HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-28 PACKET 06.4.STAFF REPORT CASE: MP2022-025
ITEM: 6.4
PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 3/28/22 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: N/A
APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Aggregate Industries — MWR, Inc.
REQUEST: Aggregate Industries — MWR, Inc. is proposing to move its mine area,
which supports the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility, onto an
approximately 395-acre parcel of privately -owned land that the company
leases in the backwaters of the Mississippi River on Lower Grey Cloud
Island necessitating the need for a Draft Scoping Environmental Assess-
ment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision Document (SDD).
SITE DATA
LOCATION: Backwaters of the Mississippi River on Lower Grey Cloud Island
ZONING: 1-4, Commercial Excavation District
GUIDED LAND USE: Transition Planning Area
LAND USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: CURRENT GUIDED
NORTH: Mooers Lake Mooers Lake
EAST: Rural Residential Rural Residential
SOUTH: Mississippi River Mississippi River
WEST: Mississippi River Mississippi River
SIZE:
DENSITY:
395 Acres
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission's role is to provide a forum for the public to
make verbal comments on the contents of the Draft Scoping EAW and
Draft SDD.
Cottage
Grope Pride and Prosperity Meet COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION
here
Planning Staff Contact: Emily Schmitz, Senior Planner; 651-458-2874; aschmitz(o-)_cottagegrovemn.gov
Application Accepted:. N/A 60-Day Review Deadline: N/A
City of Cottage Grove Planning Division • 12800 Ravine Parkway South • Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Planning Staff Report
Aggregate Industries — Scoping Environmental
Assessment Worksheet
Planning Case No. MP2022-025
March 28, 2022
Proposal
Aggregate Industries — MWR, Inc. (Aggregate Industries/Proposer) is proposing to move its mine
area, which supports the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility, onto approximately 395-
acre parcel of privately -owned land that the company leases in the backwaters of the Mississippi
River on Lower Grey Cloud Island. The planned move in the mine area would take place during
a 20- to 25-year period. Aggregate Industries has been mining at the existing Nelson Sand &
Gravel Mine Facility since the early 1950s when the J.L. Shiely Company (now known as Aggre-
gate Industries) entered into a lease agreement with the private landowner. A lease agreement
remains in place between the private landowner and Aggregate Industries today.
The existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility mines aggregate in the Lower Grey Cloud Island
deposit area and will exhaust its currently accessible minable reserves in approximately five years
given the current rate of mining, market trends, and geologic variations at the site. The proposed
Nelson Mine Backwater Project's (Project) purpose is to exercise Aggregate Industries' lease to
continue mechanical dredging operations in adjacent backwater area of the Mississippi River,
which will supply the Twin Cities and other local markets with construction quality natural aggre-
gate for an additional 20 to 25 years.
The mined material will extend the functionality of the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine pro-
cessing facilities and ship the aggregate to market using the existing Aggregate Industries barge
system. Aggregate Industries supports the demand for high quality natural aggregate in the Twin
Cities metropolitan construction market.
Background
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared as it exceeds the thresholds identi-
fied below from the Minnesota Administrative Rules (Minnesota Rules) where the City of Cottage
Grove is the Responsible Government Unit (RGU):
• 4410.4400, Subpart 9B — development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand,
gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals other than peat, which will excavate 160 acres
of land or more to a mean depth of 10 feet or more during its existence, the local govern-
mental unit is the RGU.
• 4410.4400, Subpart 9C — development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand,
gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals other than peat, which will excavate 40 or more
acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in a sensitive shoreland area or 80 or
more acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in a non -sensitive shoreland area,
the local governmental unit is the RGU.
Planning Staff Report — Case Nos. MP2022-025
Aggregate Industries SEAW
March 28, 2022
Page 2 of 6
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules for nonmetallic mineral mining, the City of Cottage Grove, acting as
the RGU, has prepared a Draft Scoping Decision Document (SDD) for Aggregate Industries
Project. The Draft SDD is a companion document to the Draft Scoping Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) prepared for the Project.
City Council action is needed to approve distribution of these two documents related to the scop-
ing process in a State -mandated EIS. The Draft Scoping EAW and Draft SDD are anticipated to
be published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitoron March 15, 2022.
HENNEPIN
imriY Eli �
�aa•,h�Y
�.A. DAKOTA COUNTY
.� GOODNUE.
L----�, COUNTY
Proposed Project Area
Existing Nelson Mine
Facility
[Ji Municipal Boundary
1721 County Boundary
O
0 1,500 3,000
0
Feet
Project Location Map
The purpose of an EIS is to provide information for governmental units, the proposer of the project,
and other persons to evaluate proposed projects that have the potential for significant environ-
mental effects, to consider alternatives to the proposed projects, and to explore methods for
reducing adverse environmental effects (Minnesota Rules 4410.2000 Subp. 1).
The EIS scoping process occurs when a project requires a mandatory EIS according to Minnesota
Rules 4410.2000, Subpart 2. The EIS scoping process occurs before the preparation of an EIS
and is intended to reduce the scope and bulk of the EIS by identifying only the potentially signifi-
cant issues related to the project, outlining the EIS document and preparation timeline, and de-
termining the permits that require information in order to be developed concurrently to the EIS.
The Scoping Decision Documents will be published with the EQB for a 30-day public review and
comment period. As the RGU, the City of Cottage Grove requires a public hearing per City Code
on the proposed project on March 28, 2022, during the regularly scheduled Planning Commission
meeting.
Planning Staff Report — Case Nos. MP2022-025
Aggregate Industries SEAW
March 28, 2022
Page 3 of 6
The purpose of the Draft SDD is to give the public a preliminary view of the intended scope and
identify the issues and alternatives that will be examined in depth in the EIS. The information in
this Draft SDD should be considered preliminary and subject to revision based on the entire record
of the scoping process. The Draft SDD also presents a tentative schedule of the environmental
review process. Following completion of the scoping process, a Final SDD will be developed and
the EIS will be prepared in accordance with the Final SDD.
Draft Scoping Decision Document (SDD) Content
Project Purpose and Need
When assessing the viability of various alternatives to the Proposer's Project, and per Minnesota
Rules (4410.2300 H), the EIS considers the fundamental need for the Project in addition to the
environmental, employment, and sociological impacts of the proposed action and each major
alternative. The proposed Project's purpose is to exercise Aggregate Industries' lease to continue
mechanical dredging operations in an adjacent backwaters area of the Mississippi River to supply
to the Twin Cities and other local markets with construction quality natural aggregate for an addi-
tional 20 to 25 years.
As indicated by aggregate industry leaders and the Minnesota Legislature, aggregate reserves in
the Twin Cities metropolitan area are limited and the need for the proposed Project is to provide
a continued local supply of construction -quality aggregate from a local, accessible source. Project
beneficiaries include projects that require aggregate materials, such as roadway and other infra-
structure projects, by providing a cost -competitive, local aggregate source.
Project Alternatives
The EIS must evaluate the "environmental, economic, employment, and sociological impacts"
(Minnesota Rule 4410.2300, Item H.) of the Project and will compare the potentially significant
impacts of the proposed Project with a No Action Alternative and other reasonable alternatives.
The Minnesota Environmental Review Rules require the EIS to address at least one alternative
of each of the following types of alternatives or provide an explanation of why no alternative of a
is included in the EIS:
• No Action Alternative
• Alternative Sites
• Alternative Technologies
• Modified Designs or Layouts
• Modified Scale or Magnitude
• Alternatives incorporating reasonable mitigation measures identified through the EIS
scoping and Draft EIS process.
EIS Issues
As representatives of the RGU, City staff and technical consultants have evaluated the Scoping
EAW to determine how the topics should be treated in the Draft EIS using the following criteria:
A. The topic is not relevant or is so minor that it will not be addressed at all in the Draft EIS.
Planning Staff Report — Case Nos. MP2022-025
Aggregate Industries SEAW
March 28, 2022
Page 4 of 6
B. The topic is minor, but will be discussed briefly in the Draft EIS using the same information
as in the Scoping EAW.
C. The topic is significant, but the Scoping EAW information is adequate for use in the Draft
EIS.
D. The topic is significant and information beyond what was in the Scoping EAW will be in-
cluded in the Draft EIS.
The table below identifies at this time how significant each Scoping EAW topic will be for further
analysis once the Proposer prepares a Draft EIS following the scoping phase.
Scoping EAW Item Number and EIS Content Topic
How Topic will be
Addressed in Draft EIS
6. Project Description
D
7. Cover Types
B
9. Land Use
C
10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms
D
11. Water Resources
D
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes
B
13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological
Resources
D
14. Historic Properties
C
15. Visual
C
16. Air
D
17. Noise
C
18. Transportation
B
19. Cumulative Potential Effects
D
20. Other Potential Environmental Effects
D
Phased or Connected Actions
A phased action means "two or more projects to be undertaken by the same proposer" that "will
have environmental effects in the same geographic area and are substantially certain to be un-
dertaken sequentially over a limited period of time." (Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subp. 60). The
existing mine area and the proposed Project do not meet this definition because they are not
being undertaken in a limited period of time.
EIS Schedule
A Minnesota EIS requires extensive issue identification and analysis in three phases of work:
1. Scoping
2. Draft EIS
3. Final EIS
The publication of the Draft SEAW and Draft SDD on March 15, 2022, will initiate a 30-day com-
ment period. The table below identifies the remaining steps in the scoping process.
Planning Staff Report — Case Nos. MP2022-025
Aggregate Industries SEAW
March 28, 2022
Page 5 of 6
Planned Date
Event
March 2, 2022
RGU approves resolution
March 8, 2022
Draft Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision
Document submitted to EQB
March 15, 2022
Draft Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision
Document published in EQB Monitor
March 28, 2022
RGU holds public hearing at Planning Commission
April 20, 2022
RGU considers Record of Decision and Findings and
Scoping Decision Document
April 25, 2022
RGU decision distributed to agencies and any other
commenters
RGU issues scoping decision (within 15 workings days
May 5, 2022
after comment period ends; this 15-day period shall be
extended by the EQB chair by no more than 15
additional days upon request of the RGU).
June 20, 2022
EIS preparation notice published in EQB Monitor, RGU
issues press release, 280-day EIS process begins
The Draft EIS is anticipated to be ready to publish in the EQB Monitorsometime between Novem-
ber 2022 — March 2023 for another 30-day comment period and required public meeting.
Special Studies or Research
A scoping process for the proposed Project was initiated in 2007. A Scoping Decision Document
was published in April 2008, leading to the preparation of a Draft EIS. A Draft EIS was developed,
and a preliminary version was made available to participants of the proposed Project's Technical
Advisory Committee. Aggregate Industries made a business decision to pause the proposed
Project in Fall 2010 before the Draft EIS was published for public review and comment. Aggregate
Industries initiated and completed studies in the late 2000's to support the Draft EIS and some of
those studies are still relevant, while others need to be updated or redone due to the time lapse.
The Draft SDD outlines the studies being prepared for the Draft EIS, and is attached to this staff
report.
TA C
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has been compiled by City staff to inform the process and
content of the EIS for the Nelson Mine Backwater Project EIS. The TAC is intended to provide
insight and relevant technical information that can improve the development of the EIS and ade-
quately assess environmental effects. The first TAC meeting was held in February 2022 to provide
an overview of the proposed project and solicit input on topics that should be highlighted in up-
coming TAC meetings including permitting, relevant studies and research being conducted, and
early consultation with State agencies. Agencies and partners represented on the TAC include:
State of Minnesota
o Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
o Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
o Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
o Metropolitan Council
Planning Staff Report — Case Nos. MP2022-025
Aggregate Industries SEAW
March 28, 2022
Page 6 of 6
• Counties
o Washington County Administration
o Washington County Conservation District
o Dakota County Parks
• Watersheds
o South Washington Watershed District
• Federal
o Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)
o Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
o National Park Service (NPS)
• Other
o Friends of the Mississippi River
o Upper Mississippi Waterway Association
o United Pentecostal Church
Government Permits or Approvals
The Draft SDD contains a table listing any known permits or approvals that will be required for the
Project. Approval of permits is contingent on the Proposer meeting the individual requirements of
each permit in this mandatory EIS process.
Planning Commission Action
Minnesota Rules require a 30-day comment period on the Scoping documents for a mandatory
EIS. During the 30-day comment period, anyone may review and comment on the Scoping EAW
and Draft SDD. The City of Cottage Grove will hold the public hearing to receive comments about
the Scoping EAW and Draft SDD.
The Planning Commission's role is to provide a forum for the public to make verbal comments on
the contents of the Scoping documents. The comments will be compiled in the Planning Commis-
sion minutes and responses to the comments will be included in the final record of decision. The
Planning Commission is not required to respond to any comments and will not take any action on
the Scoping EAW or Draft SDD.
Prepared by: Attachments:
Exhibit A = Aggregate Industries Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Beth Elliot, AICP Exhibit B = Aggregate Industries Scoping Decision Document
Stantec
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project
Prepared for
Aggregate Industries - MWR, Inc.
February 2022
Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Aggregate Industries — MWR, Inc.
Nelson Mine Backwater Project
February 2022
Contents
1.
Project Title................................................................................................................................................................1
2.
Proposer......................................................................................................................................................................1
3.
RG U...............................................................................................................................................................................1
4.
