/15 COMPLETED 7/20/15
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER B-4
CLIENT SKB Landfill
PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013
PROJECT NAME Soil Borings
PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Telephone: 763-479-4200
Fax: 763-479-4242
RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
896.3
892.0
888.0
883.0
878.0
857.0
MAC
1
MAC
2
MAC
3
MAC
4
MAC
5
MAC
6
MAC
7
MAC
8
40
40
60
80
80
80
80
80
SP
SW
SP
SW
SP
TOPSOIL: Dark brown silt, some decomposed plant material grass and roots, slightly sandy and clayey,
moist, soft.
SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, trace gravel, moist, loose.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, trace gravel and cobbles, moist, loose.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, trace gravel, moist, loose.
No gravel present.
Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet.
0.8
5.0
9.0
14.0
19.0
40.0
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 897.0 ft
LOGGED BY CJA
DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 2.25"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JMW
DATE STARTED 7/21/15 COMPLETED 7/21/15
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER B-5
CLIENT SKB Landfill
PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013
PROJECT NAME Soil Borings
PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Telephone: 763-479-4200
Fax: 763-479-4242
RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
901.7
893.2
881.9
872.7
870.7
862.2
MAC
1
MAC
2
MAC
3
MAC
4
MAC
5
MAC
6
MAC
7
MAC
8
40
40
10
10
73
80
3
10
SP
SW
SP
GW
SW
TOPSOIL: Light brown silt, some grass and roots, slighty sandy and clayey, moist, soft.
SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, trace gravel, moist, soft.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan/brown/gray/red, medium to very coarse grained, some cobbles, redox staining,
moist, soft.
SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, some cobbles, moist, soft.
GRAVEL: Gray/brown/red, fine to coarse grained, some sand and cobbles, moist, soft.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan/brown/gray/red, medium to very coarse grained, some cobles, redox staining,
moist, soft.
Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet.
0.5
9.0
20.3
29.5
31.5
40.0
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 902.2 ft
LOGGED BY CJA
DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 2.25"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JMW
DATE STARTED 7/21/15 COMPLETED 7/21/15
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER B-6
CLIENT SKB Landfill
PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013
PROJECT NAME Soil Borings
PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Telephone: 763-479-4200
Fax: 763-479-4242
RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
907.0
896.0
893.0
887.0
877.0
869.0
868.0
MAC
1
MAC
2
MAC
3
MAC
4
MAC
5
MAC
6
MAC
7
MAC
8
50
80
73
80
80
77
67
80
SP
SP
SW
SP
SW
TOPSOIL: Brown silt, some decomposed plant material grass and roots, slighty sandy and clayey, moist,
soft.
SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, moist, loose.
Becoming light tan/white.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, moist, soft.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, moist, soft.
Becoming moderately stiff.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet.
1.0
12.0
15.0
21.0
31.0
39.0
40.0
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 908.0 ft
LOGGED BY CJA
DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 2.25"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JMW
DATE STARTED 7/21/15 COMPLETED 7/21/15
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER B-7
CLIENT SKB Landfill
PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013
PROJECT NAME Soil Borings
PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Telephone: 763-479-4200
Fax: 763-479-4242
RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
902.0
901.5
893.0
889.0
868.0
MAC
1
MAC
2
MAC
3
MAC
4
MAC
5
MAC
6
MAC
7
40
60
80
67
80
73
60
OL
SP
SW
SP
TOPSOIL: Dark brown/black silt, decomposed plant material, some roots and grass, slightly sandy and
clayey, moist, soft.
ORGANIC CLAYEY SILT: Tan, slightly sandy, some roots and decomposed wood, moist, soft. Low to
moderate plasticity and cohesiveness.
SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, slightly gravely, moist, loose.
Some redox staining present.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, trace gravel, redox staining, moist, soft.
No redox staining.
Becoming light tan/white, fine to medium grained.
Gravel seem.
Becoming moderately stiff.
Cobbles Present.
Bottom of hole at 35.0 feet.
1.0
1.5
10.0
14.0
35.0
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 903.0 ft
LOGGED BY CJA
DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 2.25"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JMW
DATE STARTED 7/21/15 COMPLETED 7/21/15
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER B-8
CLIENT SKB Landfill
PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013
PROJECT NAME Soil Borings
PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Telephone: 763-479-4200
Fax: 763-479-4242
RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
898.8
888.8
879.8
869.3
859.8
MAC
1
MAC
2
MAC
3
MAC
4
MAC
5
MAC
6
MAC
7
MAC
8
40
60
80
60
80
60
40
60
SP
SW
SP
SW
TOPSOIL: Brown silt, some grass roots and twigs, slightly sandy and clayey, moist, soft.
SAND: Tan, medium to coarse grained, trace gravel, moist, loose.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
SAND: Light tan/white, fine to medium grained, trace gravel, moist, loose.
GRAVELY SAND: Tan, fine to very coarse grained, redox staining, moist, soft.
Bottom of hole at 40.0 feet.
