HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.h. SKB Expansion EAW Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Regular Meeting: May 18, 2021
AGENDA ITEM: SKB Expansion Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Response to Comments, Findings of
Fact, and Record of Decision
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 6.h.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Record of Decision,
Comment Letters APPROVED BY: LJM
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution ordering a negative declaration
of the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
SUMMARY
With the end of the comment period for the SKB Environmental Expansion Assessment Worksheet
(EAW), the City Council must respond to the comments received and establish findings of fact related to
the comments. As part of this process, the Council must also decide on whether to require an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. The City Council is being asked to approve a
response to comments, findings of fact, and record of decision for the SKB Environmental EAW and to
adopt a resolution approving the SKB Environmental EAW and finding no need for an Environmental
Impact Statement.
BACKGROUND
The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared, published, and distributed by City of
Rosemount for the SKB Environmental Expansion EAW pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.
The completed EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and persons and
agencies listed on the official EQB EAW Distribution List in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500.
The notification was published in the EQB Monitor on March 9, 2021, initiating the 30-day comment
period. The 30-day comment period ended on April 8, 2021.
The EAW and comments on it have been reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 to
determine if the project has potential for significant environmental effects. The attached document
includes the Response to Comments for all comments received by the City Rosemount, the Findings of
Fact supporting the decision, and the Record of Decision.
The purpose of the EAW, comments and comment responses are to provide the record on which the
RGU can base a decision about whether an EIS needs to be prepared for a project. EIS need is described
in the rules: “An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental
effects” (part 4410.1700, subpart 1). An EAW is not to be used to justify a decision, nor do indications of
adverse environmental effects necessarily require that a project be disapproved. EAWs are used as guides
in issuing, amending, and denying permits and carrying out other responsibilities of governmental units to
avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects and to restore and enhance environmental quality
(Minnesota Rules 4410.0300, Subp. 3).
2
The City of Rosemount received seven comments concerning the SKB Environmental EAW within the
30-day comment period, and all are included as part of the attached record and decision-making
document. None of the comments received indicated the potential for significant environmental impacts
as further described in the findings of fact. The response from the Met Council did include an indication
that the EAW was incomplete or missing data; however, the City and project proposer participated in a
follow-up meeting to discuss the comments with Met Council staff, and determined that the comments
could be address as part of the findings of fact. SKB Environmental has agreed to continue working with
the Met Council to address any future regulatory changes concerning disposal of landfill leachate into the
regional wastewater system and treatment of PFAS pollutants in particular. The City will also require the
identification of a regional trail corridor on future development plans to address another aspect of the Met
Council’s comments.
Staff will send the response to comments to the seven respondents in upon approval of the record of
decision.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above background information and staff report it is recommended that the City Council
adopt the attached document establishing a response to comments, findings of fact, and a record of the
decision for the SKB Environmental Expansion EAW and adopt a resolution declaring no need for an
EIS.
C:\Users\eef\Desktop\RSLTN-IssuingaNegativeDeclarationofNeed.docx
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2021 - 40
A RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for the SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Facility Expansion pursuant
to Minnesota Rules 4410; and
WHEREAS, the EAW was distributed to the agencies and public for the required 30-day
comment period March 2, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the 30-day comment period ended on April 8, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the preparation of the EAW and comments received on the EAW have
generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed project has the potential
for environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the EAW has identified areas where the potential for environmental effects
exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or
permits to reasonably mitigate these impacts; and
WHEREAS, the development is expected to comply with all the City of Rosemount and
review agency standards; and
WHEREAS, based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 and the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Rosemount hereby determines that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not
required.
ADOPTED in regular session of the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota
held this 18th day of May, 2021.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECORD OF DECISION
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRIAL
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY EXPANSION
EAW
ROSEMOUNT, MN
MAY 13, 2021
Prepared for:
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
WSB PROJECT NO. 017422-000
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECORD OF DECISION
SKB EXPANSION EAW FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCULSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION
ROSEMOUNT, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 017422-000
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRIAL WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITY EXPANSION
EAW
May 13, 2021
Prepared by:
SKB EXPANSION EAW FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCULSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION
ROSEMOUNT, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 017422-000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 1
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 1
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................. 1
B. PROJECT HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 1
C. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. ................................................................................................... 2
D. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 6
III. AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ....................................................................... 6
APPENDIX A – Comments and Responses
APPENDIX B – Staff Report and Resolution
SKB EXPANSION EAW FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION, AND RECORD OF DECISION
ROSEMOUNT, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 017422-000 PAGE 1
I. ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.4300, the City of Rosemount has prepared an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Facility
Expansion Project (Project). This Record of Decision addresses the State of Minnesota environmental
review requirements as established in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700. SKB Environmental, Inc. is the project
proposer, and the City of Rosemount is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU).
The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for review and
comments to the required EAW distribution list. A Notice of Availability for the initial EAW was published
in the EQB Monitor on March 9, 2021. Notice of Availability was published in the Dakota County Tribune
on March 12, 2021.
The public comment period ended April 8, 2021. Comments were received from the Department of
Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council, Department of Transportation, Pollution Control Agency, State
Historic Preservation Office, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization, and Dakota County.
All comments were considered in determining the potential for significant environmental impacts.
Comments received and the City of Rosemount’s responses to those comments are provided in
Appendix A.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this project and based on the record in
this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of Rosemount makes the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB) is proposing to expand the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste
Disposal Facility. The Facility is located at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard within section 19, 20,
and 29, Township 115N, Range 18W, Dakota County, Minnesota. There are currently multiple
disposal areas at the Facility that receive different waste streams, which include demolition
debris, industrial waste, and municipal solid waste combustor ash disposal. The expansion areas
would receive only industrial waste and construction and demolition debris (C&D). SKB is
proposing to increase the industrial waste and C&D landfill capacity by expanding onto 113 acres
of adjacent land immediately east of the current landfill disposal area as well as in the area where
the current office and scale are located. The two expansion areas will together provide
approximately 19,500,000 cubic yards of disposal capacity. Although detailed development plans
are not included as part of this project, a future business park is proposed for development on 50
acres east of the landfill.
B. PROJECT HISTORY
• The project EAW preparation was proposer initiated.
• The EAW was distributed to the EQB and to the EQB mailing list on March 2, 2021.
• Public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for public review
was published in the Dakota County Tribune on March 12, 2021.
• Copies of the EAW were provided for public review at the Robert Trail Library and the
City Hall. An electronic copy of the EAW was available on the City’s website.
SKB EXPANSION EAW FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION, AND RECORD OF DECISION
ROSEMOUNT, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 017422-000 PAGE 2
• A notice was published for the EAW in the March 9, 2021 EQB Monitor. The public
comment period ended April 8, 2021. Comments were received from the Department
of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council, Department of Transportation, Pollution
Control Agency, State Historic Preservation Office, Vermillion River Watershed Joint
Powers Organization, and Dakota County. Copies of these comment letters are
hereby incorporated for reference and included in Appendix A.
C. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, subp. 1, states “An EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] shall be
ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects.” In deciding
whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the City of Rosemount
must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to
each of these factors, the City of Rosemount finds the following:
1. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.A – TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
a. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated as part of this project
include:
Zoning and Land Use: Approximately 61 of the 113 acres of the eastern expansion area
are currently zoned AG – Agricultural, while 52 acres are zoned GI – General Industry.
The area guided for the future business park is currently zoned AG – Agricultural. The
future land use is guided GI – General Industrial and WM – Waste Management. The City
will amend the Future Land Use Map from the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan so that
the uses of the site are consistent with the proposed expansion. The City will require that
the future business park developments comply with zoning codes and ordinances.
Dakota County has a regional trail master plan for the Rosemount Greenway Regional
Trail which has a future connection (Segment 4) extending between the existing landfill
and the proposed eastern expansion. In the latest update of the Greenway route by
Dakota County, the preferred route extends from Fahey Ave across Courthouse
Boulevard through the parcel located east of the future business park development. From
there, the trail extends to 142nd Street E, cutting through a small corner of the future
business park development area and then continues to the west along Ehlers Path E
outside of the EAW review area. The City, in coordination with Dakota County, can
address the inclusion of the trail within or adjacent to the future business park during
planning and review of the development of this area.
Soil Disturbance: The project will involve soil disturbance and will excavate a total of
5,550,000 cubic yards of soil for Phase 7 and a total of 515,000 cubic yards of soil for
Phase 8. The 2020 Industrial Stormwater Permit requires an application for the CSW
permit if the project will disturb 50 acres or more and drain to an impaired water. A
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS)
Construction Stormwater (CSW) permit will be required and erosion control best
management practices (BMPs) such as silt fence, inlet protection, and a stabilized
construction entrance will be in place during excavation to reduce sedimentation and
prevent erosion from the site. SKB will also submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) to the MPCA for review prior to obtaining the CSW permit.