Reason for EAW Preparation..............................................................................................................................2
5.
Project Location.......................................................................................................................................................2
6.
Project Description.................................................................................................................................................3
7.
Cover Types.............................................................................................................................................................10
8.
Permits and Approvals Required....................................................................................................................10
9.
Land Use...................................................................................................................................................................11
10.
Geology, Soils and Topography/Land Forms.............................................................................................15
11.
Water Resources....................................................................................................................................................17
12.
Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes............................................................................................22
13.
Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) ...........
24
14.
Historic Properties................................................................................................................................................33
15.
Visual..........................................................................................................................................................................35
16.
Air................................................................................................................................................................................36
17.
Noise..........................................................................................................................................................................37
18.
Transportation........................................................................................................................................................38
19.
Cumulative Potential Effects.............................................................................................................................39
20.
Other Potential Environmental Effects..........................................................................................................41
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page i
Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet
List of Tables
Table 1
Project Public Land System (PLS) Location Summary.................................................................................2
Table 2
Global Positioning System (GPS) Coordinates and Tax Parcel Numbers............................................3
Table 3
Project Magnitude Summary................................................................................................................................9
Table 4
Summary of Cover Types (in acres)................................................................................................................10
Table 5
Permits and Approvals to be Required or Modified................................................................................11
Table 6
Soils within Proposed Project Area.................................................................................................................16
Table 7
MDNR Natural Heritage Information System Database Records within One Mile......................28
Table 8
Historic and Archaeological Resources Located on Grey Cloud Island............................................34
List of Appendices
Appendix A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC Species List
Appendix B References
Appendix C Figures
List of Fiaures in Anaendix C
Figure 1
Project Location Map
Figure 2
USGS 7.5 Minute Quad Map
Figure 3
Existing Facility Overview
Figure 4
Historic Aerial Overview
Figure 5
Project Overview Map
Figure 6
Mining Progression
Figure 7
Landcover
Figure 8
Current and Future Land Use
Figure 9
Cottage Grove Zoning
Figure 10
FEMA Floodplain
Figure 11
Water Resources
Figure 12
MPCA What's in my Neighborhood
Figure 13
Sensitive Ecological Resources
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page ii
Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Abbreviations
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
Aggregate Industries Aggregate Industries — MWR, Inc.
BMPs
Best Management Practices
City
City of Cottage Grove
EAW
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
ECS
Ecological Classification System
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EMS
Environmental Management System
EQB
Environmental Quality Board
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
GPS
Global Positioning System
HUC
Hydrologic Unit Code
IPaC
Information for Planning and Conservation
MDH
Minnesota Department of Health
MDNR
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
MNRRA
Mississippi National River and Recreational Area
MPCA
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MRCCA
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area
NHIS
Natural Heritage Information System
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NIPS
National Park Service
NRCS
Natural Resource Conservation Service
PLS
Public Land System
PRCV
Public River Corridor View
RGU
Responsible Government Unit
ROS
Rural and Open Spaces
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
SSTS
Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems
SWPPP
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
UPCI
United Pentecostal Church International
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page iii
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
July 2013 version
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are
available at the Environmental Quality Board's website at:
http://www.egb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form
provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant
environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for
completing the EAW form.
Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item
or can be addresses collectively under EAW Item 19.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the Responsible Government Unit
(RGU) during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB
Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information,
potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project Title
Aggregate Industries - MWR, Inc. - Nelson Mine Backwater Project
2. Proposer
Contact person: Patty Bestler, Aggregate Industries, MWR, Inc.
Title: Regional Manager, Environmental & Land Services
Address: 2815 Dodd Road, Suite 101
City, State, ZIP: Eagan, MN 55121 Phone: (612) 214-8577
Email: patty.bestler@aggregate-us.com
3. RGU
Contact person: Emily Schmitz, City of Cottage Grove
Title: Senior Planner
Address: 12800 Ravine Parkway
City, State, ZIP: Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Phone: (651) 458-2874
Email: eschmitz@cottagegrovemn.gov
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 1
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
4. Reason for EAW Preparation
Required: Discretionary:
X EIS Scoping ❑ Citizen petition
❑ Mandatory EAW ❑ RGU discretion
❑ Proposer initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):
4410.4400, Subpart 913 — Nonmetallic Mineral Mining; for development of a facility for the
extraction or mining of sand, gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals other than peat, which
will excavate 160 acres of land or more to a mean depth of 10 feet or more during its existence.
4410.4400, Subpart 9C — Nonmetallic Mineral Mining; for development of a facility for the
extraction or mining of sand, gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals other than peat,
which will excavate 40 or more acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in a
sensitive shoreland area or 80 or more acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in
a non- sensitive shoreland area.
5. Project Location
• County: Washington
• City/Township: City of Cottage Grove
• PLS Location ('/4, 1/4, Section, Township, Range): See Table 1.
Table 1 Project Public Land System (PLS) Location Summary
1/4
1/4
Section
Township
Range
NW
NW
4
26
21
-
NW
5
26
21
-
NE
5
26
21
NE
NW
6
26
21
NW
NE
6
26
21
NE
NE
6
26
21
NE
SE
31
27
21
SE
SE
31
27
21
SW
SE
32
27
21
SE
SE
32
27
21
Sw
SW
33
27
31
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 2
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
• Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River —Twin Cities (HUC4 Name:
Upper Mississippi)
❑ GPS Coordinates: See Table 2.
❑ Tax Parcel Numbers: See Table 2.
Table 2 Global Positioning System (GPS) Coordinates and Tax Parcel Numbers
Tax Parcel Number
Latitude
Longitude
163-3302721330001
44.77758488500
-92.94198198520
163-3202721440002
44.77666821470
-92.94836040730
163-3202721430001
44.77714686750
-92.95255275260
163-3102721420001
44.77863124800
-92.97066352210
163-3102721410003
44.78087795230
-92.96755047910
163-0602621210001
44.77510394650
-92.97694966380
163-0602621120001
44.77493285630
-92.97239140150
163-0602621110001
44.77421830740
-92.96702399980
163-0502621240001
44.76935765570
-92.95648125930
163-0502621230001
44.77128750990
-92.96338012630
163-0502621210001
44.77471109220
-92.95920326810
163-0502621140001
44.77055634310
-92.94568101560
163-0502621130001
44.76873295830
-92.95219714840
163-0502621110001
44.77494164470
-92.95148852920
163-0402621220001
44.77172643260
-92.94397069840
At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:
❑ County map showing the general location of the project (Figure 1, Appendix C)
❑ U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries
(photocopy acceptable) (Figure 2, Appendix C)
❑ Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre -construction site plan
and post -construction site plan. (Figures 3 through13, Appendix C)
6. Project Description
a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50
words).
Aggregate Industries— MWR, Inc. ("Aggregate Industries") is proposing to move its mine area,
which supports the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility, onto an approximately 395-acre
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 3
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
parcel of privately owned land that the company leases in the backwaters of the Mississippi
River. Although it leases the mining area, Aggregate Industries owns the land where the
processing plant infrastructure is located. The planned shift in mine area would take place across
an approximately 20 to 25-year period.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction,
including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the
existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause
physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to
existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal, or
remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
Proposed Project Overview
The existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility will exhaust its current minable reserves in
approximately five years given the current rate of mining, market trends, and geologic variations
at the site. Aggregate Industries is proposing to move its mine area, which supports the existing
Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility, to mine additional reserves on a privately owned parcel of
land in the backwaters area of the Mississippi River (proposed Project). These reserves would be
used to supply construction -quality aggregate to the Twin Cities construction industry.
Current mining means and methods at the existing plant would be employed to mine the
reserves. Processing techniques, processing equipment, equipment run rates, hours of operation
and staffing at the existing Sand & Gravel Mine Facility would all remain unchanged. In addition,
the current river -based transportation system would remain unchanged; assuming consistent
market conditions, barge capacities and annual trips are expected to remain the same. Barges
would continue to be loaded at the existing dock wall/load-out location of the Nelson Sand &
Gravel Mine Facility using the same equipment (Figure 3).
Project Background and Existing Operations Overview
The proposed Project would change the location where active mining occurs; no changes in
production, processing facility, or operations are proposed. Aggregate Industries has been mining
at the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility since the early 1950s when the J.L. Shiely
Company (now known as Aggregate Industries) entered into a lease agreement with the private
landowner. A form of this lease agreement remains in place between the private landowner and
Aggregate Industries today.
The proposed Project was formerly upland that became inundated by the impoundment created
with the construction of Lock and Dam #2 in 1930. This impounded area, upstream of Lock and
Dam #1 is known as Pool 2 of the Mississippi River (Figure 4). The approximately 395-acre
proposed Project area analyzed in this document is bound on the north by Lower Grey Cloud
Island and on the south by barrier islands created by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 4
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
to deposit dredge spoils (Figure 5). Since 1995, a twin-clamshell, floating dredge unit has been
used to excavate raw aggregate materials from a created lake located on Lower Grey Cloud
Island (Figure 3). This floating dredge unit is approximately 100 feet by 100 feet in size, 60 feet
tall, and weighs approximately 500 tons. The floating dredge unit is used to reach aggregate
reserves below the water surface and can mine up to 1,200 tons of material per hour, reaching
up to 200 feet below the water surface. Material is dewatered in the dredge unit where it is also
initially crushed into pieces of aggregate smaller than 6-inches in size. Excess sand is then either
screened and pumped to the south shoreline of the created lake or it is pumped to the deepest
part of the created lake as part of initial reclamation.
Once excavated, dewatered, and initially crushed by the floating dredge unit, the mined
aggregate is transported by conveyor to the processing plant located in the southwest portion
of the Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility (Figure 3). Processing operations include further
crushing, washing, sorting, and stockpiling of aggregate materials by size. Upon processing
completion, aggregate products are loaded onto barges or trucks for distribution. The majority
of the aggregate is transported on the Mississippi River by barge upstream to Aggregate
Industries' distribution yard in St. Paul. A single barge can carry between 1,200 and 1,300 tons of
aggregate. In any given year, Aggregate Industries transports approximately 600,000 to 750,000
tons of aggregate by barge to the distribution yard, resulting in approximately 500 to 625 barge
trips annually. Up to 20,000 tons of aggregate per year is transported off -site by truck; a truck
can typically carry 25 tons of gravel. One barge is equivalent to approximately 45 trucks. Over an
entire barging season, the 500 to 625 barge trips are equivalent to 20,000 to 30,000 truck trips.
The amount of aggregate transported annually depends on the demand of projects in the
greater Twin Cities metro area.
Under current operations, reclamation typically occurs on an annual basis. In recent years,
reclamation has consisted of creating a large peninsula within the existing created lake, as well
as slope and shore stabilization/establishment and revegetation. In addition, waste sand has
been placed in the northeast portion of the site, directly north of the existing conveyor system,
to gradually slope the site to the southwest.
Since the floating dredge unit was put in place in 1995, the City of Cottage Grove has granted a
variance to the mining ordinance requirement limiting mining operation hours, which has
allowed Aggregate Industries to operate 24-hours per day, seven days per week. The variance
relating to the hours of operation is reviewed on an annual basis by the City.
At the current rate of mining and market trends and geologic variations at the site, Aggregate
Industries estimates that mining will continue for another approximately five years at the
existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility. The expansion to the new mining area would not
take place until mining has been completed within the current mining area. At the time that
operations shift to the proposed Project area, the floating dredge unit would be relocated from
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 5
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
its present location in the created lake to the proposed Project area. Processing of the extracted
aggregate within the proposed Project area would occur at approximately the same rate,
extending and using the same process and processing equipment. As such, the proposed
Project would retain the same number of employees at the facility (there are currently 18
employees) and the same rates of barge and truck traffic.
The existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility has provided construction aggregate materials
for several projects during its existence, including providing sand for ready -mix concrete
operations. Notable recent construction projects the facility has supplied aggregate and/or sand
to include: the St. Croix Crossing; Interstate 494/694 Concrete Paving Project; Ayd Mill Road
Improvement Project; Abbott NW Transportation Hub Target Field Station in Minneapolis; Eagle
Point Elementary School in Oakdale; Woodbury Middle School in Woodbury; Urban Academy in
St. Paul; and construction projects at Regions Hospital and Gillette Children's Hospital in St Paul.
As identified, a number of construction projects in the Twin Cities and surrounding areas have
used aggregate sourced from the Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility.
As with the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility, the aggregate resources in the
proposed Project area would contribute to meeting the demand for construction aggregate in
the Twin Cities metropolitan market for another 20 to 25 years. The aggregate resources would
support construction of residential developments and commercial infrastructure projects such as
bridges, roads, schools, and other buildings. Aggregates are a major component in the ready -
mix concrete and asphalt production processes.
Mining Methods
Mining would occur in an approximately 230-acre area (proposed mining area) within the
proposed Project area using mining practices similar to those currently used at the existing
Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility. A floating dredge unit would be deployed into the
proposed mining area by excavating a temporary channel approximately 150 feet wide, 400 feet
long, and 30 feet deep from the existing mine pit lake, through upland portions of Lower Grey
Cloud Island, and into the proposed mining area. The temporary channel would fill with water
from adjacent areas to allow the floating dredge unit to be transferred from the currently mined
area to the proposed mining area. Immediately following the floating dredge unit relocation,
most of the temporary channel would be substantially closed, backfilled, and restored.