1.0
11.0
20.0
30.5
40.0
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 899.8 ft
LOGGED BY CJA
DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
AT END OF DRILLING ---
AFTER DRILLING ---
HOLE SIZE 2.25"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Matrix Environmental GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY JMW
DATE STARTED 7/22/15 COMPLETED 7/22/15
DEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 SAMPLE TYPENUMBERPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER B-9
CLIENT SKB Landfill
PROJECT NUMBER 3053-0013
PROJECT NAME Soil Borings
PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount, MN
GENERAL BH / TP / WELL BORING LOGS.GPJ WENCK.GDT 7/29/151800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Telephone: 763-479-4200
Fax: 763-479-4242
RECOVERY %U.S.C.S.GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Appendix D – Agency Correspondence
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Ecological & Water Resources
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55155-4025
December 1, 2017
Correspondence # ERDB 20180207
Ms. Roxy Franta
WSB & Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed SKB Environmental Expansion,
T115N R18W Sections 20 & 29; Dakota County
Dear Ms. Franta,
As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if any rare
species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the
proposed project. Based on this query, rare features have been documented within the search area (for details,
please visit the Rare Species Guide at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html for more information on the
biology, habitat use, and conservation measures of these rare species). Please note that the following rare
features may be adversely affected by the proposed project:
• The Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a state-listed endangered bird, Bell’s Vireo, (Vireo bellii) and
Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), both state listed bird species of special concern, have been
documented in the vicinity of the project site. The Loggerhead Shrike and Bell’s Vireo both nest in small
trees or shrubs, while the Lark Sparrow typically nests on the ground. If the project boundary contains
suitable habitat, then it is possible that these birds may breed in the area. Recommendations to minimize
potential impacts include the following:
o Avoid tree and shrub removal within suitable habitat during the breeding season, typically April
through July,
o Report any loggerhead shrike sightings to the DNR,
o Please reference the attached fact sheet and the DNR Rare Species Guide for additional
recommendations.
Please contact me if any tree or shrub removal will occur during the breeding season, April through July,
as the DNR may request that a survey for active nests be conducted prior to construction.
Page 2 of 2
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Ecological & Water Resources
500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155
• The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should address whether the proposed project has the
potential to adversely affect the above rare features and, if so, it should identify specific measures that
will be taken to avoid or minimize disturbance.
• Please include a copy of this letter in any state or local license or permit application. Please note that
measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the above rare features may be included as restrictions or
conditions in any required permits or licenses.
The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about
Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department
of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most
complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other
natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the
occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no
records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in
the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary.
For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results
are only valid for the project location (noted above) and the project description provided on the NHIS Data
Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or for an updated review if construction has not
occurred within one year.
The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as
a whole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these
rare features. If you have not done so already, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment
Ecologist to determine whether there are other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project
(contact information available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html). Please be
aware that additional site assessments or review may be required.
Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources.
An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover.
Sincerely,
Samantha Bump
Natural Heritage Review Specialist
Samantha.Bump@state.mn.us
Enc. Loggerhead Shrike Fact Sheet
Cc: Becky Horton, Leslie Parris
1
Roxy Franta
From:Jesse Kling <jesse.kling@mnhs.org>
Sent:Wednesday, November 08, 2017 12:55 PM
To:Data Requests to SHPO
Cc:Roxy Franta
Subject:Re: FW: SHPO Review Request
Attachments:DakotaArchaeology.xls
THIS EMAIL IS NOT A PROJECT CLEARANCE
This information has recently been updated, please
read the note below carefully.
This message simply reports the results of the
cultural resources database search you requested.
The database search produced results for only
previously known archaeological sites and historic
properties.
No historic structures were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic
and Architectural Inventory for the search area requested. A report containing the archaeological
sites identified is attached.
The result of this database search provides a listing of recorded archaeological sites and
historic/architectural properties that are included in the current MN SHPO databases. Because the majority
of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been recorded,
important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development
projects within that area. Additional research, including field survey, may be necessary to adequately
assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties.
Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined
eligible for listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received. The following codes on the
reports you received are:
NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries
of a National Register District.
CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is
eligible for listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the
purposes of the Review and Compliance Process. There properties need to be further assessed before
they are officially listed in the National Register.
2
SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the
National Register, in circumstances other than the Review and Compliance process.
DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are
eligible for listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed.
CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of a Review and Compliance
process. For the purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National
Register. These properties may need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate
contexts.
Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports you received may not have
been evaluated and therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts
change over time, therefore any eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years for the date of the
current survey are considered out of date and the property will need to be reassessed.
If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or
historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you
need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in Review and Compliance @
651-259-3455 or by email at kelly.graggjohnson@mnhs.org.
The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata can be found at
http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/inventories.htm
MN SHPO research hours are 8:30 AM – 4:00 PM Tuesday-Friday. Please call ahead at 651-59-
3450 to ensure staff is available to assist you, if necessary.
The Office is closed on Mondays.
COUNTY SITENUM SITENAME TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION XQUARTERS ACRES WORKTYPE DESCRIPT TRADITION CONTEXT ReportNum Natreg CEF DOEDakota21DK0045 115 18 29N-SW-SE-SW, C-S-S-NW-SE-SW61LSDK-93-02