SKB EXPANSION EAW FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION, AND RECORD OF DECISION
ROSEMOUNT, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 017422-000 PAGE 3
Wastewater: The expansion of SKB will create additional leachate discharge. The facility
is currently permitted to dispose of leachate at the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services (MCES) Empire wastewater treatment plant. Leachate will be collected in a
storage tank and then conveyed via a dual leachate forcemain that will be completed in
2021. Leachate from the SKB landfill is currently a significant contributor of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) which are pollutants of emerging concern that may be
regulated in the near future. If regulated, MCES may necessitate pre-treatment, or other
control measures, of the landfill leachate for PFAS before the leachate can be accepted
for treatment at the plant. SKB will continue monitoring of leachate for the landfill as
required under the terms of the solid waste permit SW-383. If future leachate
management is required by MCES, SKB will work with MCES and obtain the proper
approvals.
Wastewater generated from the sustainability campus and new office/shop will be
handled by a septic system. The future business park will be connected to the City
wastewater system via a 15-inch sewer located along the new City street that will connect
Courthouse Blvd and 142nd Street.
Stormwater: All the site’s runoff in the 100-year, 24-hr, Atlas 14 rainfall event will be
contained and treated onsite per the City of Rosemount’s stormwater requirements. The
Construction Stormwater Permit requires a stormwater volume reduction method such as
infiltration unless site conditions prohibit use of infiltration. SKB will be required to meet
MPCA requirements for stormwater treatment through the NPDES permitting process as
well as the City’s requirements during the plan review and approval process.
Water Quality: A four-phase hydrogeologic evaluation will be completed on the 113-acre
expansion area and additional groundwater monitoring wells will be installed across the
east expansion area as required by the MPCA permitting process. Groundwater
monitoring includes a total of 90 different analytical compounds which must meet the
parameters of the solid waste permit.
The use of infiltration basins will be evaluated by the City during the plan review process
to review the MPCA Industrial Stormwater General permit provisions pertaining to
restrictions on infiltration areas with the potential to contribute to contaminant increases
or movement in soil and groundwater.
The new cells will be constructed with a liner system consisting of three barrier layers and
will be permitted through the MPCA and Dakota County. The final cover of the cells will
follow an MPCA-approved capping system including 6 inches of topsoil and vegetative
cover, 30 inches of cover soil, a geocomposite drainage net, 40 mil LLDPE
geomembrane, and 12 inches buffer soil or intermediate cover layer. Any cover layer
substitutions will be approved by the MPCA and Dakota County.
Landfill Gas: There is an existing landfill gas monitoring network consisting of 16
monitoring points. SKB will complete gas monitoring on the east expansion area as
required by the MPCA solid waste permit.
SKB EXPANSION EAW FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION, AND RECORD OF DECISION
ROSEMOUNT, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 017422-000 PAGE 4
Fish and Wildlife: Approximately 21 acres of trees will be cleared on the site. However, it
is unlikely that species that occur in the area are dependent on the available habitat from
this site given the existing disturbances of industrial operation and farming. SKB will
avoid impacts to rare avian species by clearing trees outside of the prime nesting
season. Trees will be cleared and grubbed between August and March. The project is
not expected to cause a negative impact to wildlife.
Noise: Hours of operation are authorized by the City between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM.
Nearby sensitive receptors include a residence on the south side of TH 55 on the north
side of the proposed expansion area. By state law, the facility will comply with state noise
standards.
Additional traffic added to surrounding roadways is not expected to generate noise to a
degree which would exceed noise standards or diminish quality of life for people living or
working nearby.
Transportation: A new City street and entrance road will be constructed with the eastern
expansion. The existing access to TH 55 will be closed when the new access is
constructed. The new City street will also provide access to the future business park. The
new City street will be designed by the City to accommodate traffic from both the landfill
and the future business park.
The project will not increase the number of trips generated by the site. Traffic forecasts
and analyses indicate the proposed project alone would not require specific improvement
to accommodate the expected future traffic volumes. However, a traffic study was
completed for several intersections surrounding the project. Due to background growth by
the year 2040, the TH 55/CSAH 42 intersection is expected to operate at a poor level of
service with existing geometrics and control. Safe operation of trucks entering and exiting
the site on TH 55 will also be given priority when implementing traffic mitigation
measures.
The TH 55/CSAH 42 intersection is expected to operate at poor levels of service with the
existing intersection geometrics and control. This intersection will require dual westbound
left turn lanes and traffic signal control.
The following improvements should be incorporated into new City street intersection with
TH 55 (located west of CSAH 42):
• Westbound left turn lane
• Eastbound right turn lane
• Eastbound acceleration lane
• Separate northbound left turn and right turn lanes exiting the site
The SKB entrance on the future north/south street should be constructed to
accommodate truck turning requirements. Access to property to the east will be located
across from this entrance.
The future intersection of the new City street with 142nd Street will be constructed to City
standards. Implementation of the improvements listed above will mitigate for the
projected traffic increases in the area.
The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts for the proposed project are consistent with
those of the existing operation of the landfill. Impacts will be minimized to the extent practical,
with regulatory approvals and/or mitigation required for those impacts which cannot be avoided to
resources.
SKB EXPANSION EAW FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION, AND RECORD OF DECISION
ROSEMOUNT, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 017422-000 PAGE 5
2. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.B – CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF
RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS
Approximately 50 acres of on the east side of the property are planned for future business park
development. The types of uses within the business park will be consistent with the City’s BP –
Business Park land use category. The business park will serve as a transition between the landfill
and heavy industrial activities to the west, and future commercial and residential areas to the
south and east. This development will comply with the City’s site and building standards. The City
does not anticipate cumulative potential effects from foreseeable future projects.
3. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.C – THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
a) The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
Unit of government Type of application Status
State
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Major modification to Permit SW-383 To be obtained
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Industrial stormwater permit Current
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES/SDS CWM permit To be obtained
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency SWPPP review and approval To be obtained
Minnesota Department of Health Watermain plan review To be obtained
Minnesota Department of Transportation Misc. work permit for new entrance/exit To be obtained
Minnesota Department of Transportation Drainage Permit To be obtained
Metropolitan Council Industrial Discharge Permit Current
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources
Water Appropriation Permit To be obtained
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources
Water Appropriation Permit – us of water from
one well for dust control
Current
County
Dakota County Solid Waste Processing License Type A To be obtained
Local
City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be obtained
City of Rosemount Zoning Amendment To be obtained
City of Rosemount Interim Use Permit Amendment(s)* To be obtained
City of Rosemount Platting of Property To be obtained
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 Subsurface Sewage Treatment System To be obtained
City of Rosemount Driveway Access Permit To be obtained
b) The City of Rosemount finds that the potential impacts identified as part of the proposed
project can be addressed through the regulatory agencies as part of the permitting
process.
4. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.D – THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER
AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE
PROJECT PROPOSER, INCLUDING OTHER EISs.
The City of Rosemount finds:
SKB EXPANSION EAW FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION, AND RECORD OF DECISION
ROSEMOUNT, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 017422-000 PAGE 6
1. The proposed project includes various measures to reduce adverse impacts to the
environment and existing natural resources.
2. The project is subject to local, regional, state, and federal requirements.
3. The developer will secure all necessary permits and will adhere to all requirements
of the permits.
4. Considering the results of environmental review and permitting processes for past
projects at SKB, the City of Rosemount finds that the environmental effects of the
project can be adequately anticipated, controlled, and mitigated.
D. CONCLUSIONS
The SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Facility Expansion EAW and comments
received have generated information adequate to determine that the proposed project does not
have the potential for significant environmental effects.
The EAW has identified areas where the potential for environmental effects exists, but
appropriate mitigation measures can be incorporated into the project plans and the required
approvals. Permits to mitigate these effects will be obtained. The project will comply with all local,
county, and federal review agency requirements.
Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, and the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects to trigger
the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Therefore, an EIS is not required for the
SKB Expansion project.
III. AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
A 30-day comment period for the SKB Expansion EAW ended on April 8, 2021. The comments obtained
through the EAW process can inform the permitting process and future steps for this project. Comments
were received from the Department of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council, Department of
Transportation, Pollution Control Agency, State Historic Preservation Office, Vermillion River Watershed
Joint Powers Organization, and Dakota County. Responses are provided to comments related to the
environmental review and analysis of the project. These letters and responses are provided in Appendix
A.
SKB EXPANSION EAW FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION, AND RECORD OF DECISION
ROSEMOUNT, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 017422-000 APPENDIX
APPENDIX A – Comments and Responses
May 13, 2021 Page 1
SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Expansion
Rosemount Facility
Response to Public EAW Comments
Comment Response
Metropolitan Council (April 8, 2021)
1. Section 9.a.ii – Land Use (Colin Kelly, Regional Parks & Trails
651-602-1361)
While the EAW acknowledges “…Dakota County has a
regional trail plan for this area” in section 9.a.ii., it does not
mention if or how the proposed expansion project will impact
the planned regional trail. The same section only notes, “The
landfill development will not interfere with future business park
development to the east.” The Rosemount Greenway
Regional Trail has a 2012 Metropolitan Council-adopted
master plan
(https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/About/TrailPlanning/Docu
ments/RosemountMasterPlan.pdf). This Council-adopted
regional trail master plan needs to be referenced in section
9.a.ii. of the EAW.