An approximately 150-foot by 150-foot (22,500 square foot or 0.5-acre) area of the southern
portion of the temporary dredge channel would remain in place to be used as a winter slip for
the floating dredge unit. As mining progresses through the proposed mining area, the original
winter slip area would be reclaimed, and additional slips would be created closer to the active
mining areas. Up to two additional winter slips may be required; however, no more than one slip
would be used at a time. At the end of each season of operation, the floating dredge unit would
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 6
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
be moved from the proposed mining area into a winter slip. The proposed Project's annual
operating seasons are expected to typically begin in early March and last through mid -
November.
The floating dredge unit would use clam shell buckets to extract raw aggregate reserves from as
deep as 200 feet within the proposed mining area. A floating conveyor system would extend
from the floating dredge unit to the mainland. In addition to transporting mined aggregate
from the proposed mining area to the plant, the conveyors would also house the cablesneeded
to provide electricity to power the floating dredge unit. The floating conveyor system would
connect to landing points, each approximately 1-acre in size, to connect the floating conveyors
to the existing land -based conveyor system within the boundaries of the existing facility.
Additional footings may need to be installed to support the conveyor system as it makes this
transition to upland.
As mining continues, an increasingly large basin would be created. Barrier dikes would be
constructed between the first and third of the USACE-created barrier islands to protect the
active mining area from flood debris, ice, and excessive sedimentation (Figure 5). Hydrologic
analyses previously completed for the proposed Project indicated that deepening the basin
would provide enough increased storage capacity such that construction of the barrier dikes
would not cause a change in flood elevations upstream. This analysis would be refined as part of
Project permitting.
Material Processing
Material processing would rely on the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility and
processing plant infrastructure.
Materials mined as part of the proposed Project would be dewatered within the dredge unit
itself as it is brought to the surface and transported by conveyor to the existing Nelson Sand &
Gravel Mine Facility's main processing plant where it would be crushed, screened, and washed
before being loaded onto barges for transport to the marketplace in a manner similar to existing
site operations. In the main processing plant, mined materials would be transferred through a
heavy steel screen to separate larger rocks from smaller rocks and sand. The larger rocks would
be periodically transferred into a primary crusher, where they would be reduced in size. Surplus
sand, which comprises approximately half of the aggregate reserve in the proposed mining area,
would be separated from other sand and gravel materials as it passes through a series of
vibrating screens. This surplus sand would be used for the construction of the barrier dikes and
also in the reclamation process, as described below in the Reclamation section.
The proposed Project seeks to permit an additional 21 million tons of aggregate reserves
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 7
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
located in the backwaters of the Mississippi River. At the current annual production rate of
650,000 to 700,000 tons of aggregate materials per year, the additional reserves would provide
20 to 25 years of reserve life. These annual volumes are dependent upon market demand in any
given year. Current mining means and methods at the Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility would
be employed to mine the newly permitted reserves. Processing techniques, processing
equipment, equipment run rates, hours of operation, and facility staffing at the existing Nelson
Sand & Gravel Mine Facility would all remain unchanged. In addition, the current river -based
transportation system would remain unchanged; assuming consistent market conditions, barge
capacities and annual trips are expected to remain the same. Barges would continue to be
loaded at the existing dock wall location of the Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility using the
same equipment.
Project Phasing
The proposed mining area would be developed in four phases (Figure 6). The floating dredge
unit would be moved to the proposed mining area and the conveyor network would be
constructed prior to the initiation of mining. Mining would begin in the western portion of the
proposed mining area within an approximately 35-acre area and would last up to three years.
From there, mining would extend to the east in three subsequent phases: an approximately
55-acre area in years 4 through 8; an approximately 65-acre area in years 9 through 13; and an
approximately 75-acre area in years 14 through 20.
Reclamation
Reclamation would occur in phases, with reclamation of a mined -out area occurring
simultaneously with the commencement of mining a new phase of the proposed Project area. It
is anticipated that reclamation would occur approximately five to ten years after beginning a
mine phase. Reclamation would consist of using surplus sand to backfill underwater excavation
areas near the shoreline of the mainland and adjacent to the barrier islands to stabilize areas
and create underwater slopes that are stable, resilient to erosion, and safe. The central portion of
the proposed mining area would be filled with excess sand generated and stockpiled from
aggregate processing, resulting in an approximately 1 00-foot-deep waterbody.
C. Project magnitude:
Table 3 provides a summary of the proposed Project's magnitude.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 8
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Table 3 Project Magnitude Summary
Component
Applicability
Total project acreage
395
Linear project length
N/A
Number and type of residential units
N/A
Commercial building area (in square feet)
N/A
Industrial building area (in square feet)
N/A
Institutional building area (in square feet)
N/A
Other uses —specify (in square feet)
N/A
Structure height(s)
N/A
d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain
the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility will exhaust its current minable reserves in
approximately five years given the current rate of mining, market trends, and geologic variations at
the site. The proposed Project seeks to move its mine area, which supports the existing Nelson Sand
& Gravel Mine Facility, to mine additional reserves on a privately owned parcel of land in the
backwaters area of the Mississippi River. The proposed Project would provide a continued local
supply of construction -quality aggregate to the Twin Cities and other local markets for an
additional 20 to 25 years. Project beneficiaries include proponents of projects that require
aggregate materials, such as roadway and other infrastructure projects, by providing a local
aggregate source. Aggregate Industries also benefits from the proposed Project by continuing to
mine adjacent to its existing operations which allows for continued use of existing processing and
material transport facilities rather than construction of new facilities at a new location.
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property
planned or likely to happen? ❑ Yes X No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? X Yes ❑ No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline, and any past environmental review.
Aggregate Industries has been mining at the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility since
the early 1950s. The current operation has been in place since 1995 using a twin-clamshell,
floating dredge unit to excavate raw aggregate materials from a created lake located on Lower
Grey Cloud Island. No past environmental review for the existing mine has been completed. A
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 9
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Scoping EAW for the proposed Project was initiated in 2007. A Scoping Decision Document was
published in April 2008, leading to the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). A Draft EIS was developed to the point where a preliminary version was made available to
participants of the proposed Project's Technical Advisory Committee. Aggregate Industries
made a business decision to pause the proposed Project in Fall 2010 before the Draft EIS was
published for public review and comment. This Scoping EAW, which evaluates the same
proposed Project scope as the Draft EIS previously reviewed by the Technical Advisory
Committee, is being prepared to re -initiate the proposed Project's EIS process.
7. Cover Types
Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
An assessment of land cover types was estimated using Geographic Information System (GIS)
based on 2015 land cover data from the University of Minnesota [reference (1)]; the results are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 Summary of Cover Types (in acres)
Cover Type
Existing
Land
Cover
During
Construction
After
Reclamation
Industrial (Conveyors/Buildings) and Access
0.8
14.5
0.8
Forested
37.1
27.9
37.1
Wetlands/Open Water
333.3
324.5
333.3
Grassland/Shrubland
31.0
19.6
31.0
Barrier Dikes
0
8.2
0
Total Area
394.7
394.7
394.7
8. Permits and Approvals Required
List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, certifications, and financial assistance for
the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all
direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment
Financing, and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate
environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4470.3700.
Table 5 lists the permits and approvals required for the proposed Project.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 10
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Table 5 Permits and Approvals to be Required or Modified
Unit of Government
Type of Application
Status
United States
• Section 10
• New permit to be obtained
Army Corps of
• Section 404
• New permit to be obtained
Engineers
• Section 106
• Tribal coordination will be conducted by USACE
United States Fish
• Endangered Species Act section 7
• To be completed
and Wildlife
consultation (required for Section
Service
404/Section 10 process)
Minnesota
• NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater
• Existing permit to be modified
Pollution Control
Permit, if needed
Agency
• Air Permit
• Existing permit to be modified, if needed
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification•
Existing permit to be modified
(required for Section 404/10 process)
• Individual Stormwater Permit
• Existing permit to be modified
MN0001309
• Spill Prevention Control and
• Existing plan to be modified
Countermeasures Plan
Minnesota
• Work in Public Water
• New permit to be obtained
Department of
• Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area
• New permit to be obtained.
Natural Resources
(MRCCA) — Land Alteration Permit
• MRCCA —Vegetation Clearing Permit
• New permit to be obtained.
State Historic
• Section 106 Concurrence (required for
• New permit to be obtained
Preservation Office
Section 404/10 process)
City of Cottage
• Mining Permit
• Existing permit to be modified
Grove
South Washington
• Wetland Conservation Act
• New permit to be obtained
Watershed District
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item
Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19.
If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested
in EAW Item No. 19.
All potential cumulative impacts are discussed in EAW Item 19 (Cumulative Potential Effects).
9. Land Use
a. Describe:
Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including
parks, trails, prime or unique farmlands.
Prior to the installation of Lock and Dam #2 in 1930, the proposed Project area was primarily
used as agricultural pastureland. After construction of this lock and dam the majority of the
proposed Project area was flooded and now is covered by open water that serves as a
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 11
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
backwaters area of the Mississippi River.
The adjacent land use includes open water to the south with forested and industrial land use to
the north (Figure 7). The existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility is located to the north and
northwest of the proposed Project area. The Minnesota District of the United Pentecostal Church
International's (UPCI's) Camp Galilee is situated to the north of the proposed Project area. In
addition, two residences owned by Aggregate Industries are located immediately north of the
proposed Project area, and a third privately owned residence is located on the eastern most
portion of island, north of the proposed Project area. Land use south of the proposed Project
area includes Spring Lake and the main channel of the Mississippi River. Spring Lake Regional
Park is located on the opposite side of the river approximately 0.40 miles southeast of the
proposed Project area.
Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and
any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local,
regional, state, or federal agency.
According to the Cottage Grove 2040 Comprehensive Plan [reference (2)], current land use in the
proposed Project area is classified as water, undeveloped, extractive, and park, recreational or
preserve (Figure 8). The 2040 Comprehensive Plan also designates future land use categories for
future development. According to the Plan, the proposed Project area is classified under the
transitional planning, open water, and parks/open space future land use categories (Figure 8).
Areas designated under the Transitional Planning category need additional planning efforts prior to
establishing future land use designations. Washington County and the City of Cottage Grove (City)
developed the Grey Cloud Island Regional Park Master Plan to address future land use of Grey Cloud
Island, which includes the proposed Project area. This plan was adopted by the Metropolitan
Council in 1994.
As discussed in Chapter 9 of the Cottage Grove 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the City has prepared
regulations that permit the extraction of aggregate resources. The City has established the 1-4
Commercial Excavation Zoning District, which provides for the extraction of sand, gravel, and
other mineral deposits or materials. The district also seeks to permit other land uses as long as
they will not conflict with adjacent land uses. Finally, the City has a mining chapter which
regulates the effects of environmental factors related to mining and ensures the restoration of
the mined area and conformity with both the critical area and comprehensive plans.
The Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan [reference (3)] recognizes the need for
aggregate mining in Washington County and notes the following goals:
• Washington County will work with landowners and local communities to reserve enough
potentially productive aggregate areas from development to meet long-term regional
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 12
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
needs.
• Washington County has identified mineral deposits having significant economic
potential and discourages encroachment of development in those areas.
• All mining is conducted in accordance with the County's mining ordinance in order to
provide for orderly, economic, and safe removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, and
soil and reclamation of the mined sites.
The Washington County Comprehensive Plan incorporates the Grey Cloud Island Regional Park
Master Plan [reference (4)] in the Recreation and Open Space System Plan. The Park Master Plan
identifies the importance of mining and anticipates the compatibility of mining and park
development as follows:
• Manage future extension of gravel mining to balance economic benefits, environmental
impact, and its reuse potential.
• Pursue active re -vegetation of mined areas with wood species as a complement to future
reuse.
• Cooperate in developing mining operations and reclamation plans consistent with future
reuse potential and park development.
• Preserve the aesthetic and physical integrity of the Lower [Grey Cloud] Island shoreline
intact without physical interruption.
• Maintain the Lower Island barge terminal operation through completion of mining
activities.
The National Park Service (NPS) Mississippi National River and Recreational Area (MNRRA)
Comprehensive Management Plan outlines various goals, policies, and actions for management
of development and uses in the river corridor [reference (5)]. Several goals and policies support
the proposed mining and barging activities:
• The river system will continue to provide commercial navigation to and from the region
including larger local movement of sand, gravel, and petroleum products.
• The Plan recognizes the Mississippi River as a working river particularly for movement of
agricultural, construction, and energy commodities and to balance the needs of
commercial and recreational river traffic.
• The Plan relies on local jurisdictions to determine uses and development consistent with
MNRRA objectives.
The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) program is a state, regional, and local
government program that provides coordinated land planning and regulation for the 72-mile
stretch of the Mississippi River [reference (6)]. The City is responsible for administering MRCCA
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 13
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
plans and zoning regulations within the proposed Project area and is currently in the process of
developing its ordinance for regulating the MRCCA area.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and
scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The proposed Project area is located within the City's Commercial Excavation District (Figure 9).
This district allows for the extraction of sand, gravel, and other mineral deposits or materials. As
noted above in EAW Item #8, Aggregate Industries' Mining Permit would be modified for the
proposed Project. The area directly north of the proposed Project area is zoned as rural
residential. There are two residences owned by Aggregate Industries and a third residence
owned by a private party located in this area. Additionally, the Minnesota District UPCI operates
Camp Galilee, a campground and retreat facility nearby.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (Figure 10)
depicts the proposed Project area as primarily located within the Mississippi River floodway and
100-year floodplain. A small portion of the proposed Project area is located within the 500-year
floodplain.
The proposed Project area is also located in MRCCA-designated Shore Impact Zone, Natural
Drainageway, Bluff Impact Zone, and Rural and Open Spaces (ROS) District. This district is
characterized by rural and low -density development patterns and land uses. It includes land that
is riparian or visible from the river as well as large, undeveloped tracts of high ecological and
scenic value, floodplain, and undeveloped islands. The City is currently in the process of
updating their MRCCA zoning regulations to be consistent with MRCCA rules adopted in 2017;
these rules establish new districts and standards.
There are no designated wild and scenic rivers or agricultural preserves in the proposed Project
a rea.
b. Discuss the project's compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a
above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
The proposed Project would be compatible with the existing zoning and comprehensive plans
previously described in EAW Item 9aii. The identified comprehensive plans acknowledge the
importance and value of aggregate mining to the local economy. As mentioned in EAW Item
9aii, the proposed Project area is zoned for commercial excavation and is located directly
adjacent to the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility.
The proposed Project is less compatible with the adjacent rural residential land use. However,
this land use is already adjacent to an existing mining operation (the Nelson Sand & Gravel
Mine Facility). Given the separation distances and the noise and dust control measures currently
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 14
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
employed, the impact on the adjacent land uses is proposed to remain similar to that
experienced under current conditions. Additional information regarding Project -generated noise
and dust can be found in EAW Items 16 and 17 below.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential
incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.
The proposed Project would be compatible with the City's and County's comprehensive plans.
Aggregate Industries would work with local, state, and federal regulators during the Project
permitting phase to identify minimization measures to mitigate Project effects on adjacent land
use, as appropriate.
10. Geology, Soils and Topography/Land Forms
a. Geology — Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any
susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations,
unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for
the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project
designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
The bedrock formations in the proposed Project area include the St. Lawrence and Franconia
Formations [reference (7)]. The St. Lawrence Formation consists of dolomitic shale and siltstone.
The Franconia Formation is composed of very fine-grained glauconitic sandstone in southern
Washington County.
Surficial geology in the proposed Project area consists of lower terraces, which contain coarse
sand and gravel, that are capped in places by as much as 10 feet of loamy sand [reference (8)].
Much of the sand and gravel deposit, both currently mined at the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel
Mine and to be mined in the proposed Project area, are a result of deposition from Glacial River
Warren that carried meltwater from the northwest portion of Minnesota. No susceptible geologic
features are known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project area.
As summarized above in EAW Item 6, an extensive sand and gravel deposit would be mined
across the 230-acre proposed mining area (Figure 5). Ultimately, mining would reach a depth of
up to 200 feet and up to 21 million tons of aggregate would be mined across the 20- to 25-year
life of the proposed Project. As summarized above in EAW Item 6, reclamation would occur in
phases, with reclamation of a mined -out area occurring simultaneously with the commencement
of mining a new phase of the proposed Project area. Reclamation would consist of backfilling
excavated underwater areas adjacent to the shoreline of the mainland and adjacent to the barrier
islands to create underwater slopes that are stable, resilient to erosion, and safe. The central
portion of the proposed mining area would be filled with excess sand generated and stockpiled
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 15
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
from aggregate processing, resulting in an approximately 100-foot-deepwaterbody.
b. Soils and topography— Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes,
highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or
grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and
operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after
project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or
other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be
addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii.
The barrier islands at the southern end of the proposed Project area range from 648 to 746 feet
above mean sea level (AMSQ. In the proposed mining area, depth to channel bottom below the
water surface ranges from a few feet to 10 feet deep.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil
Survey of Washington County was reviewed to identify the soils within the proposed Project area
[reference (9)]. Table 6 identifies the soil map units within the proposed Project area. The
dominant soil map unit in the proposed mining area is water, with the barrier islands along the
southern border consisting of Algansee loamy sand.
Table 6 Soils within Proposed Project Area
Soil Map Unit
Acres in
Proposed
Project Area
Water
284.9
Algansee loamy sand
36.7
Hubbard loamy sand, 1-6% slopes
34.9
Chaska silt loam
20.4
Udifluvents
1 S.3
Sparta loamy sand, 0-2% slopes
2.5
Total acres
394.7
The mining operations would be conducted from a floating dredge to extract underwater
reserves. No surface soils would be disturbed by the actual underwater mining. However, the
floating conveyor system, as discussed in EAW Item 6, would require the construction of landing
points (each approximately 1 acre in size) from the proposed mining area to connect to the
existing land -based conveyor system. In addition, excavation would be required for cutting a
temporary channel to move the floating dredge into the proposed mining area and for
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 16
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
developing winter slips. In addition, small amounts of soil disturbance would be required for
installation of footings in upland areas to support the conveyor system. Applicable best
management practices (BMPs), such as silt fencing, would be employed to minimize erosion
from these areas. The topsoil from these activities would be stored on upland in small berms
and would be used for reclaiming the landing points and barge slips once they are no longer
needed. Following completion of the proposed Project, upland areas would be re -graded and
seeded.
11. Water Resources
a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below.
Surface water — lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial
ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake,
wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value
water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current
MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR
Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
The proposed Project area is located within the backwaters of the Mississippi River between
Grey Cloud Slough and Spring Lake (Figure 11). The Mississippi River and backwaters area
account for approximately 283.3 acres, or roughly 71 percent, of the proposed Project area. The
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Public Water Inventory defines this area as
part of the U.S. Lock and Dam #2 Pool (main channel). The segment of the Mississippi River from
Upper St. Anthony Falls to the St. Croix River, in which the proposed Project is located, is listed
as impaired for aquatic consumption, aquatic life, and aquatic recreation. There are no trout
streams, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lakes, or outstanding resource value
waters within or adjacent to the proposed Project area.
According to the Minnesota Wetland Inventory Data, the proposed Project area includes 334.7
acres of wetlands. The majority of the wetlands (292.3 acres; approximately 87% of total
wetlands within the Project area) are classified as riverine, shallow open water wetlands
(R2UB/US/AB). These wetlands are typical of those found in the backwaters of the Mississippi
River. The second most dominant wetland type is freshwater forested wetlands (36.3 acres;
approximately 11% of the wetlands; PFO1A). The remaining wetland areas include shallow open
water and shrub wetlands (3.2 acres; approximately 1% of the wetlands; PSS1A/C) and
freshwater emergent wetlands (2.9 acres; approximately 1% of the wetlands; PEM1A/C).
ii. Groundwater — aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project
is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby
wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 17
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
The proposed Project area is located partially within the Mississippi River, which is a major
regional discharge zone for groundwater. Groundwater in Washington County generally flows in
an easterly direction towards the Mississippi River. Most of the proposed Project area consists of
open water, and the adjacent upland locations have a shallow depth to groundwater. According
to the Minnesota Hydrology Atlas [reference (10)], the depth to water table in the proposed
Project area ranges from 0 to 20 feet.
There are no Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Wellhead Protection Areas within the
proposed Project area. According to the MDH County Well index [reference (11)], no
groundwater wells are located within the proposed Project area. The closest groundwater well
(Well ID 257677) is located approximately 180 feet north of the proposed Project area. This well
was installed in January 2014 and is currently in use.
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or
mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
Wastewater — For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and
composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewater produced or
treated at the site.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water
and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
wastewater infrastructure.
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS)
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for
such a system.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment
methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to
mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater
discharges.
The proposed Project would not produce any sanitary, municipal/domestic, or industrial
wastewater beyond those currently produced at the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility.
The existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility has a septic system and wells; there are no city
sewer connections or discharge. As described in the Project Description (EAW Item 6), there will
be no change to the wastewater system from the existing project to the proposed Project.
ii. Stormwater — Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 18
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the
site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss
any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution
prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP
site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control,
sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and
after project construction.
The Mississippi River would be the receiving water for stormwater runoff from any of the
proposed Project activities.
During construction, impacts to uplands associated with the proposed Project would be minor
and limited to the proposed conveyor area to connect the proposed mining area to the existing
Nelson Mine Facility and access roads. During the construction of the conveyor landings, silt
fencing and berms would be used to minimize erosion. Where practical, drainage from these
areas will be directed inland and contained within the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine
Facility. Any proposed access roads would be less than 20 feet wide and comprised of a gravel
surface. The proposed Project would not significantly increase impervious surface area or
increase stormwater runoff to the Mississippi River compared to current conditions.
Aggregate Industries would use BMPs such as silt fences or straw wattles during construction to
minimize potential for erosion and sediment transport into the Mississippi River. Aggregate
Industries would update the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to incorporate the proposed Project area. Specific BMPs used for site
stabilization and sediment control during project construction would be identified in the SWPPP
and detailed site plans.
iii. Water appropriation — Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and
purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe
any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the
wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of,
municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation,
including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any
measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water
appropriation.
The existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility is currently operating under two water
appropriation permits. Appropriation Permit #1967-0201 authorizes the withdrawal of up to 4.8
billion gallons of groundwater per year for dewatering at the existing sand and gravel pit.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 19
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
However, there has been no water appropriated under this permit since 2004. The impact of this
water appropriation on the groundwater has not been quantified, although no domestic well
interference has been recorded.
Appropriation Permit #2000-6135 allows Aggregate Industries to withdraw 767.4 million gallons
per year from the Mississippi River (surface water) for aggregate washing at the existing Nelson
Sand & Gravel Mine Facility, located on the west side of Grey Cloud Island. Except for the small
volume of water that evaporates and that clings to the washed products, most of this water is
pumped back into the existing mine pit area where the fines settle out and the water percolates
back into the ground. Since the groundwater level under Grey Cloud Island is a very close
reflection of the river water level, no impact on the groundwater levels or groundwater quality
are anticipated.
The proposed Project would not require groundwater appropriation due to its location in the
Mississippi River. It is likewise not expected to require a surface water appropriation for the
mining activity as the mined aggregate would be dewatered directly in the river, at the location
of the floating dredge unit, with the discharge returning back to the river. Since the water would
not be transported outside of the river system, a new water appropriation permit for mining
would not be required, and no appropriation -related impacts to surface or groundwater are
anticipated.
iv. Surface Waters
1) Wetlands — Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland
features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative
removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification
of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations
may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available
alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to
wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for
unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed and
identify those probable locations.
Impacts on wetlands can be direct or indirect, both of which can affect the type, extent, and
quality of wetlands. Direct impacts include activities such as clearing, filling, or excavating
wetlands to convert them to a non -wetland or a different wetland type or altering the wetland
functions and values. Indirect impacts include activities that may affect wetlands but are spatially
or temporally removed from the proposed action.
During construction and operation, the proposed Project would result in unavoidable direct and
indirect wetland impacts. Excavation within areas of riverine shallow open water wetlands would
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 20
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
result in loss of wetland as they would be converted to deep -water habitat. Construction of the
barrier dikes may also result in the permanent loss of wetland from the placement of fill within
the wetland boundaries. Based on National Wetland Inventory for Minnesota data it is
anticipated the proposed Project would permanently impact approximately 17.7 acres of
freshwater emergent wetland and 212.8 acres of open water habitat'. Project -related wetland
impacts would require wetland mitigation.
Aggregate Industries will work with the South Washington Watershed District and USACE to
further identify potential Project related wetland impacts and wetland mitigation requirements.
2) Other surface waters - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to
surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial
ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream
diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct
and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features.
Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface
water features, including in -water Best Management Practices that are proposed to
avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water
features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on
any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.
Direct effects to other surface waters (i.e., Mississippi River) would occur from construction of
the barrier dikes during mining operations.
Barrier dikes are proposed to protect the proposed mining area from wind and wave action
while minimizing sedimentation of adjacent waters. The barrier dikes would be placed between
the barrier islands and Lower Grey Cloud Island (Figure 5) and designed such that river
hydrology would not be significantly impacted. Construction of the barrier dikes would change
the flow patterns, and to a lesser extent, the localized flow velocities around the existing barrier
islands in the proposed mining area. The proposed mining operations are not expected to cause
a reduction of flow in the main channel of the river.
After the barrier dikes are constructed, flows would increase slightly in the main channel by
diverting the smaller flows that would normally flow through this backwater area. By themselves,
the barrier dikes could cause an increase in flood stage. However, this impact would be offset by
the material excavation associated with mining activities, which would increase the flood storage
capacity of the proposed Project area. Once the mining is complete the barrier dikes could be
left in -place or removed.
'It should be noted that acreages identified in this section differ from those included in Table 4 due to use of different
data sources
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 21
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Potential water quality impacts from the proposed Project are anticipated to be similar to those
generated by current, adjacent mining operations and would be mainly limited to the
generation of suspended solids. These suspended solids will be confined to the proposed
mining area by the barrier dikes which would be placed to block flow into (and thus out of) the
proposed mining area. Since very little flow would be leaving the proposed mining area,
suspended solids migration would also be controlled. Silt curtains could also be used, if
necessary, to further control suspended solids.