This master plan depicts Segment 4 of the preferred route of
the regional trail traversing the space between the existing
SKB Environmental Inc. property and potential future facility
expansion area (See text and figures on pages 38 and 39). As
such, Segment 4 of the planned Rosemount Greenway
Regional Trail is likely to be impacted by the waste disposal
facility expansion.
The proposer needs to articulate how the waste disposal
facility expansion will or will not impact the planned regional
trail in sections 9.b. and 9.c. If there are no impacts
anticipated, the EAW needs to state this and reference how
the planned regional trail will be accommodated if the facility is
expanded as proposed. If there are impacts anticipated, the
EAW needs to state this and reference how those impacts will
be mitigated and where the regional trail alignment will be
accommodated in sections 9.b. and 9.c. For example, the
regional trail master plan identifies a possible alternate
alignment on the northwest side of the existing SKB
The trail alignment referenced from 2012 is not the current alignment.
The updated alignment from Dakota County does not have the trail
passing through the center of the project site and now includes the
trail continuing further to the east before crossing a portion of the
project site that will be future business park. SKB will work with the
City of Rosemount and Dakota County to ensure that there is a path
for the regional trail. The trail can be accommodated with the proposed
development project.
May 13, 2021 Page 2
Comment Response
Environmental property. If the proposed solution to
accommodating the regional trail in the area is to utilize the
alternate trail alignment, the proposer needs to coordinate with
Dakota County, the regional parks implementing agency that
will operate and maintain the planned Rosemount Greenway
Regional Trail, to make that determination.
2. Item 12 - Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes (Joe
Mulcahy, Water Resources 651-602-1104)
The EAW needs to explicitly acknowledge the following:
a) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds
are pollutants of emerging concern.
b) Leachate from the SKB Environmental Industrial Waste
Disposal Facility is a significant contributor of PFAS to
MCES’ Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
c) Because PFAS compounds are ubiquitous, if the amount
of leachate SKB discharges increases and SKB does not
treat that leachate for PFAS, it will increase the mass
loading of PFAS in the Empire WWTP’s effluent.
d) SKB may be required to treat leachate or divert it from the
waste stream if new regulations are promulgated.
The City, SKB, and Met Council met on May 5, 2021 to discuss these
comments. Based on that meeting and review of the project, we offer
the following responses.
a) SKB agrees that PFAS compounds are pollutants of emerging
concern.
b) SKB agrees that SKB Rosemount is a source of PFAS for the
MCES Empire WWTP. SKB has not seen the data from other
generator sources, or seen concentrations or loading levels at
the Empire Plant demonstrating that it is “significant”, but on
the whole, SKB does not feel that the current leachate PFAS
levels are particularly alarming.
c) While the EAW is correct in stating that leachate volumes may
increase, it is important to note that this is based on a worst-
case-scenario modelling result and not the actual generation
rates the facility will produce. In an effort to respond to this
comment, SKB is committed to implementing a more rigorous
cell capping schedule, which will reduce the amount of
leachate generated. The leachate generation model will be
updated to reflect this reduction as we go through the
permitting process with MPCA. Moreover, it is important to
note that regulatory efforts and voluntary phase-outs by
manufacturers have reduced the levels of PFAS in the
discarded materials arriving at landfills. This is borne out by
our leachate data, which shows that cells containing older
waste (going back to the 1990’s) have higher PFAS
concentrations than our newer cells containing newer waste.
Therefore, the leachate generated from the expansion cell
areas is likely to have much lower PFAS concentrations than
what has been discharged previously. This trend will only
improve as more upstream source reduction efforts are
implemented.
May 13, 2021 Page 3
Comment Response
d) SKB commits to complying with any new laws and
promulgated regulations, including leachate pre-treatment if
necessary.
3. Item 9.a.ii – Land Use (Patrick Boylan, Local Planning
Assistance 651-602-1438)
A comprehensive plan amendment needs to be noted in Table
3 of Section 8, Permits and approvals required.
Comment noted.
4. Item 11b –Wastewater (Roger Janzig, Environmental Services
651-602-1119)
a) Prior to the installation of any sanitary sewer
improvements for the proposed future Business Park
project, the City will need to re-guide staging from future
2040 to current 2030 MUSA through the submittal of a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The amendment also
needs to show detailed plans, and how this project will be
connected to the Metropolitan Disposal System.
b) Metropolitan Council Interceptor (8009) is Northwest of
the proposed Northwest Expansion area. The interceptor
was built in 2008 and is a 78-inch Reinforced Concrete
Pipe. To assess the potential impacts to our interceptor
system; prior to initiating this project, preliminary plans
need to be sent to Tim Wedin, Interceptor Engineering
Assistant Manager (651-602-4571) at the Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services.
SKB is proposing a septic system for the wastewaters generated from
the new office/shop building serving the eastern expansion area as
well as the recycling buildings on the sustainability campus until such
time the sewer is extended to serve the site. SKB will connect to the
municipal sanitary sewer system when such utilities are extended to
the Facility.
Details on any sanitary sewer expansion for the proposed business
park will be provided once design of the proposed business park is
formally initiated.
Vermillion River Watershed (March 26, 2021)
1. Section 11.b.i. The wastewater section is somewhat unclear
on the current and proposed wastewater management
methods. It is understood that all new buildings will be tied to
septic systems even though the existing buildings are served
by sanitary sewer and City of Rosemount (City) water will be
brought to the site (as noted in 11.b.iii). The City and project
developer should consider whether sanitary service can be
extended to the new sustainability facility at this time. The
EAW notes that sanitary will be extended to the future office
park, suggesting this approach may be feasible (but putting off
the sanitary extension to an uncertain development proposal).
In addition, there are no sanitary lines shown for the recycling
Similar to the existing recycling building at the site, the proposed
recycling building will not have potable water or bathrooms.
Employees at the site will use these facilities in other buildings, such
as the office. There will be no process water discharged from the
recycling building or other buildings at the site. The domestic
wastewater needs for the office and other buildings at the site will be
met via the proposed septic system. When the sanitary sewer service
is extended towards the project site in the future to serve the future
Business Park, the City and SKB can review the site operations and
future needs to determine if is appropriate and beneficial to connect
the SKB site to the wastewater service.
May 13, 2021 Page 4
Comment Response
building to the septic system on the plans. It should be noted
whether or not there are any restroom facilities or possible
recycling process waters in the other campus buildings to
clarify the intent and scope of wastewater.
2. Section 11.b.ii. The plan notes that the majority of the site
drains to the south and mostly infiltrates in farm fields
downstream before it reaches the Mississippi River. The
infiltration note is mostly true apart from snowmelt conditions
and possibly very large storm events, but the outlets to the
south reach the Vermillion River first before the Mississippi
River. It appears that the order of basins on page 20 should
be “Basin 10 to Basin 9 to Basin 8” per the plans (it says basin
9 to 10 to 8 currently). The plans show basin 12 going to basin
11, and the text notes that basins 1-5 will ultimately flow out to
basin 6, but it is unclear if basins 11 and 12 have an outlet.
Final design is not needed yet, but the EAW should note
which basins will act as stormwater ponds and which will act
as infiltration basins while considering pretreatment
requirements and the adjacent activities. Pretreatment ponds
should consider skimmer structures or other design
components considering the truck traffic and uses for the site.
To help clarify, a summary of basin order/flow is as follows:
• Basin 11 to Basin 12 to Basin 1 to Basin 2 to Basin 3 & 4 to
Basin 5 to Basin 6A in Conjunction with Basin 6B discharges
off-site.
• Basin 10 to Basin 9 to Basin to Basin 8 and Basin 7 also goes
to Basin 8 which could be the ultimate discharge point off-site
for that series of basins.
Many of the basins act as a combination of stormwater and infiltration
basins. A summary of basin function can be found in the table below:
Pond Infiltration
Area
Provided
Dead Storage
Area Provided
Basin #1 Yes Yes
Basin #2 Yes Yes
Basin #3&4 Yes Yes
Basin #5 Yes Yes
Basin #6A Yes No
Basin #6B Yes No
Basin #7 Yes Yes
Basin #8 Yes Yes
Basin #9 Yes No
Basin #10 No Yes
Basin #11 Yes Yes
Basin #12 Yes Yes
The volume for dead storage and infiltration area meets City
requirements.
May 13, 2021 Page 5
Comment Response
3. Section 13. The EAW notes that the majority of the site is
currently farmed acreage with little habitat benefit for the
wildlife noted in this section. Consideration could be given to
preserve some trees for screening and habitat along MN 55
and the southern part of the parcel, Vermillion River
Watershed Joint Powers Organization, or at least on the future
industrial park site where trees currently exist. Furthermore, as
noted in the plan, stormwater areas may provide some benefit
for species noted depending on the vegetation planned. It is
noted in section 7 that about 11 acres will be finished around
the sustainability center with lawn and landscaping, which may
provide additional opportunities to compensate for the losses
at the fringe of the site. Understanding that some native
vegetation types require maintenance burning that may not be
compatible with the waste management use, there may be
other turf alternatives that could be utilized in these areas
(e.g., deep-rooted grass species, “bee lawns”, etc.).
SKB will consider and evaluate turf alternatives and preserving some
trees for screening and habitat along MN 55 and the southern part of
the parcel as part of the City permitting process.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (April 8, 2021) Melissa Collins
1. Table 3, Page 11. The possible need for a DNR Water
Appropriation Permit should be listed. It should be noted that if
there is a need to conduct construction dewatering for
constructing the new buildings/business park, or the utilities to
the building, in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons per day,
or one million gallons per year, that a DNR Water
Appropriation Permit will be needed for the dewatering.
Previous construction projects at the existing landfill have not required
dewatering and dewatering is not anticipated for the expansion area. If
groundwater is encountered during cell construction or other
operations at the site, SKB will apply for dewatering permits if needed.
2. Page 21, Stormwater. We recommend that appropriate, weed-
free, BWSR-approved native seed mixes be used to vegetate
stormwater features within the project area.
Appropriate native seed mixes will be evaluated by SKB for use in
open space areas around the stormwater ponds and other setback
areas.
3. Page 25, Section 13, Rare Features. Loggerhead shrike is not
a federally listed endangered species, however it is federally
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The
Loggerhead Shrike nests in small trees or shrubs and suitable
habitat could be present within the 23 acres of woodland in the
project area, especially along the edges of fields. Therefore,
we are pleased the project will avoid tree and shrub removal
during breeding season from April through July. Report any
loggerhead shrike sightings to the DNR, and please reference
Comment noted.
May 13, 2021 Page 6
Comment Response
the attached fact sheet and the DNR Rare Species Guide for
additional recommendations
4. Page 27, Section 13.a, Rare Features.
a) On page 10, Table 2 indicates that there are 23 acres of
forest within the project area and that only 2 acres will
remain after completion of the project. However, page 27
states that only 4.5 acres of trees will be removed from
the site. This is a large discrepancy. Removing 21 acres
of trees is much more likely to have an impact on local
wildlife including rare species that depend on this type of
habitat, even if degraded. Additionally, this forested area
appears to be located on a slope and likely provides soil
stabilization.
b) This section also states that no Regionally Significant
Ecological Areas (RSEA) are located within the project
area, but the southern forested area is mapped as a
RSEA and a Regionally Significant Ecological Corridor.
The 4.5 acres on Page 27 is in error and should be 21 acres. SKB will
evaluate preserving some trees for screening and habitat along MN 55
and the southern part of the parcel as part of the City permitting
process.
Comment b) is noted. RSEA areas adjacent to the project are outside
of the project area and will not be impacted by the project. Courthouse
Blvd. and Ehlers Path create a spatial buffer between project site
impacts and these RSEA areas.
5. Page 30, Dust Control. Please note that SKB has DNR Water
Appropriation Permit 1991-6005 that authorizes the use of
water from one well for dust control. The DNR expects that
DNR Water Appropriation Permit 1991-6005 will continue to
authorize the water use for dust control. The DNR also
requests that calcium chloride and magnesium chloride not be
used for dust control in areas that drain to public waters.
Chloride released into local lakes and streams does not break
down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially
reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants.
SKB will continue to use the water from the on-site well for dust control
and agrees to not using calcium chloride and magnesium chloride for
dust control. It should also be noted that the roads as part of the
expansion are proposed to be paved.
Minnesota Department of Administration – State Historic Preservation Office (April 7, 2021)
1. Due to the nature and location of the proposed project, we
recommend that a Phase I archaeological survey be
completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and
Evaluation and should include an evaluation of National
Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For a
list of consultants who have expressed an interest in
undertaking such surveys, please visit the website
preservationdirectory.mnhs.org, and select “Archaeologists” in
the “Search by Specialties” box.
A Phase 1A desktop evaluation was completed for the site and
determined that there are no known documented archaeological sites
on the project site. There are documented sites along the Mississippi
River to the north of the project site. The areas with the known sites
will not be disturbed by the proposed project. Based on the Phase 1A
the project site is located in an area with moderate potential for cultural
resource sites to be present. The City is coordinating with SKB to
evaluate options for additional field surveys at the site to screen for
cultural resource sites that could be included as part of continued
review of the proposed project under the City IUP process.
May 13, 2021 Page 7
Comment Response
We will reconsider the need for survey if the project area can
be documented as previously surveyed or disturbed. Any
previous survey work must meet contemporary standards.
Note: plowed areas and right-of-way are not automatically
considered disturbed. Archaeological sites can remain intact
beneath the plow zone and in undisturbed portions of the
right-of-way.
2. Please note that this comment letter does not address the
requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is
considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a
federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our
office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be
advised that comments and recommendations provided by our
office for this state-level review may differ from findings and
determinations made by the federal agency as part of review
and consultation under Section 106.
Comment noted. There is no proposed federal assistance or financing
included as part of the proposed project. SKB will obtain appropriate
Federal approvals and permits if they are required.
Dakota County (March 31, 2021)
1. The report notes capacity issues at the TH 55/CSAH 42
intersection and recommends dual westbound left turn lanes
and traffic signal control. Any proposed changes at this
intersection should be reviewed by MnDOT and assessed for
consistency with the State’s long-range plans for TH 55.
MnDOT recently completed a safety audit for TH 55 which
contains several recommendations. It does not appear this
EAW recognizes this work or discusses how the new proposal
fits with the audit recommendations. City and County Staff
should collaborate to determine the appropriate changes on
CSAH 42 at 142nd Street to accommodate highway users and
the new development safely. This includes further analysis of
the potential need for additional turn lanes on CSAH 42 at the
142nd Street intersection and sight line analysis review.
SKB will work with all parties involved once road design is initiated.
2. 9.Land Use: c.; page 13
There are times that excessive amounts of soil are tracked out
of the landfill on trucks and deposited onto Hwy 55.The landfill
is pretty good about sweeping the highway and main gate
area; however, it would be far better if the loose soil could be
removed from the trucks before getting to the gate. Some
SKB will continue to sweep and perform mitigation measures. A wheel
wash system has been installed at the site. The expansion area will
access the new proposed City street prior to vehicles traveling up to
Hwy 55. There will also be a paved portion of the site access road.
This will provide a buffer for dust/dirt from vehicles from being tracked
onto County roads. SKB will be able to perform sweeping and other
May 13, 2021 Page 8
Comment Response
mitigation measures are currently used within the landfill;
however, these measures can be seasonal and/or marginally
effective in reducing soil tracking. Whether the facility exit is
onto Highway 55 or the proposed new City street at the east of
the landfill, better soil tracking control is necessary.
The Gem Ash processing operation requires waste ash from
the disposal cell to be transferred to the processing facility.
During this transfer, ash is spilled between the disposal cell
and the processing facility. If the waste ash falls onto paved
surfaces, it is easily swept up and managed properly.
Currently, some areas of the ash processing facility are
unpaved and recovering spilled ash for proper management
can be difficult. Controlling and recovering spilled ash between
the disposal cell and the processing facility can be improved
and methods to accomplish this should be considered as the
new Gem Ash facility is developed.
clean up measures on the paved access road and City street without
impacting traffic on Hwy 55. The roads for the landfill expansion are
proposed to be paved which will greatly help to reduce the amount of
soil tracking.
3. 11.Water Resources: a. ii., page 17
The EAW identifies four verified wells within 500 feet of the
project area. Dakota County’s well inventory identifies the
potential presence of an irrigation well, Unique Number
W05923, located within the project area on PIN
340290001010 in the NW corner. Please contact the County
Groundwater Protection Unit for further information on this well
and confirmation that all other potential wells have been
identified.
As stated in the EAW, four (4) verified wells were depicted adjacent to
the project area within 500 feet. The wells are listed as 3 domestic and
1 irrigation. It should also be noted that the monitoring wells serving
the existing landfill operation were also identified during the review.
Figure 7 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.
4. 11.Water Resources: b., ii., page 20
The County presumes the City of Rosemount will be reviewing
stormwater management for the expansion areas. While not
receiving leachate, the EAW refers to proposed stormwater
ponds around the proposed landfill expansion area that might
include infiltration benches. The applicant should review the
MPCA Industrial Stormwater General Permit provisions
pertaining to restrictions on infiltration areas with the potential
to contribute to contaminant increases or movement in soil
and groundwater, specifically Items 20.2 through 20.9.