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes
a. Pre -project site conditions — Describe existing contamination or potential environmental
hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water
contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks,
and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from
pre -project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction
and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from
existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a
Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA's) What's in my Neighborhood database was
reviewed on April 28, 2021, to determine if sites with regulatory listings for contamination such
as dumps, landfills, storage tanks, or hazardous liquids are located within a half -mile radius of
the proposed Project (Figure 12). There are no identified sites of contamination within the
proposed Project area; however, several sites are located nearby. The proposed Project is
adjacent to the existing Aggregate Industries Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility, which is
identified in the MPCA's database due to presence of active storage tanks and an active
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The closest sites of
contamination are located 2,350 feet from the proposed Project area. The Zieba and Morgan
Residence is an active petroleum remediation from an active aboveground tank, and the Dakota
County Acquisition Site is an active petroleum remediation leak from an underground tank.
b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes — Describe solid wastes generated/stored
during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss
potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify
measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of
solid waste including source reduction and recycling.
The proposed Project would generate typical office and lunchroom types of trash from staffing
the floating dredge unit. The proposed Project would offer recycling options for the office and
lunchroom type waste streams of glass, metal, paper, and plastic. These source reduction
strategies are currently in place at the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility. Aggregate
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 22
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Industries would continue to use the waste disposal companies under the current contracts for
the existing mine.
The proposed Project would also conduct oil filter changes and routine maintenance activities
on the floating dredge unit using procedures currently in effect for the existing Nelson Sand &
Gravel Mine Facility.
There would be no other solid wastes generated by the proposed Project. Any future activities
would be required to be completed according to strict recovery and disposal procedures
prescribed in Aggregate Industries' Environmental Management System (EMS). The EMS was
established to maintain compliance with federal, state, and local regulations and codes.
Project related use/storage of hazardous materials — Describe chemicals/hazardous
materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including
method of storage. Indicate the number, location, and size of any above or below ground
tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from
accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or
mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including
source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan.
Current mining means and methods at the existing plant would be employed to mine the
reserves for the proposed Project. Processing techniques, processing equipment, equipment run
rates, hours of operation and facility staffing at the Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility will all
remain unchanged. In addition, the current river -based transportation system would remain
unchanged; assuming consistent market conditions, barge capacities and annual trips are
expected to remain the same. Barges would continue to be loaded at the existing dock wall
location of the Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility using the same equipment. As a result, waste
generation would remain at approximately the same as levels currently generated.
Fuels, oils, lubricants, and other materials typically used by industrial equipment would be used
during construction and operations of the proposed Project. Hazardous material storage would
include secondary containment of fuels during construction and operation of the proposed
Project; these materials would be stored away from open water areas.
The proposed Project conveyors would require grease for lubrication, and the floating dredge
unit would require grease, hydraulic oil, and gear box oil. Grease would be used for lubrication
on the inside of bearings on the floating dredge unit and on the floating conveyor line. Greasing
would be performed manually with staff expected to clean any residual grease following each
application. Small drums of grease would be stored on the floating dredge unit inside a double -
walled container to prevent potential release during storage. Consequently, the potential for
impact to land or waters from grease use on the floating dredge unit or the conveyors is
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 23
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
minimal. No other chemicals or hazardous materials would be needed for or generated by the
proposed Project.
Refueling spills and equipment failures, such as a broken hydraulic line, could introduce
contaminants into soil and surface waters during construction and operations. Employees would
be present to visually monitor all fluid changes and transferring activity and the hydraulic
systems would be inspected daily by employees. Observed maintenance concerns would be
corrected immediately to prevent potential failures that could lead to a release. A spill could
result in potentially adverse effects to on -site soils and surface waters. However, the amounts of
fuel and other lubricants and oils would be limited to that needed by the equipment on -site.
Aggregate Industries uses biodegradable oils in the hydraulic systems and maintains spill kits
and absorbent stock on the dredge to ensure that employees can respond quickly to any
release.
The proposed Project would use the existing tanks and would not require any new tanks.
Aggregate Industries' existing Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures plan would be
modified for the proposed Project to help prevent the discharge of oil and control a spill should
one occur. All construction and operations personnel would be trained in the measures included
in this plan. Both the conveyors and the dredge unit are electric and would not require use of
fuels.
d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes — Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of
disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage,
and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the
generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
Equipment oil changes and routine maintenance activities would be conducted on the floating
dredge unit using procedures currently in effect for the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine
Facility. All drums of used oil would be sealed tightly and removed by boat to the shore for
storage in the existing land -based shop for recycling. The used oil would be collected and
properly disposed of by a MPCA-certified transporter. No other hazardous wastes would be
stored or generated by the proposed Project.
13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare
Features)
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near thesite.
The MDNR, in collaboration with the U.S. Forest Service, developed an Ecological Classification
System (ECS) for hierarchical mapping and classification of Minnesota land areas with similar
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 24
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
native plant communities and other ecological features. Based on the ECS, the proposed Project
area is located in the St. Paul -Baldwin Plains Subsection of the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa
Morainal Section of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province [reference (12)]. The Mississippi River
cuts through the center of this subsection. Pre -settlement vegetation was primarily comprised of
oak and aspen savanna communities; tallgrass prairie and maple -basswood forest were also
•lIIl•I
The majority of the proposed Project area consists of open water in Lower Pool 2 of the
Mississippi River. The proposed Project area is bound on the north by Lower Grey Cloud Island
and on the south by barrier islands created by the USACE to deposit dredge spoils (Figure 5).
Historically, the proposed Project area was upland; it became inundated by the impoundment
created as a result of Lock and Dam #2 construction in 1930 (Figure 4). The existing Nelson
Sand & Gravel Mine Facility already encompasses much of the central portion of Lower Grey
Cloud Island. The rest of the island remains largely rural, with a patchwork of woodlands and
cultivated tracts of land.
Additional forested areas are comprised of elms (Ulmus spp.) and red pine (Pinus resinoso).
These forests are disturbed communities with a substantial presence of invasive buckthorn
(Rhamnus sp.) and honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.). Upland grasslands in the vicinity of the proposed
Project area are comprised predominantly of planted and/or non-native species. Dominant
grassland species include smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa
pratensis). As discussed under EAW Item 11, wetlands are also present in the proposed Project
a rea.
The Mississippi River, including the proposed Project area, provides habitat for a diversity of
organisms, such as fish, mussels and other aquatic invertebrates, birds, amphibians, and
mammals. Studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and NPS have documented
14 species of frogs and salamanders and 8 species of turtles in the MNRRA corridor
[reference (13)]. Some of the aquatic mammals present within the MNRRA corridor include the
American beaver (Castor conadensis), river otter (Lontro conadensis), mink (Neovison vison), and
muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) [reference (13)]. The Mississippi River Flyway is the migration
corridor for a significant portion of North America's waterfowl and shorebirds. According to the
NPS, approximately 105 species of water -based birds are present or likely present within the
MNRRA corridor [reference (13)].
Fish
Pool 2 of the Mississippi River contains a diversity of fish species and is known to have large
populations of walleye (Sander vitreus) and sauger (Sander canadensis) in the area [reference
(14)]. Other common fish species in Pool 2 include smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), white bass (Morone chrysops), bluegill (Lepomis
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 25
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
macrochirus), crappie (Pomoxis annularis), northern pike (Esox Lucius), and catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus) [reference (14)].
Mussels
Extensive mussel surveys have been conducted in the Upper Mississippi River since the
establishment of zebra mussels in the early 1990s. Historically, as many as 41 freshwater mussel
species, including several federally and state -listed species, were found in the MNRRA Corridor
[reference (15)]. According to the MDNR Statewide Mussel Survey, 31 freshwater mussel species
have been documented within 1 mile of the proposed Project area, the most common of which
include: mapleleaf (Quadrula quadrula), threehorn wartyback (Obliquaria reflexa), Wabash pigtoe
(Fusconoia (lava), wartyback (Quadrula nodulata; state -threatened), giant floater (Pyganodon
grandis), deertoe (Truncilla truncata), and fragile papershell (Leptodea frogilis).
b. Describe rare features such as state -listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern)
species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity
Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the
site. Provide the license agreement number (LA- ) and/or
correspondence number (ERDB ) from which the
data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any
additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe
the results.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC)
online tool identifies five federally endangered or threatened species as potentially occurring in
the vicinity of the proposed Project area. Species documented by IPaC include three federally
and state endangered mussel species, Higgins' eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii), sheepnose
mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus), snuffbox mussel (Epioblosma triquetra); the federally endangered
and state watchlist rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis); and the federally threatened and
state watchlist northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (Appendix A). No designated
critical habitat is present in the vicinity of the proposed Project area.
The three federally endangered mussel species inhabit large rivers, including the Mississippi
River [reference (16)]. According to the MDNR Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System
(NHIS) database (Barr License Agreement LA-986), the Higgins' eye has been documented within
one mile of the proposed Project area (Table 7). Sheepnose and snuffbox mussels have not been
documented within one mile of the proposed Project area; however, according to the NHIS
database, both species have been documented approximately four miles downstream of the
proposed Project area.
The rusty patched bumble bee inhabits open areas with abundant flowers, nesting sites
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 26
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses), and undisturbed soil for
overwintering sites. According to the NHIS database, rusty -patched bumble bees have been
documented within one mile of the proposed Project area (Table 7).
The northern long-eared bat inhabits caves, mines, and forests [reference (16)]. Forested habitat
suitable for northern long-eared bat is present in the vicinity of the proposed Project area.
According to the MDNR and USFWS, the nearest known hibernacula is located approximately
seven miles north of the proposed Project area, in Dakota County and no known roost trees
have been documented in Dakota or Washington counties [reference (17)].
The MDNR's NHIS database was reviewed in March 2021 to determine if any additional state -
listed rare species have been documented in the vicinity of the proposed Project area. Table 7
summarizes the species identified within one mile of the proposed Project area and their
associated habitats in Minnesota.
Data from the MDNR Minnesota Biological Survey were reviewed to determine if any Minnesota
Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, native plant communities, Scientific Natural
Areas, or other sensitive ecological resources are present within or near the proposed Project
a rea.
As shown on Figure 13, several Sites of Biodiversity Significance and native plant communities
are present in the vicinity of the proposed Project area. The Grey Cloud Island Beach Site of
Biodiversity Significance, which is ranked "below" with regards to its biodiversity significance,
borders the northern portion of the proposed mining area (Figure 13). A Site of Biodiversity
Significance ranked "below" lacks occurrences of rare species and natural features or does not
meet standards for outstanding, high, or moderate ranks [reference (19)]. These sites may
include areas of conservation value at the local level, such as habitat for native plants and
animals, corridors for animal movement, buffers surrounding higher -quality natural areas, areas
with high potential for restoration of native habitat, or open space. A willow sandbar shrubland
native plant community is mapped within this Site of Biodiversity Significance (Figure 13); this
community has a conservation status rank of S4 (apparently secure; uncommon but not rare)
[reference (20)].
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 27
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Table 7 MDNR Natural Heritage Information System Database Records within One Mile
Habitat
in
Scientific
Common
State
Federal
Proposed
Name
Name
Status'
Status'
Habitat in Minnesota'
Project
Area
MUSSELS
Arcidens
Rock
confra osus
pocketbook
END
NL
Medium to large rivers
Yes
Elliptio
Elephant -ear
END
NL
Large rivers
Yes
crassidens
Lampsilis
Mississippi River and some of
hi insii
Higgins' eye
END
END
its large tributaries
Yes
Megolonaias
Washboard
END
NL
Large rivers
Yes
nervosa
Reginaia ebenus
Ebonyshell
END
NL
Large rivers
Yes
Tritogonia
Pistolgrip
END
NL
Large rivers
Yes
verrucosa
Actinonaias
Mucket
THR
NL
Medium to large rivers
Yes
li amentina
Ellipsaria
Butterfly
THR
NL
Large rivers
Yes
lineolato
Eurynia diIGMM
Spike
THR
NL
Small to large rivers
Yes
Quadrula
Wartyback
THR
NL
Large rivers
Yes
nodulata
Theliderma
Monkeyface
THR
NL
Large rivers
Yes
metanevra
Truncilla
Fawnsfoot
THR
NL
Large rivers
Yes
donaciformis
Pleurobema
Round pigtoe
SPC
NL
Medium to large rivers
Yes
sintoxia
FISH
Sloughs, impoundments, and
Ictiobus niger
Black buffalo
THR
NL
both fast- and slow -flowing
Yes
portions of rivers
Polyodon
paddlefish
THR
NL
Large rivers and river lakes,
Yes
s athula
oxbow lakes, and backwaters
Anguilla
American eel
SPC
NL
Medium to large rivers
Yes
rostrata
Aphredoderus
Sloughs, ditches, and
sayanus
Pirate perch
SPC
NL
backwaters near the
Yes
Mississippi River
BIRDS
Uncultivated grasslands and
Ammodramus
Henslow's
old fields with stalks for
henslowii
sparrow
END
NL
singing perches and a
Yes
substantial litter layer
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 28
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Habitat
in
Scientific
Common
State
Federal
Proposed
Name
Name
Status'
Status'
Habitat in Minnesota2
Project
Area
Upland grasslands/agriculture
Lanius
Loggerhead
areas where short grass
(udovicianus
shrike
END
NL
vegetation and perching sites
Yes
are found
Shrub thickets, clumps, and
edges within or bordering
Vireo be((ii
Bell's vireo
SPC
NL
open habitats such as
Yes
grasslands or wetlands.