SKB will submit development plans for each phase of cell construction
or facility expansion to the City for their review. This will allow the City
to provide comments on the stormwater management system
throughout the development and expansion of the landfill operations.
SKB will review the requirements of the applicable MPCA stormwater
rules and permits as part of the site design. The appropriate
stormwater management methods will be incorporated into final design
as part of the submittals to the City for review.
Yes, the City will review as part of SKB’s City application submittals.
5. 12.Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: a., page 23
The EAW identifies the results of a MPCA WIMN search for
sites within and adjacent to the project area. The County
Comment noted.
May 13, 2021 Page 9
Comment Response
conducted an environmental review utilizing the County Site
Inventory and no known environmental concerns were
identified in or directly adjacent the project area, except the
regulated waste facility itself.
6. The EAW does not represent the Rosemount Regional
Greenway in text or in graphics. City has previously worked
with SKB on securing a corridor for the Rosemount Regional
Greenway on the north side of Ehlers Path.
The Land Use comments regarding the Rosemount Greenway
Regional Trail and MUSA will be addressed. SKB and the City commit
to working with Dakota County on future revisions to the Greenway
trail and the City will address the MUSA modifications.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (March 19, 2021)
1. There is not enough information present in the EAW to
determine if a drainage permit will be required for the work
proposed. The project plan sheets do not clearly define the
direction of drainage in the proposed stormwater ponds, nor
does it give much information about proposed grading and
high water levels.
MnDOT does not allow for the addition of new drainage areas
to the right of way and has standards for stormwater facilities
located adjacent to its facilities. Additionally- no ponding is
allowed in MnDOT right of way. A drainage permit from
MnDOT may need to be added to Table 3 in section 8.
The design is not intended to allow for ponding in the MnDOT right of
way.
2. Any use of, or work within or affecting, MnDOT right of way
will require a permit.
SKB will apply for a permit if needed.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (April 7, 2021)
1. This section discusses the existing disposal activities at the
facility (industrial waste, construction and demolition,
municipal solid waste ash) but other non-disposal waste
activities are not mentioned. The EAW should include
discussion on the general recycling activities, composting, and
ash processing/recycling that occur on site.
Currently, ash material recovery processing is occurring at the SKB
Rosemount Industrial Waste facility. The material recovery operations
involve the removal of recyclable metals from both the previously
landfilled ash as well as from the incoming ash from the Hennepin
Energy Recovery Center (HERC). HERC also sends recyclable
ferrous metals which SKB processes to remove ash from the metal.
Recyclable metal is also recovered from the active working face.
2. The Eastern Expansion Waste Limits area on Figure 3 is
depicted as immediately adjacent to (not on top of) existing
waste in Cell 5 whereas Attachment 1, PLN SHT 2, the
eastern expansion area is partially overlaying Cell 5. Please
explain the discrepancy.
This is not a discrepancy and waste from proposed Phase 7 is being
placed over existing Phase 5 and referred to as an overfill area.
May 13, 2021 Page 10
3. Water Resources (Item 11)
Surface Water
Some of the information regarding the nearby impairments
appears dated. The reach IDs of the nearby Mississippi River
channel were consolidated in 2016. The reach, Rock Island
RR Bridge to Lock and Dam #2, was retired and is no longer
active and became part of the larger Mississippi River channel
reach near the Project and is now known as stream reach ID
07010206-814, Upper St. Anthony Falls to St. Croix R. The
EAW is correct to say this reach has an approved total
maximum daily load (TMDL) for Mercury in Fish tissue,
Mercury in the water column, and total suspended solids
(TSS). However, the EAW is missing a few impairments that
do not have TMDLs. Those with a TMDL needed would
include Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Fish Tissue,
Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), PFOS in fish tissue,
Nutrients, and Fecal Coliform, and are on the 2018 303d list
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The 2020 303d list will include a new impairment on this reach
for Aluminum as well, that has not yet been approved by EPA.
For questions regarding impairments, please contact Jordan
Donatell at 651-757-2254 or Jordan.Donatell@state.mn.us.
Comment noted.
4. The EAW does not acknowledge the need for the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal
System General Construction Stormwater Permit (CSW
Permit) which will be required for the proposed future business
park located within the Project area. This required permit is
not included in Table 3.
Comment noted and a permit will be applied for at such time that
development of the business park moves forward.
5. The EAW states the site discharges stormwater to the
Mississippi River which has construction-related impairments.
Based on the Project proposer’s 1-mile location map, at least
parts of the Mississippi River appear to be located within the
1-mile radius of the Project boundary. The 2020 Industrial
Stormwater Permit requires application for the CSW Permit
providing the expansion disturbs 50 or more acres and
discharges to an impaired water located within 1 mile of the
Project. Please direct questions regarding CSW Permit
requirements to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or
Roberta.Getman@state.mn.us.
The development of the expansion area will occur in stages. Based on
the planned landfill phasing plan for the expansion, the site would not
have 50 acres under development at one time. No more than 50 acres
will be disturbed, and smaller cells constructions areas will be opened
and closed as part of the continued phasing, prior to starting
construction of the next cell. SKB will apply for and acquire all
necessary permits for the landfill expansion.
May 13, 2021 Page 11
6. The EAW discusses the proposed use of NURP ponds with an
infiltration bench for stormwater management for the business
park. The CSW Permit requires a stormwater volume
reduction method, such as infiltration, rather than wet
sediment ponding, unless site conditions prohibit use of
infiltration. In addition, NURP pond standards and the
infiltration bench may not meet MPCA requirements. Please
contact MPCA stormwater engineering staff prior to finalizing
design plans. You may direct questions to Mike Findorff at
651-757-2357 or Michael.Findorff@state.mn.us. The project
will also require submittal of the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan prior to obtaining CSW Permit coverage if the
Project is within 1 mile of the Mississippi River.
The stormwater for a 100-year event is infiltrated in combination with a
wet sedimentation basin with NURP design. Thus, stormwater volume
reductions are being met.
SKB EXPANSION EAW FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION, AND RECORD OF DECISION
ROSEMOUNT, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 017422-000 APPENDIX
APPENDIX B – Resolution
Physical Development Division
P 952 -891-7000 F 952 -891-7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124
March 31, 2021
Kyle Klatt
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street W
Rosemount, MN 55068
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for SKB Environmental,
Inc. (SKB). SKB is proposing to expand the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Disposal Facility in Rosemount. County
Physical Development Staff reviewed the document and offer the following comments for consideration.
Transportation
The report notes capacity issues at the TH 55/CSAH 42 intersection and recommends dual westbound left turn lanes
and traffic signal control. Any proposed changes at this intersection should be reviewed by MnDOT and assessed for
consistency with the State’s long-range plans for TH 55. MnDOT recently completed a safety audit for TH 55 which
contains several recommendations. It does not appear this EAW recognizes this wo rk or discusses how the new
proposal fits with the audit recommendations.
City and County Staff should collaborate to determine the appropriate changes on CSAH 42 at 142nd Street to
accommodate highway users and the new development safely. This includes further analysis of the potential need
for additional turn lanes on CSAH 42 at the 142nd Street intersection and sight line analysis review.
Environmental Resources
9.Land Use: c.; page 13
There are times that excessive amounts of soil are tracked out of the landfill on trucks and deposited onto Hwy
55.The landfill is pretty good about sweeping the highway and main gate area; however, it would be far better if
the loose soil could be removed from the trucks before getting to the gate. Some mitigation measures are currently
used within the landfill; however, these measures can be seasonal and/or marginally effective in reducing soil
tracking. Whether the facility exit is onto Highway 55 or the proposed new city street at the east of the landfill,
better soil tracking control is necessary.
The Gem Ash processing operation requires waste ash from the disposal cell to be transferred to the processing
facility. During this transfer, ash is spilled between the disposal cell and the processing facility. If the waste ash falls
onto paved surfaces, it is easily swept up and managed properly. Currently, some areas of the ash processing facility
are unpaved and recovering spilled ash for proper management can be difficult. Controlling and recovering spilled
Physical Development Division
P 952 -891-7000 F 952 -891-7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124
ash between the disposal cell and the processing facility can be improved and methods to accomplish this should be
considered as the new Gem Ash facility is developed.
11.Water Resources: a. ii., page 17
The EAW identifies four verified wells within 500 feet of the project area. Dakota County’s well inventory identifies
the potential presence of an irrigation well, Unique Number W05923, located within the project area on PIN
340290001010 in the NW corner. Please contact the County Groundwater Protection Unit for further information
on this well and confirmation that all other potential wells have been identified.
11. Water Resources: b., ii., page 20
The County presumes the City of Rosemount will be reviewing stormwater management for the expansion areas.
While not receiving leachate, the EAW refers to proposed stormwater ponds around the proposed landfill expansion
area that might include infiltration benches. The applicant should review the MPCA Industrial Stormwater General
Permit provisions pertaining to restrictions on infiltration areas with the potential to contribute to contaminant
increases or movement in soil and groundwater, specifically Items 20.2 through 20.9.
12.Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: a., page 23
The EAW identifies the results of a MPCA WIMN search for sites within and adjacent to the project area. The County
conducted an environmental review utilizing the County Site Inventory and no known environmental concerns were
identified in or directly adjacent the project area, except the regulated waste facility itself.
Greenway
The EAW does not represent the Rosemount Regional Greenway in text or in graphics. City has previously worked
with SKB on securing a corridor for the Rosemount Regional Greenway on the north side of Ehlers Path.
If you have any questions relating to our comments, please contact me at 952-891-7007 or
Steven.Mielke@co.dakota.mn.us
Sincerely,
Steven C. Mielke, Director
Physical Development Division
cc: Commissioner Joe Atkins, District 4
Matt Smith, County Manager
Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email
Region 3 Headquarters
1200 Warner Road
Saint Paul, MN 55106
April 8, 2021
Logan Martin
City Administrator
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Mr. Martin,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Facility
Expansion, Rosemount EAW. The DNR respectfully submits the following comments for your
consideration:
1. Table 3, Page 11. The possible need for a DNR Water Appropriation Permit should be listed. It
should be noted that if there is a need to conduct construction dewatering for constructing the
new buildings/business park, or the utilities to the building, in volumes that exceed 10,000
gallons per day, or one million gallons per year, that a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be
needed for the dewatering.
2. Page 21, Stormwater. We recommend that appropriate, weed-free, BWSR-approved native
seed mixes be used to vegetate stormwater features within the project area.
3. Page 25, Section 13, Rare Features. Loggerhead shrike is not a federally listed endangered
species, however it is federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Loggerhead
Shrike nests in small trees or shrubs and suitable habitat could be present within the 23 acres of
woodland in the project area, especially along the edges of fields. Therefore, we are pleased
the project will avoid tree and shrub removal during breeding season from April through July.
Report any loggerhead shrike sightings to the DNR, and please reference the attached fact
sheet and the DNR Rare Species Guide for additional recommendations.
4. Page 27, Section 13.a, Rare Features. On page 10, Table 2 indicates that there are 23 acres of
forest within the project area and that only 2 acres will remain after completion of the project.
However, page 27 states that only 4.5 acres of trees will be removed from the site. This is a
large discrepancy. Removing 21 acres of trees is much more likely to have an impact on local
wildlife including rare species that depend on this type of habitat, even if degraded.
Additionally, this forested area appears to be located on a slope and likely provides soil
stabilization.
This section also states that no Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) are located within
the project area, but the southern forested area is mapped as a RSEA and a Regionally
Significant Ecological Corridor.
5. Page 30, Dust Control. Please note that SKB has DNR Water Appropriation Permit 1991-6005
that authorizes the use of water from one well for dust control. The DNR expects that DNR
Water Appropriation Permit 1991-6005 will continue to authorize the water use for dust
control. The DNR also requests that calcium chloride and magnesium chloride not be used for
dust control in areas that drain to public waters. Chloride released into local lakes and streams
does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels
that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Melissa Collins
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Phone: 651-259-5755
Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us
CC: David Wiggins, SKB Environmental, Inc.
Equal Opportunity Employer
April 8, 2021
Logan Martin, City Administrator City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Facility Expansion
Incomplete EAW Metropolitan Council Review File No. 22543-1
Metropolitan Council District No. 15
Dear Mr. Martin:
Council staff reviewed the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for the SKB Environmental Industrial
Waste Disposal Facility Expansion. The proposal involves the expansion of the facility onto 113 acres of adjacent
land immediately east of the current landfill disposal area to increase the industrial waste and construction and
demolition debris landfill capacity. The waste disposal facility is located at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard in the City of Rosemount.
Council staff finds this EAW to be incomplete and to contain insufficient information. Consequently, we are unable
to determine at this time whether the project is in conformity with regional system plans and whether an EIS may
be needed. We strongly encourage you to withdraw and republish the EAW wi th the missing data, or to issue a supplemental EAW to address the missing data. The following sections offer comments regarding technical
information that need to be included in the EAW, as well as advisory comments for your consideration.
Incomplete Items
Section 9.a.ii – Land Use (Colin Kelly, Regional Parks & Trails 651-602-1361)
While the EAW acknowledges “…Dakota County has a regional trail plan for this area” in section 9.a.ii., it
does not mention if or how the proposed expansion project will impact the planned regional trail. The same section only notes, “The landfill development will not interfere with future business park
development to the east.” The Rosemount Greenway Regional Trail has a 2012 Metropolitan Council -adopted master plan
(https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/About/TrailPlanning/Documents/RosemountMasterPlan.pdf). This
Council-adopted regional trail master plan needs to be referenced in section 9.a.ii. of the EAW.
This master plan depicts Segment 4 of the preferred route of the regional trail traversing the space between the existing SKB Environmental Inc. property and potential future facility expansion area (See
text and figures on pages 38 and 39). As such, Segment 4 of the planned Rosemount Greenway
Regional Trail is likely to be i mpacted by the waste disposal facility expansion. The proposer needs to articulate how the waste disposal facility expansion will or will not impact the
planned regional trail in sections 9.b. and 9.c. If there are no impacts anticipated, the EAW needs to state
this and reference how the planned regional trail will be accommodated if the facility is expanded as
proposed. If there are impacts anticipated, the EAW needs to state this and reference how those impacts
will be mitigated and where the regional trail alignment will be accommodated in sections 9.b. and 9.c. For example, the regional trail master plan identifies a possible alternate
alignment on the northwest side of the existing SKB
Environmental property. If the proposed
Page - 2 | April 8, 2021 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
solution to accommodating the regional trail in the area is to utilize the alternate trail alignment, the proposer needs to coordinate with Dakota County, the regional parks implementing agency that will
operate and maintain the planned Rosemount Greenway Regional Trail, to make that determination.
Item 12 - Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes (Joe Mulcahy, Water Resources 651-602-1104)
The EAW needs to explicitly acknowledge the following:
1. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds are pollutants of emerging concern.
2. Leachate from the SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Facility is a significant contributor of PFAS to MCES’ Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
3. Because PFAS compounds are ubiquitous, if the amount of leachate SKB discharges increases and SKB does not treat that leachate for PFAS, it will increase the mass loading of PFAS in the
Empire WWTP’s effluent.
4. SKB may be required to treat leachate or divert it from the waste stream if new regulations are promulgated.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of chemicals that are regarded as an emerging
environmental contaminant. The state of Minnesota, along with many other entities, is currently working to
evaluate the extent, sources, remediation, and regulation of PFAS in the environment and especially in
water.
Much of the leachate from the existing SKB Industrial Waste Disposal Facility is sent through the sewer
system to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services’ (MCES) Empire WWTP in Dakota County for
treatment, and then discharged into Pool 2 of the Mississippi River.
The Empire WWTP’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires MCES to
develop and implement a plan to locate and remove sources of PFAS within the sewer system.
Preliminary monitoring suggests that leachate from the SKB Industrial Waste Disposal Facility is the
largest known contributor of PFAS compounds to the Empire WWTP.
Environmental regulation of PFAS, including water quality limits are currently in flux; significant changes
are likely to emerge in the near future. These changes could have a substantial impact on operations at
the Empire WWTP and may necessitate pre-treatment of landfill leachate for PFAS, or other control
measures, before the leachate can be accepted for treatment at the plant.
SKB asserts in the EAW that “the [expansion] is estimated to increase the average annual leachate
generation. [MCES] treatment facilities have the capacity to accept this increase in daily leachate
generation from the Facility.” This statement needs to be removed from the EAW because if future Empire
WWTP NDPES permits regulate PFAS, MCES may not have the capacity to accept this increase in daily
leachate generation.
MCES reserves the right to impose additional leachate management and other industrial discharge permit
requirements on the SKB Industrial Waste Disposal Facility if warranted by future PFAS requirements on
the wastewater system.
Advisory Comments
Item 9.a.ii – Land Use (Patrick Boylan, Local Planning Assistance 651-602-1438) The proposed expansion area land use is currently guided GI - General Industrial and WM - Waste Management. On January 8, 2020, the Metropolitan Council approved the City’s 2040 Comprehensive
Plan (Joint Business Item No. 2019-310 JT). The City will need to amend the Future Land Use Map from
the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan so future land uses for the site are consistent with the proposed expansion of the proposed landfill expansion. The need for a comprehensive plan amendment needs to
be noted in Table 3 of Section 8, Permits and approvals required.
Page - 3 | April 8, 2021 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Item 11b – Wastewater (Roger Janzig, Environmental Services 651-602-1119) The EAW shows a project location that contains 2030 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) for the
proposed expansion of the SKB Rosemount Industrial Waste Disposal Facility, and 2040 MUSA for the
proposed future Business Park. Prior to the installation of any sanitary sewer improvements for the proposed future Business Park project, the City will need to re-guide staging from future 2040 to current
2030 MUSA through the submittal of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The amendment also needs to show detailed plans, and how this project will be connected to the Metropolitan Disposal System.