Upland grasslands with short
and/or sparse grasses (usually
Chondestes
native) in areas of sand or
Lark sparrow
SPC
NL
Yes
grammacus
gravel soils, with at least some
bare ground and widely -
scattered or patchy trees
VASCULAR PLANTS
Exclusively in dry and loose
Aristida
Seaside
sand in sand savannas, sand
tubercu(osa
three- awn
THR
NL
prairies, and dunes where
No
vegetation is sparse.
Along margins of low sandy or
B
Waterhyssop
THR
NL
silty islands in the Mississippi
Yes
rotundifo(ia
undi
River
Oak savanna, dry prairies, and
oak woodlands along bluffs
and terraces of the St. Croix,
Besseya bu((ii
Kitten -tails
THR
NL
Mississippi, and Minnesota
No
river vaIIe s
Dry prairie or dry savanna,
Orobanche
Louisiana
particularly in areas with
(udoviciana var
(udoviciana
broomrape
THR
NL
excessively drained, loose and
No
sandy or gravelly soil.
Sagittaria
Hooded
Lake shores, riverbanks,
ca(ycina var.
ca( cina
arrowhead
THR
NL
ponds, and marshes
Yes
Asp(enium
Ebony
SPC
NL
Dry mesic hardwood forests
No
(at neuron
s leenwort
Cirsium
Southern dry prairies and
pumi(um var.
Hill's thistle
SPC
NL
savannas, and southern mesic
No
hithi
prairies to a lesser extent.
Panax
American
Mature upland deciduous
uin uefo(ius
ginseng
SPC
NL
forests
No
Trip(asis
Purple
purpurea var.
sandgrass
SPC
NL
Sand dunes
No
ur urea
INSECTS
Dry habitats on sand,
Hesperia
including prairie and savanna,
Leonard's
and openings in woodlands.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 29
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Habitat
in
Scientific
Common
State
Federal
Proposed
Name
Name
Status'
Status'
Habitat in Minnesota2
Project
Area
(eonardus
skipper
SPC
NL
Dominance of native plant
No
species appears to be
important part of habitat.
Open areas that provide
nectar and pollen from
Rusty -patched
flowers, nesting sites
Bombus affinis
bumble bee
Watchlist
END
(underground and abandoned
Yes
rodent cavities or clumps of
grasses), and overwintering
sites for hibernating queens
(undisturbed soil).3
REPTILES
Co(uber
North
SPC
NL
Forested hillsides, bluff
Yes
constrictor
American racer
prairies, grasslands, and open
woods.
'State or federal status: END = endangered; THR=threatened; SPC=special concern; NL=not listed
ZWith the exception of rusty -patched bumble bee, all habitat information obtained from the MDNR Rare Species Guide [reference
(16)].
'Habitat information obtained from reference (18).
The Grey Cloud Dunes Scientific and Natural Area is located approximately one-half mile north
of the proposed Project area (Figure 13). The Spring Lake Islands State Wildlife Management
Area is located 0.2 miles west of the proposed mining area (Figure 13). In addition, several
MDNR Regionally Significant Ecological Areas have been identified in areas adjacent to the
proposed Project area (Figure 13). The MDNR identifies Regionally Significant Ecological Areas
within the seven -county metropolitan area where intact native plant communities and/or native
animal habitat are still found and continue to provide important ecological functions.
Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems
may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive
species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known
threatened and endangered species.
General Impacts
The proposed Project may have indirect adverse effects on wildlife in the vicinity of the
proposed Project area due to the presence of equipment and associated noise and human
activity during construction and operation. The noise associated with the existing Nelson Sand &
Gravel Mine Facility processing plant would continue but the existing dredge noise would shift
as mining starts in the adjacent proposed mining area. Many species, even those accustomed to
human proximity, could abandon habitats near the proposed Project area; however, similar
habitat is abundant throughout Pool 2.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 30
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Terrestrial Species Impacts
Only minimal effects on upland vegetation are planned during construction. The majority of the
proposed Project area is located within the USFWS "low potential zone" for rusty -patched
bumble bees; this zone represents areas where the species is not likely to be present
[reference (18)]. In order to avoid potential adverse effects on the rusty -patched bumble bee, a
field survey to confirm presence of suitable habitat may need to be conducted in the Project
area surrounding the westernmost conveyor prior to construction activities.
Suitable habitat for the Leonard's skipper (Hesperia leonardus) is not present in the proposed
Project area (Table 7); as such, adverse effects on this species are not anticipated from the
proposed Project. Suitable habitat for the North American racer (Coluber constrictor) is present
in the proposed Project area, and the nearest documented location of a North American racer is
approximately 0.9 mile north of the proposed Project area. With only minimal disturbance of
suitable habitat occurring as part of the proposed Project, adverse effects to this species are not
likely.
Habitat for the northern long-eared bat is present within the proposed Project area. However,
tree removal is expected to be minimal and would not occur during the northern long-eared bat
pup season (June 1 through July 31); as such, adverse effects to northern long-eared bats are
not anticipated from the proposed Project.
Suitable habitat for the state listed terrestrial vascular plant species identified in the NHIS
database, including seaside three -awn (Aristida tuberculoso), kitten -tails (Besseya bullit), ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), Louisiana broomrape (Orobanche ludoviciana var
ludoviciana), Hill's thistle (Cirsium pumilum var. hillii), American ginseng (Panox quinquefolius),
and purple sandgrass (Triplasis purpurea var. purpurea) (Table 7), is not present in the proposed
Project area; as such, adverse effects to these species are not anticipated from the proposed
Project.
Wetland/Aquatic Plant Species Impacts
The state listed aquatic/wetland vascular plant species identified in the NHIS database, including
waterhyssop (Bocopa rotundifolia) and hooded arrowhead (Sogittaria calycina var. calycina)
(Table 7), could be adversely affected by the proposed Project either directly during
construction or due to loss of habitat during operation. Waterhyssop has been found in several
locations in the vicinity of the proposed Project, including the middle of the proposed mining
area and along the barrier islands at the southern end of the proposed mining area. Hooded
arrowhead has been documented approximately 0.4 miles southwest of the proposed mining
area; however, suitable habitat for hooded arrowhead is also present within the proposed
mining area.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 31
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Migratory Bird and Waterfowl Impacts
In general, stopover habitat and potential nesting habitat for migratory birds and waterfowl
would be lost in the proposed Project area as a result of construction and operation of the
Project. However, loss of habitat within the Project area would not be expected to adversely
affect the common migratory bird and waterfowl species, as other areas of suitable habitat are
present throughout Pool 2. The state listed birds identified in the NHIS database, including
Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus hensiowii), loggerhead shrike (Lanius fudovicianus), Bell's vireo
(Vireo beihi), and lark sparrow (Chondestes grommacus) (Table 7), generally inhabit and feed in
upland areas; however, they could be present along the edge of the proposed Project area.
Fish Impacts
The proposed Project could adversely affect fish, including state listed species identified in the
NHIS database (Table 7). Direct effects on fish could result from mortality during construction
and operation of the proposed Project; however, the proposed mining area would remain
connected to the main channel and would allow for the movement fish in and out of the area.
Because they are mobile organisms, the majority of fish would likely move away from the
proposed mining area during construction and operation. Indirect effects could result from loss
and/or alteration of habitat due to substrate and depth changes and/or sedimentation
associated with proposed mining. Areas in the depth range of 2 to 12 feet would be lost due to
dredging activities. Those species that require shallower water for important life -cycle activities
may be affected, but the proposed mining area would retain some nearshore shallow areas, with
large areas of the backwater becoming deep water habitat. This change would benefit some
species and likely be detrimental to others, such as those species that use the proposed Project
area as reproductive habitat, or as rearing habitat forjuvenile fish.
Mussel Impacts
The proposed Project could adversely affect mussels, including the federally and state listed
species identified in the NHIS database (Table 7). Direct effects on mussels could result from
mortality during construction and operation of the proposed Project. Indirect effects could result
from loss and/or alteration of habitat due to substrate and depth changes and/or sedimentation
associated with proposed mining. Due to their sedentary nature, mussels have limited refugia
from habitat alteration.
Rare Features
The proposed Project would have minimal effects on the Grey Cloud Island Beach Site of
Biodiversity Significance and the associated willow sandbar shrubland native plant community
due to the ground disturbance that would be necessary for construction of the proposed
conveyors and landing points. No other effects on rare features or communities are anticipated
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 32
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
from the proposed Project.
Invasive Species
Pool 2 currently contains several aquatic invasive species, including Eurasian water milfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum), flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus), zebra mussel (Dreissena
polymorpho), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), and bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys
nobilis) [reference (14)]. Although these invasive species are already present in Pool 2, the
proposed Project could further their spread as a result of equipment coming to and from the
proposed Project area.
Aggregate Industries contacted Lisa Joyal, the Environmental Review Coordinator at the MDNR,
on June 5, 2021, to report the results of the NHIS database review and to request MDNR
concurrence on potential effects on state listed species and rare features. As of the publication
of this EAW, no response has been received.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
As discussed above in EAW Item 11 (Water Resources), potential effects on water quality would
be minimized through use of applicable BMPs. To minimize the spread of terrestrial and aquatic
invasive species, contractors would be required to comply with applicable Minnesota regulations,
which could include measures such as cleaning construction equipment prior to arriving on site
and upon leaving the site.
Potential adverse effects on mussels, including federally and state listed species, could be
minimized by conducting a mussel survey prior to each phase of mining and relocating all
individuals observed upstream of the proposed Project area.
Previous project planning and agency coordination efforts have developed mitigation options
for the impacts from the proposed Project. The construction of islands has been previously
proposed as a mitigation measure for the loss of wetland functions. The mitigation of wetland
losses with the construction of created islands would also provide concurrent mitigation for
migratory birds and waterfowl by providing stopover, nesting, and feeding habitat. The shallow
water areas with vegetation that would result from construction of these islands would provide
new areas of fish habitat areas within the windswept portions of Lower Pool 2 and provide
parallel mitigation.
14. Historic Properties
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in
close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3)
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 33
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation.
Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic
properties.
Grey Cloud Island and its vicinity were occupied by historic and prehistoric peoples. A study
entitled The Survey of Grey Cloud Island, Washington County, Minnesota, An Archaeological
Approach [reference (21)] details information regarding development in the Grey Cloud Island
area. According to the study, prehistoric peoples probably occupied the area by at least 1000 BC.
An identified site on the southeastern tip of Lower Grey Cloud Island shows remains of
prehistoric (1000 BC), early woodlands (1000 BC to 600 BC), middle woodland (600 BC to AD
900), and late prehistoric (AD 900 to 1700) occupancy.
The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted on March 30, 2021, to
request a summary of all historic structures and archaeological sites located in the vicinity of the
proposed Project. On April 1, 2021, SHPO provided data for this request. The SHPO data
indicates that there are five recorded historic structures and five archaeological sites on Grey
Cloud Island (Table 8). According to the SHPO data, only one of the archaeological sites, the
Shilling Archaeological District, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Table 8 Historic and Archaeological Resources Located on Grey Cloud Island
Property/Site Name
Township, Range, Section
Inventory #
National Register
Status
Historic Structures
Lower Grey Cloud Island
T26 R21 W SS,6
T27 R21 W S31, 32
T27 R22W S36
WA-CGC-20S
Not determined
Schilling House
T27 R21 W S32
WA-CGC-079
Not determined
River Beacon Farmstead
T27 R21 W S31
WA-CGC-10S
Not determined
Joseph R. Brown Trading
Post Site
T27 R21 W S31
WA-CGC-182
Not determined
J.L. Shiely Co. Nelson Plant
T27 R22W S36
WA-CGC-234
Not determined
Archaeological Sites
Shilling Archaeological
District
T27 R21 W S32
WA-0001
Listed
Grey Cloud Mounds
T27 R22W S36
WA-0009
Not determined
Grey Cloud Town Site
T26 R21 W S6
WA-0048
Not determined
Nelson Mine West
T26 R21 W S6
WA-0110
Not determined
No name identified
T27 R21 W S31
WAe
Not determined
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 34
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
None of the historic structures or archaeological sites identified by SHPO are present in the
proposed mining area. In addition, underwater archaeological sampling was conducted in the
mining area in 2009, with a total of 43 Ponar samples taken across the mining area
[reference (22)]. Each of these Ponar samples was negative for archaeological materials
[reference (22)] present in the proposed mining area. Mining is not anticipated to affect
historic structures or archaeological sites because none have been identified within the mining
a rea.
As Project design progresses, additional coordination may be required to evaluate options to
avoid, minimize or mitigate potential affects to cultural resources.
15. Visual
Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual
effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects
from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
The Mississippi River and adjacent bluffs provide scenic views and vistas along the river corridor.