Metropolitan Council Interceptor (8009) is Northwest of the proposed Northwest Expansion area. The interceptor was built in 2008 and is a 78-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe. To assess the potential impacts
to our interceptor system; prior to initiating this project, prelim inary plans need to be sent to Tim Wedin, Interceptor Engineering Assistant Manager (651-602-4571) at the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services.
In summary, this EAW is incomplete as submitted. If the above pieces of information are provided, staff will be
able to complete its review in a timely manner. If you have any questions or need further information with respect to these matters, please contact Cameran J. Bailey, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1212.
Sincerely,
Angela R. Torres, AICP, Manager
Local Planning Assistance
CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division
Phillip Sterner, Metropolitan Council District No. 15
Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative
Cameran J. Bailey, Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator
N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Rosemount\Letters\Rosemount 2021 SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Facility Expansion EAW
Incomplete 22543-1.doc
Metropolitan District
Waters Edge Building
1500 County Road B2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
An equal opportunity employer
MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113
March 19, 2021
Kyle Klatt
Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068-4997
SUBJECT: MnDOT Review #EAW21-005
SKB Expansion EAW
SW Quad MN55 and 145th St, just north of Ehler Path/140th St. E. Avenue
Rosemount, Dakota County
Dear Mr. Klatt,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the SKB Expansion EAW. MnDOT’s staff has
reviewed the documents and has the following comments:
Water Resources:
There is not enough information present in the EAW to determine if a drainage permit will be
required for the work proposed. The project plan sheets do not clearly define the direction of
drainage in the proposed stormwater ponds, nor does it give much information about proposed
grading and high water levels.
MnDOT does not allow for the addition of new drainage areas to the right of way and has
standards for stormwater facilities located adjacent to its facilities. Additionally- no ponding is
allowed in MnDOT right of way. A drainage permit from MnDOT may need to be added to
Table 3 in section 8.
For questions regards these comments, contact Jason Swenson, Metro Water Resources, at
jason.swenson@state.mn.us or 651-234-7539.
Permit Required:
Any use of, or work within or affecting, MnDOT right of way will require a permit.
Permits can be applied for at this site: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload a copy
of this letter when applying for any permits.
MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113
Please direct questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro Permits
Section at 651-775-0405 or Buck.Craig@state.mn.us.
If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234-7797.
Sincerely,
Cameron Muhic
Senior Planner
Copy sent via E-Mail:
Buck Craig, Permits Ben Klismith, Right-of-Way
Jason Swenson, Water Resources Almin Ramic, Traffic
Molly Kline, Area Engineer Mohamoud Mire, Area Coordinator
Lance Schowalter, Design Jason Junge, Transit
Mackenzie Turner Bargen, Multimodal Jesse Thornsen, Multimodal
Casey Crisp, Surveys John Thompkins, Freight
Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council
April 2014
MnDOT Drainage Permits Checklist
Purpose of the MnDOT Drainage Permit
MnDOT Metro District regulates activities that impact its drainage systems and its MS4
regulated area. The purpose of the Drainage Permit is to protect State of Minnesota
investment in infrastructure including but not limited to roadways, storm water treatment
basins, ditches and storm sewer systems. Excess storm water and/or sediment laden storm
water added to MnDOT’s drainage systems leads to degradation of these assets. Negative
impacts include but are not limited to: sediment deposition, loss of flood storage capacity
and also loss of hydraulic conveyance capacity. These impacts may cause premature
flooding of the road surface and/or erosion damage on State right-of-way.
Technical Requirements of the MnDOT Drainage Permit
The permit applicant shall demonstrate that offsite runoff coming to MnDOT drainage
system and/or right-of-way will not increase as a result of the proposed project. This is
quantified as a “no increase in discharge” criteria for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year
storm events. Compliance is demonstrated by applying hydraulic/hydrologic software
models. HydroCAD and XPSWMM are the approved models to compare the pre and post
project discharge values. Typically, HydroCAD is sufficient to model most proposed
projects. However, XPSWMM may be required if the project contains extensive storm
water pipe systems connected to MnDOT storm sewer or if HydroCAD cannot in
MnDOT’s judgment effectively model pressure flow, complex junctions and/or
backwater effects that are present. The 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events shall be
based upon Atlas 14 runoff amounts per the NOAA website.
In addition, Drainage Permit Applicants shall meet all applicable water quality treatment
requirements established by the local Watershed District(s) and the MPCA.
Permit applicants should anticipate that specific projects that seek to divert runoff to
another sub-watershed or watershed will be denied. It is MnDOT practice to avoid such
watershed diversions whenever practicable.
Submittal Requirements:
Readable/legible watershed maps that show pre and post project drainage
conditions. These two separate contour maps shall be large enough in scale so that
approximate flow paths can be determined for verifying the Time of
Concentrations used in the models. The drainage/watershed maps shall include
enough detail so that Curve Numbers used in the hydraulic models may be
verified by MnDOT.
April 2014
Surface water flow direction and storm water pipe water flow direction shall be
indicated on the pre and post project watershed maps.
Minimum recommended watershed map scale is 1” =100’. Project applications
submitted with smaller scales (e.g., 1”=500’) may be rejected and returned to the
applicant. The same would apply for project watershed maps that do not include
topographic contours or basic land use information such as the location of
buildings, pavement and “green space”. Watershed maps submitted as pdf files or
CAD files shall be readily printable at scales that allow for good readability.
Pre and post project watershed maps shall be clearly linked to the drainage
models such that the names of the sub-watersheds, ponds and drainage structures
are the same in the models as shown on the watershed maps. In addition,
watershed and sub-watershed boundaries shall be clearly shown.
Submission of the actual pre and post project HydroCAD or XPSWMM models is
required: pdf copies of the drainage model simulations are unacceptable. In the
event that the models cannot be transferred readily by electronic mail or electronic
repository site, a hardcopy CD shall be provided.
Curve numbers shall be determined per NRCS methodology and should be
modified as needed based upon detailed knowledge of soil type and specific
conditions on site. HydroCAD modeling software includes NRCS guidance for
determining curve numbers based upon land use and condition.
Time of concentration (Tc) computations and assumptions that in MnDOT’s
assessment clearly overestimate or underestimate this critical runoff parameter
will be rejected. Two common assumptions that lead to overestimating Tc
include: using the “Lag/CN” method to determine peak runoff from watersheds
that have a relatively long and/or diverse flow path, and assuming that sheet flow
occurs for a distance exceeding100 feet. Conversely, pre-project Tc shall not be
underestimated to offset post project increases in peak discharge.
Available freeboard for existing and proposed treatment ponds shall be shown on
the watershed maps as well as the normal and 100-year high water levels. All
proposed pond treatment systems along MnDOT right-of-way shall have a
minimum freeboard of 2.0 feet between the road surface and the proposed
100-year HWL.
Infiltration basins, filtration basins and ponds adjacent to MnDOT right-of-way
shall be designed to provide at least 2 feet of elevation difference between the
100-year HWL and the crest of the basin berm. The berm crest shall be at least 5
feet wide. The emergency overflow shall be lined from crest to toe of slope with
Turf Reinforcement mat or Category 6 or 7 Erosion Control Blanket.
April 2014
Best management practices (BMP’s) including infiltration/filtration sites, storm
water ponds, etc. shall be clearly labeled on the pre and post project watershed
maps.
Plan sheets submitted as watershed maps shall be evaluated as such. They shall be
readable and legible and meet all the same requirements including clear
delineation of watershed boundaries, readable map scale, and land use shown by
an aerial photo background map, or that is clearly depicted based on details on the
plan sheet or sheets submitted.
Project plan sheets relevant to the Drainage Permit are required and include:
existing site conditions, the proposed grading plan as well as proposed site
drainage system plans and profiles. The plans shall include applicable wetland
impact/mitigation features and temporary sediment and erosion control measures
for the project. In addition, erosion control blanket will be used to stabilize
disturbed area on MnDOT right-of-way unless other methods such as rip-rap
treatment are called for in the plans and approved by MnDOT.
Pond and basin special structures including weirs and orifices shall be consistent
with what is used in the HydroCAD or XPSWMM models submitted and include
relevant calculations/details.
A table summary of existing versus proposed site discharge to MnDOT drainage
system/right-of-way is required for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year Atlas 14
rainfall events.
Post project storm water discharge to MnDOT ditches or other open channel shall
be limited to flow velocities of 6 fps or less for a 50-year Atlas 14 rainfall event.
Project discharge points that will connect to MnDOT ditch or channel shall be
located such that they do not cause erosion or conflict with the grade of the
existing ditch or channel.
Proposed access road culverts on MnDOT right-of-way shall be designed for the
10-year Atlas 14 rainfall event unless they are part of a significant drainage ditch
along the roadway in which case a 100-year or 50-year design will apply.