According to the MRCCA, public river corridor views (PRCVs) are views toward the river from
public parkland, historic properties, and public overlooks, as well as views toward bluffs from the
ordinary high-water level of the opposite shore, as seen during the summer months. PRCVs are
deemed highly valued by the community and worth protecting because of the aesthetic value
they bring to the MRCCA. The City has identified five significant public views of the river from
Cottage Grove. One of these PRCVs looks towards the proposed Project from the Grey Cloud
Dunes Scientific and Natural Area, which is located approximately one-half mile north of the
proposed Project area (Figure 13). It is anticipated that tree cover on Lower Grey Cloud Island
would likely block the view of the proposed Project from this PRCV.
The existing barrier islands in the southern portion of the proposed Project area are vegetated
with brush and trees, providing visual screening of the proposed Project from the river and
opposite shore. For the proposed Project, barrier dikes would be constructed between the
barrier islands, which would provide additional visual screening as they become vegetated.
The size of the floating dredge unit would be approximately 100 feet by 100 feet by 65 feet
high, composed primarily of steel, including cranes, buckets, pumps, conveyors, and an
operation room. The dredge would be lighted for nighttime operations; therefore, it would be
illuminated in the dark. The light fixtures would be hooded to reduce direct glare from the light
bulbs. Given its size, the dredging equipment would likely be visible from certain vantage points
during the operating season, however, the visual impact from distant overlooks is expected to
be minor and not substantially different from the viewshed that includes the existing Nelson
Sand & Gravel Mine Facility operations.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 35
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
The proposed Project is bounded to the north by Lower Grey Cloud Island and on the south by
barrier islands. Given the isolated nature of the proposed Project area, along with the very low
volume of traffic traveling on roads in the area, visual impacts associated with the proposed
Project are anticipated to be minor.
16. Air
a. Stationary source emissions — Describe the type, sources, quantities, and
compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust
stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse
gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health,
or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess
the project's effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify
pollution control equipment and other measuresthat will be taken to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
The emissions from the proposed Project's processing operations would be comparable to the
existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility dredge operation, which qualified for a general
permit. The existing processing plant at the Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility will be utilized
to process aggregate at the same rate. No boilers, exhaust stacks, or other emission sources
would be constructed as part of the proposed Project. Although the use of new equipment is
not expected for the proposed Project, Aggregate Industries' existing air permit would be
modified if new equipment is needed.
b. Vehicle emissions — Describe the effect of the project's traffic generation on air emissions.
Discuss the project's vehicle -related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g.,
traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to
minimize or mitigate vehicle -related emissions.
Service roads would be needed in the proposed Project area to provide access for conveyer
maintenance and for staff to access the floating dredge unit; however, the volume would be
similar to what is needed for current operations, and no increase in traffic to and from the
proposed mining area is anticipated compared to the existing mining operations The proposed
Project would not increase vehicle air emissions over current levels and therefore, no vehicle
emissions -related changes to current air quality conditions are expected. No change in
greenhouse gas emissions is anticipated between the existing project and the proposed Project
due to production levels and barge/truck traffic remaining the same as discussed in the Project
Description (EAW Item 6).
Dust and odors — Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust
and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 36
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
discussed under Item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project
including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken
to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
Dust
A minor amount of dust would be generated during initial construction of the service roads,
parking area, and conveyor landings. Dust generation is expected to be of short duration, lasting
only during construction, and is not anticipated to affect adjacent lands, businesses, or residents
due to their distance from the site.
There would be no additional dust generated during mining in the proposed Project area. The
sand and gravel material would be saturated when dredged from beneath the river. During the
process of separating the sand and silt from the gravel, additional water would be added, and
the gravel would remain wet when it is crushed. Excess sand would be stockpiled wet and
stabilized in place. The grade of the generated sand is such that it contains minimal fine particles
that could become airborne when dry. When final grades are established above water, these
areas would be re -soiled and planted with vegetation.
Odors
Similar to current operations, the proposed Project is not anticipated to generate odors.
17. Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during
project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project
including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors,
3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be
taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
The proposed Project would use the existing floating dredge unit and conveyor system,
deployed to an adjacent location. City ordinance limits mining operations to between 6:00 a.m.
and 10:00 p.m. For many years, The City has granted Aggregate Industries a variance to allow
the existing electric dredge to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The City has
allowed the dredge to operate 24 hours per day seven days per week since 1995 since the
dredge was installed. Since the dredge has been in operation, one noise complaint has been
received by the City, which was in 1996. Aggregate Industries was contacted by the City, and the
problem was resolved in a timely manner. The dredge continues to operate 24 hours per day,
seven days per week. This variance is reviewed on an annual basis by the City during the renewal
of Aggregate Industries' Annual Mining Permit. The floating dredge unit is electrically powered
and contains a primary crusher and a series of vibrating screens. The dredge has been fitted with
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 37
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
urethane screens and the operations have been adjusted to run as quietly as possible, as
required by the City.
Aggregate Industries has worked with the City to develop the noise minimization measures that
are currently in place to yield minimal noise affects. The compatibility of the proposed Project
with respect to noise would continue to be reviewed annually by the City as part of annual
permit renewals. Since the proposed Project would use the same processing equipment and
facility that is currently in operation and would not get closer to sensitive receptors (i.e.,
residences, schools, etc.) than it is currently, no significant impacts are expected.
18. Transportation
Describe traffic -related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing
and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic
generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4)
indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit
and/or other alternative transportation modes.
There are currently no access roads or source of traffic within the proposed Project area. There
are existing access roads to the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Facility, and Grey Cloud Trail S is
located along the northern end of the proposed Project area. The existing mine roads would
provide access for conveyor maintenance and to the dredge and barge loading facilities. The
existing conveyor access roads are located on either side of the existing conveyor system. Grey
Cloud Trail S provides access to the two residential houses located north of the proposed
Project area and to the house located to the east.
The existing roads are constructed of class 5 (crushed gravel) and asphalt millings material.
These existing roads would remain in use through the duration of current mining activities and
would be expanded, as needed, to provide operations and maintenance access for the proposed
Project. The current operation of the floating dredge unit generates approximately four vehicle
trips per day. This traffic occurs during peak hours and is generated by employees working on
the dredge. Operator maintenance vehicles would be parked adjacent to conveyor lines installed
as part of the proposed Project; no additional parking spaces would be required for the
proposed Project. Since the proposed Project is a continuation of an existing mine, just within a
new mining area, no additional employees or Project -related traffic would be generated as
discussed in the Project Description (EAW Item 6).
Aggregate Industries currently transports its' product by barge from the existing Nelson Sand &
Gravel Mine Facility on Grey Cloud Island to St. Paul, once per day, six days per week. The
Mississippi River between Grey Cloud Island and St. Paul is heavily trafficked by various types of
watercraft including commercial tows carrying various types of cargo as well as recreational
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 38
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
watercraft. The proposed Project would continue to produce aggregate at a similar rate to the
existing mine once mining within the current mine area ceases; as such, it would not increase
Aggregate Industries' use of barges within the Mississippi River; however, it would continue this
use for the next 20 to 25 years.
As discussed above in the Project Description (EAW Item 6), a typical mining and barging season
requires up to 625 barge trips; this is equivalent to approximately 30,000 truck trips. As such, the
proposed Project would result in a reduction of vehicle traffic volumes as compared to a land -
based mining project.
b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic
improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project's impact on the regional
transportation system.
If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, o
traffic impact study must be prepared as port of the EAW. Use the format and procedures
described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Access Management Manual,
Chapter 5 (available at: http.//www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a
similar local guidance.
Projected peak hour traffic is anticipated to remain similar to existing conditions with
approximately four round trip vehicles expected per day for site access, well below the
thresholds for a traffic impact study. The proposed Project would shift the mining area for
Aggregate Industries and allow the Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility to continue operations
for the next 20 to 25 years. This would require the continued use and potential expansion of
existing mine access roads, as well as continued use of barge transportation at rates similar to
current conditions. However, there would be no significant increase in the current traffic levels
on the regional transportation system.
19. Cumulative Potential Effects
(Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the
applicable EAW Items)
Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental
effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative
potential effects.
The geographic scale for assessing cumulative potential effects for the proposed Project
includes Lower Pool 2 of the Mississippi River.
The timeframe for assessing cumulative potential effects includes the anticipated 20-year life of
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 39
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
the proposed Project.
b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has
been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the
geographic scales and timeframes identified above.
Reasonably foreseeable future projects that are geographically and temporally similar to the
proposed Project, and therefore could potentially interact with the environmental effects of the
proposed Project, are limited.
The proposed Project is an extension of existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility that has
been in continuous operation since 1953. There was a substantial multi -media review of the
mining in 1983 at the time of annexation to the City. This review identified a large aggregate
resource under water in the area known as Baldwin Lake and the outer islands west of Lower
Grey Cloud Island (Figure 1). These aggregate reserves are buried under several feet of sediment
and are not economical to mine in today's market; however, this area could be mined in the
future if the market would bear the added expense. Any future mining in this area is estimated
to be approximately 20 years away. If mining would be proposed in this area, a separate
environmental review would be conducted at that time. Past and current mining operations
contribute to the cumulative potential effects of the proposed Project.
The landowners (PAS Associates, LTD.) of the proposed Project area and the existing Nelson
Sand & Gravel Mine Facility area envision developing a mixed residential community on Lower
Grey Cloud Island when all mining is completed. Washington County and the Metropolitan
Council are interested in developing at least a portion of Lower Grey Cloud Island as a regional
park; this development is likely to be at least 20 to 25 years in the future and is separate from
the proposed Project.
c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant
environmental effects due to these cumulative effects.
There is a possibility that construction of the mixed residential community planned for Lower
Grey Cloud Island could occur during a portion of the 20-to-25-year design life of the
proposed Project. While the proposed Project consists of a new mining area, it is a continued
operation of an existing mine site with no other changes. In general, the daily operations (i.e.,
volume of aggregate mined, processing rates, and barge/truck traffic) are planned to be the
same magnitude as the existing site as discussed in the Project Description (EAW Item 6). While
the noise associated with the proposed Project would replace noise associated with the existing
Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility, noise associated with construction activities for the
housing development could interact with the proposed Project to contribute to cumulative
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 40
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
effects related to noise. While cumulative effects related to noise would not last the duration of
the proposed Project, the added noise could further deter wildlife from the area within and
around Lower Grey Cloud Island. However, given that the housing development would occur in
an area that is currently disturbed by mining, wildlife species may already be accustomed to
avoiding this location in favor of similar habitat in the area.
There is potential for cumulative environmental effects as a result of the Project; however, the
significance of these cumulative effects has not yet been determined.
20. Other Potential Environmental Effects
If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 19,
describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify
measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.
The proposed Project is not anticipated to result in environmental effects beyond those
described in this document.
RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED
Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.)
I hereby certify that:
• The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
• The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components
other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected
actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and
60, respectively.
• Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature:
Emily Schmitz
Title: Senior Planner
City of Cottage Grove
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Page 41
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Appendix A
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC Species List
IPaC: Explore Location resources
I PaC
PaC resourcelist
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction
that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include
trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly
affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a
project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site -specific (e.g.,
vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities)
information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS
office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that
follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional
information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. 01 VX 1%
Location
Washington County, Minnesota
Miyuaippi
r14 r1l9 —
�i7 r
� 5
Lamar my
.b-1 hhnd
— �t
_VQROW I: I .
Local office
Minnesota -Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office
❑ (952) 252-0092
❑ (952) 646-2873
MAILING ADDRESS
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 1/12
3/30/2021
IPaC: Explore Location resources
4101 American Blvd E Bloomington, MN
55425-1665
PHYSICAL ADDRESS
4101 American Blvd E
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 2/12
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Bloomington, MN 55425-1665
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section?/s7process/stepl .htmi
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 3/12
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of
project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the
species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam
upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the
species by reducing oreliminating waterflowdownstream). Because species can move, and site
conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project
area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site -specific and project -specific
information is often required. A
Section 7ofthe Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request ofthe Secretary
information whetherany species which is listed or proposed to be listed maybe present in the area of
such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal
agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be
obtained by requesting an official species list from eitherthe Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see
directions below) or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, lease return to the I PaC website and
request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species' and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Fisheries).
Species and critical habitats underthe sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list.
Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows
species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information.
IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 4/12
3/30/2021
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Mammals
NAM E
STATUS
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVDO4LF2E/resources 5/12
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Clams
NAM E
Higgins Eye (pearlymussel) Lampsilis higginsii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5428
Sheepnose Mussel Plethobasus cyphyus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6903
Threatened
STATUS
Endangered
Endangered
Snu"box Mussel Epioblasma triquetra ngered
Wherever found xs�&
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4135
nsects
NAM E STATUS
Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Bombus a nis Endangered
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9383
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered
species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 6/12
3/30/2021
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird TreatyActI and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act?.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVDO4LF2E/resources 7/12
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eirds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds -of -conservation -concern. php
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation -measures. php
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasu`res. pdf
T % � * V
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of
Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more
about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below.
This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will
be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have
sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your
location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o" the Atlantic Coast,
additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list
are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important
information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory
bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to
reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the
top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A
BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED
FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE
BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR
PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN
THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,
WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL
ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE
WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS
ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE.
"BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES
THATTHE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
https://ecos.fvvs.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 8/12
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Oct 15 to Aug 31
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in o"shore areas from certain types of development or
activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Golden -winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Breeds May 1 to Jul 20
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8745
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Breeds May 1 to Aug 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3941
NO'
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10 to Sep 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus* Breeds elsewhere
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
V*k_ \ U %
Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird
Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3482
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Probability of
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 9/12
3/30/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Breeds May 10 to Aug 31
Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities
to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this
report.