Direct connections to MnDOT storm system shall be avoided. Connection to open
ditch, or channel is preferred. If direct storm sewer connections cannot be
avoided, it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide a good connection typically
via a new structure. Furthermore, MnDOT offers no warranty that there will not
be a hydraulic backwater effects on the new storm line upstream that is connected
to MnDOT’s existing storm sewer.
April 2014
For all disturbed areas that sheet flow to MnDOT right-of-way and any disturbed
areas within MnDOT right-of-way, either Erosion Control Mat or Bonded Fiber
Matrix shall be used for temporary/permanent erosion control.
Silt fence shall not be used for erosion control at the proposed project site
perimeter. Rather, continuous Wood Chip or compost Sediment Control Logs
shall be implemented.
Permit applicants are encouraged to contact MnDOT Metro Water Resource Engineering
with questions/concerns. Questions posed early in the permit application process help to
avoid project delays. This is particularly true for large project Drainage Permits with
significant complexity.
April 7, 2021
Logan Martin
City Administrator
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Facility Expansion Environmental Assessment
Worksheet
Dear Logan Martin:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for the SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Facility Expansion project (Project) in the city
of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. The Project consists of expansion of the landfill capacity and
relocation of various infrastructure buildings. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility or other interests, the MPCA staff has the following
comments for your consideration.
Project Description (Item 6)
• This section discusses the existing disposal activities at the facility (industrial waste, construction
and demolition, municipal solid waste ash) but other non-disposal waste activities are not
mentioned. The EAW should include discussion on the general recycling activities, composting, and
ash processing/recycling that occur on site.
• The Eastern Expansion Waste Limits area on Figure 3 is depicted as immediately adjacent to (not on
top of) existing waste in Cell 5 whereas Attachment 1, PLN SHT 2, the eastern expansion area is
partially overlaying Cell 5. Please explain the discrepancy.
Water Resources (Item 11)
Surface Water
• Some of the information regarding the nearby impairments appears dated. The reach IDs of the
nearby Mississippi River channel were consolidated in 2016. The reach, Rock Island RR Bridge to
Lock and Dam #2, was retired and is no longer active and became part of the larger Mississippi River
channel reach near the Project and is now known as stream reach ID 07010206-814, Upper St.
Anthony Falls to St. Croix R. The EAW is correct to say this reach has an approved total maximum
daily load (TMDL) for Mercury in Fish tissue, Mercury in the water column, and total suspended
solids (TSS). However, the EAW is missing a few impairments that do not have TMDLs. Those with a
TMDL needed would include Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Fish Tissue, Perfluorooctane sulfonate
(PFOS), PFOS in fish tissue, Nutrients, and Fecal Coliform, and are on the 2018 303d list approved by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 2020 303d list will include a new impairment
on this reach for Aluminum as well, that has not yet been approved by EPA. For questions regarding
impairments, please contact Jordan Donatell at 651-757-2254 or Jordan.Donatell@state.mn.us.
Logan Martin
Page 2
April 7, 2021
Stormwater
• The EAW does not acknowledge the need for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System/State Disposal System General Construction Stormwater Permit (CSW Permit) which will be
required for the proposed future business park located within the Project area. This required permit
is not included in Table 3.
• The EAW states the site discharges stormwater to the Mississippi River which has construction-
related impairments. Based on the Project proposer’s 1-mile location map, at least parts of the
Mississippi River appear to be located within the 1-mile radius of the Project boundary. The 2020
Industrial Stormwater Permit requires application for the CSW Permit providing the expansion
disturbs 50 or more acres and discharges to an impaired water located within 1 mile of the Project.
Please direct questions regarding CSW Permit requirements to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or
Roberta.Getman@state.mn.us.
• The EAW discusses the proposed use of NURP ponds with an infiltration bench for stormwater
management for the business park. The CSW Permit requires a stormwater volume reduction
method, such as infiltration, rather than wet sediment ponding, unless site conditions prohibit use
of infiltration. In addition, NURP pond standards and the infiltration bench may not meet MPCA
requirements. Please contact MPCA stormwater engineering staff prior to finalizing design plans.
You may direct questions to Mike Findorff at 651-757-2357 or Michael.Findorff@state.mn.us. The
project will also require submittal of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prior to obtaining
CSW Permit coverage if the Project is within 1 mile of the Mississippi River.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please provide your specific responses to our
comments and notice of decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Please be aware
that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the
purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the
Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If
you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at
Karen.kromar@state.mn.us or by telephone at 651-757-2508.
Sincerely,
Karen Kromar
This document has been electronically signed.
Karen Kromar
Project Manager
Environmental Review Unit
Resource Management and Assistance Division
KK:bt
cc: Dan Card, MPCA, St. Paul
Dan Aamodt, MPCA, St. Paul
Jordan Donatell, MPCA, St. Paul
Roberta Getman, MPCA, Rochester
Mike Findorff, MPCA, St. Paul
MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287
mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER
April 7, 2021
Logan Martin, City Administrator
City of Rosemount
2875 145th St W
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: EAW – SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Facility Expansion, Rosemount
T115 R18 S20, Rosemount, Dakota County
SHPO Number: 2021-1173
Dear Mr. Martin:
Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for
the above-referenced project.
Due to the nature and location of the proposed project, we recommend that a Phase I archaeological
survey be completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Identification and Evaluation and should include an evaluation of National Register
eligibility for any properties that are identified. For a list of consultants who have expressed an interest
in undertaking such surveys, please visit the website preservationdirectory.mnhs.org, and select
“Archaeologists” in the “Search by Specialties” box.
We will reconsider the need for survey if the project area can be documented as previously surveyed or
disturbed. Any previous survey work must meet contemporary standards. Note: plowed areas and right-
of-way are not automatically considered disturbed. Archaeological sites can remain intact beneath the
plow zone and in undisturbed portions of the right-of-way.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial
assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need
to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by
our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal
agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106.
If you have any questions regarding our review of this project, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in our
Environmental Review Program at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Sarah J. Beimers
Environmental Review Program Manager
Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization
4100 220th Street West, Suite 103, Farmington, Minnesota 55024 | 952.891.7000 | Fax 952.891.7588
March 26, 2021
Kyle Klatt
Senior Planner
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: SKB Environmental Industrial Waste Disposal Facility Expansion Project EAW Comments
The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) appreciates the opportunity to
review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed SKB
Environmental industrial waste disposal facility expansion project. Staff have reviewed the EAW and
have the following comments:
• Pages 18-20, Section 11.b.i. The wastewater section is somewhat unclear on the current and
proposed wastewater management methods. It is understood that all new buildings will be tied
to septic systems even though the existing buildings are served by sanitary sewer and City of
Rosemount (City) water will be brought to the site (as noted in 11.b.iii). The City and project
developer should consider whether sanitary service can be extended to the new sustainability
facility at this time. The EAW notes that sanitary will be extended to the future office park,
suggesting this approach may be feasible (but putting off the sanitary extension to an uncertain
development proposal). In addition, there are no sanitary lines shown for the recycling building
to the septic system on the plans. It should be noted whether or not there are any restroom
facilities or possible recycling process waters in the other campus buildings to clarify the intent
and scope of wastewater.
• Page 20, Section 11.b.ii. The plan notes that the majority of the site drains to the south and
mostly infiltrates in farm fields downstream before it reaches the Mississippi River. The
infiltration note is mostly true apart from snowmelt conditions and possibly very large storm
events, but the outlets to the south reach the Vermillion River first before the Mississippi River.
It appears that the order of basins on page 20 should be “Basin 10 to Basin 9 to Basin 8” per the
plans (it says basin 9 to 10 to 8 currently). The plans show basin 12 going to basin 11, and the
text notes that basins 1-5 will ultimately flow out to basin 6, but it is unclear if basins 11 and 12
have an outlet. Final design is not needed yet, but the EAW should note which basins will act as
stormwater ponds and which will act as infiltration basins while considering pretreatment
requirements and the adjacent activities. Pretreatment ponds should consider skimmer
structures or other design components considering the truck traffic and uses for the site.
• Pages 25-28. Section 13. The EAW notes that the majority of the site is currently farmed acreage
with little habitat benefit for the wildlife noted in this section. Consideration could be given to
preserve some trees for screening and habitat along MN 55 and the southern part of the parcel,
Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization
2
or at least on the future industrial park site where trees currently exist. Furthermore, as noted in
the plan, stormwater areas may provide some benefit for species noted depending on the
vegetation planned. It is noted in section 7 that about 11 acres will be finished around the
sustainability center with lawn and landscaping, which may provide additional opportunities to
compensate for the losses at the fringe of the site. Understanding that some native vegetation
types require maintenance burning that may not be compatible with the waste management
use, there may be other turf alternatives that could be utilized in these areas (e.g., deep-rooted
grass species, “bee lawns”, etc.).
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the SKB Environmental facility expansion
EAW.
Sincerely,
Mark Ryan
VRWJPO Water Resources Engineer
Cc: Mark Zabel, VRWJPO Administrator