Probability of Presence ( )
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 10/12
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A
taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to
establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence
score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the
week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that
week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found
in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is
calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all
weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05,
and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The
relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. N .
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion
so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its
entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort ( ) '! '
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expreslsed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas of the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all
years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much sparser.
SPECIES
probability of presence
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL
breeding season
AUG SEP
survey effort no data
I —
OCT NOV DEC
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 11/12
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Bald Eagle I I I I I I I I
BCC
Vulnerable (This is not a
Bird of Conservation
Concern (BCC) in this
area, but warrants
attention because of the
Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in o'shore
areas from certain types
of development or
activities.)
Golden -winged
Warbler BCC
Rangewide (CON) (This
isa Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its +
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Henslow's Sparrow BCC
Rangewide (CON) (This is
a Bird of Conservation
Co BCC
i i I I f Non- j i 71 Jill !Ill
ncem ( )
throughout its range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Prothonotary Warbler_ F
BCC Rangewide (CON) +++-� +—++ ++++ ++++ p -I- ++++ +—++
(This is Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and,?%O
Alaska.)
4
0
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 12/12
3/30/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Red-headed +++� +++ ++++ ++++ + I ; I 1 I ! 9 9 I 11 { 1 { 1 + E - }--++ --��
Woodpecker BCC
Rangewide (CON) (This
isa Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Rusty Blackbird BCC {-++— +++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++—+ ++++ ++'++ ----
Rangewide (CON) (This
isa Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Willow Flycatcher BCC-
BCR(Thisisa Bird of
Conservation Concern 0
(BCC) only in particular
Bird Conservation +++— +++ ++++ ++++ I I 11 I I 1 1 I+ I I f- ++-i
Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA)
Wood Thrush BCC
Rangewide (CON) (This
is a Bird of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range in
the continental USA and
Alaska.) 0
+ + + — + ++ +f �++ +++�- ++
Tell me more about conservation measures I can i plement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any
location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in
the project area. When birds maybe breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their
destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, viewthe Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits maybe advisable
depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your
project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and otherspecies that
may warrant special attention in your project location.
https://ecos.fvvs.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 13/12
3/30/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network
(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried
and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects,
and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle
(Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not
representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially
occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science
datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn
more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of
Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-
round),you may referto thefollowing resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (ifyouare
unsuccessful in locating the bird of interestthere), the Cornell Lab ofOrnithology Neotropical Birds guide. Ifa bird on
your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area,
there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then
the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range
anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the
Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of
development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid
and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more
information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts
and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details aboutthe relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird
species within your project areao"the Atlantic Coast, please visittheNortheast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also
offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately,
you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAANCCOS Integrative
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 14/12
3/30/2021
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf project webpage.
https:Hecos.fvvs.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 15/12
3/30/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year,
including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. Foradditional information on
marine bird tracking data, seethe Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies orcontact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle
Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern.
To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project
area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey
effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high
survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as
more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of
concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which
means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in
knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation
measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust
resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions orconcerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
https://ecos.fvvs.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 16/12
3/30/2021
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
https:Hecos.fvvs.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVDO4LF2E/resources 17/12
3/30/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large
projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information
on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery.
Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use
of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland
boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the
amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted.
Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be
occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the
actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions 40\ 4"Ift
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial
imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic
vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some
deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These
habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal,state, and local regulatory agencieswithjurisdiction overwetlands may define and describe wetlands in a
different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
inventory, to define the limits of proprietaryjurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government orto establish the
geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities
involving modifications within oradjacentto wetland areas should seekthe advice of appropriate federal, state,orlocal
agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietaryjurisdictionsthat may affect such
activities.
https://ecos.fvvs.gov/ipac/location/BMEN6SB14JBKDFOGWSVD04LF2E/resources 18/12
Appendix B
References
References
1. University of Minnesota. Land Cover Classification and Change Analysis. Remote Sensing and
Geospotiol Analysis Laboratory. [Online] [Cited: April 28, 2021.] https://rs.umn.edu/land.
2. Stantec. Cottage Grove, Minnesota 2040 Comprehensive Plan. n.d.
3. Washington County, Minnesota. Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan: A Policy
Guide to 2040. October 2019.
4. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Grey Cloud Island Regional Park Master Plan Washington
County, Minnesota. September 13, 1994.
5. Mississippi River Coordinating Commission; National Park Service. Comprehensive
Management Plan: Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. [Online] 1995.
https://www.nps.gov/miss/learn/management/cmp.htm.
6. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Program
(MRCCA). Ecological and Water Resources - Water Management. [Online] [Cited: April 26, 2021.]
7. Mossier, John H. and Bloomgren, Bruce A. Geologic Atlas of Washington County, Minnesota:
Bedrock Geology. County Atlas Series Atlas C-5, Pate 2 of 7 Bedrock Geology. s.l.: Minnesota
Geological Survey, 1990.
8. Meyer, Gary N., Baker, Robert W. and Patterson, Carrie J. Geology Atlas of Washington County,
Minnesota: Surficial Geology. County Atlas Series Atlas C-5, Plate 3 of 7SurficialGeology.
s.l.: Minnesota Geological Survey, 1990.
9. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey.
[Online] https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
10. Adams, Roberta. Minnesota Hydrogeology Atlas: Depth to Water Table. Minnesota
HydrogeologyAtlos Series Atlas HG-03, Plate 2 of 2 Dept to Water Table. s.l.: Department of
Natural Resources, 2016.
11. Minnesota Department of Health. Minnesota Well Index (MWI). [Online] [Cited: Apri127,
2021.] https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/.
12. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul -Baldwin Plains and Moraines
Subsection. Ecological Classification System. [Online]
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222Md/index.html.
13. Lafrancois, Brenda Moraska, Vana-Miller, David L. and Johnson, Steven P. Water Resources
Information and Issues Overview Report: Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. s.l. :
National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior, March 2007. Natural Resource Technical
Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2007/364.
14. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Mississippi River Pool 2. East Metro area
fisheries. [Online] [Cited: March 31, 2021.]
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/eastmetro/rivers/pool2.html.
IS. Kelner, Dan and Davis, Mike. Final Report: Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of the Mississippi
National River and Recreation Area Corridor, 2000-01. s.l., St. Paul, Minnesota : Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Ecological Services, July 2002. p. 43. Contract report to
the National Park Service Mississippi National River and Recreation Area and the Great Lakes
Network Inventory and Monitoring Program.
16. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Rare Species Guide. Nature -Minnesota's
endangered, threatened, and special concern species. [Online]
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html.
17. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Townships
Containing Documented Northern Long -Eared Bat (NLEB) Maternity Roost Trees and/or Hibernacula
Entrances in Minnesota. June 7, 2021.
18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Map: Where the
rusty patched bumble bee may be present. [Online] March 18, 2021.
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/rpbbmap.html.
19. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. MBS Site Biodiversity Significance Ranks.
[Online] [Cited: April 8, 2021.] https://dnr.state.mn.us/biodiversity_guidelines.html.
20. —. Conservation Status Ranks for Native Plant Community Types and Subtypes. Native Plant
Community Status. [Online] August 31, 2009.
https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/npc/s_ranks_npc_types_&_subtypes.pdf.
21. Birk, Douglas A. The Survey of Grey Cloud Island, Washington County, Minnesota: An
archaeological approach. s.l.: s.n., 1972.
22. Archaeological Research Services; Barr Engineering Co. Report on Archaeological Phase I and
11 Investigations: Conducted within the Nelson Mine Expansion EIS Study Area, Lower Grey Cloud
Island, Washington County, Minnesota. August 30, 2010. Prepared for: City of Cottage Grove and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District.
Appendix C
Figures
Barr Footers ArcGIS 10.8.1, 2021-09-16 13:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1263\Maps\Reports\SEAM/\Figure 2 - USGS 7.5 Minute Quad Map. mxd User: kac2
Mooera Lake
r
87 ,, ,
r
-GRiIV�t ti;
32
•
Fz�
�� CDRY kUi' _ a
kO
e7 6 —
�
4, s
T
"I L
HM �
I
r�
820
a�
I
14
�.
Proposed Project Area
Existing Nelson Mine
Facility
C:
0
1,000 2,000
7
Feet
BARR Background Imagery. USGS 7.5 1
Barr Footers ArcGIS 10.8.1, 2021-09-16 14:12 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1263\Maps\Reports\SEAM/\Figure 6 - Project Overview.mxd User: kac2
p r Proposed Project Area
� y 4
r pal o
Existing Nelson Mine
� E
-� g
Facility ---mt- -. e, y
t
Proposed Mining Area
yl f "•• Grey Cloud '; 'RR Conveyors
Slough Temporary Dredge Unit
ax. Transfer Channel
C Winter Slip
r a�� Proposed Barrier Dikes
A
0
750 1,500
7
Feet
BARR
Barr Footers ArcGIS 10.8.1, 2021-09-16 14:11 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1263\Maps\Reports\SEAM/\Figure 5 -Mining Progression.mxd User: kac2
Proposed Project Area
Existing Nelson Mine
r
Facility
Proposed Mining Area
+.° . -4. •�.��- °+ Conveyors
f
•� �' r' . V' Grey Cloud
Slough Mine Phases
f..
1-3 Years
4-8 Years
y'` 9-13 Years
:t
14-20 Years
A
O
750 1,500
7
Feet
BARR
Barr Footers ArcGIS 10.8.1, 2021-09-16 14:07 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1263\Maps\Reports\SEAM/\Figure S -Current and Future Land Use. mxd User: kac2
7- 1 1 Current Land Use (2016) Proposed Project Area
Data Source: Metropolitan
e (2030)
'ottage Grove
Existing Nelson Mine
Facility
Current Land Use (2016)
Single Family Detached
Industrial and Utility
Extractive
Park, Recreational or
i Preserve
Railway
Agricultural
Undeveloped
Water
Future Land Use (2040)
Rural Residential
Parks/Open Space
Transition Planning Area
Open Water
O0 600 1,200
N Feet
5arr-ooier: ArcOD IU.b. 1, LUL -Uy- lb 14:Ub rile:
as\zs\uz\lzbs\lvlaps\Keporis\.,,tHvv\rlgure y - uottage prove Lon ing.mxa user: Kac/
R2.5 NOW_
12
11
13
Proposed Project Area
,.fn
1,R4„
_
I
Existing Nelson Mine
AG2,
L�+
I
Facility
^,
Critical Area
k
'V
� Cottage Grove City Boundary
,A►2 I
I
'
AG1 -Agricultural
i
Preservation
AG2 - Agricultural
11 - Limited Industrial
I
AG
12 - General Industry
I
1
13 - Heavy Industry
14 - Commercial Excavation
_
- Planned Unit
-PUD
Development
1
I
R1 - Rural Residential
'.
R2.5 - Residential Single
l
Family
I�..
R3 - Single Family Residential
R4 - Low Density Residential
.` Mississippi River
11
QR
1,000 2,000
7
Feet
2ARR Background Data: Cottage Grove (1
5arr Fooier'ArCII.', IU.b. 1, ZUZ -Uy- lb 14' IU riie-
�M
SHULL
m
BARR
izt)j\iviaps\Keporis\.,,t:AVV\FIgUre I U - ft:IVIA Fioocpam.mxa user' Kacz
Proposed Project Area
r�lExisting
Nelson Mine
Facility
FEMA Floodplains
100 Year Floodplain
500 Year Floodplain
Floodway
0
0 750 1,500
Feet
5arr Fooier: ArcOD IU.b. 1, LUL -Uy- lb 14:UJ rile:
n '
6V
.'Cis\L9\oz\ILb9\NIaps\Keporis\�tAVV\Fig Ure 11 - water Kesources.mxa Us^. r: 1:ac,:
mm 1.
rLp
0
Proposed Project Area
Existing Nelson Mine
Facility
(1)
Well (MN Well Index)
Public Water Inventory
Watercourses
Impaired Streams (2018)
0
Public Water Inventory Basins
Wetlands
(National Wetlands Inventory)
OFreshwater
Emergent Wetland
OFreshwater
Forested Wetland
Freshwater Pond
OFreshwater
Shrub Wetland
Lake
EZRiverine
11
O
750 1,500
7
Feet
BARR
Barr Footers ArcGIS 10.8.1, 2021-09-16 14:23 File:
W1
1263\Maps\Reports\SEAW\Figure 12 - MPCA What's in my Neighborhood.mxd User:
Roger'r /
Star - ' Mississippi
\ \ R�rr •.
rey Cloud - - A &�Fi�f5ssrirg.-
5lough Parts'& kl cIC I NNPrOJ
Nant
n ..
-41
f
Proposed Project Area
Existing Nelson Mine
Facility
r — 1
Half Mile Buffer of
i —
Proposed Project Area
MPCA Sites
0
Multiple Programs
■
Feedlots
■
Hazardous Waste
•
Investigation and Cleanup
•
Stormwater
River
MPCA Site Name
Acres
�:
O
1,000 2,000
7
Feet
BARR
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project
Draft Scoping Decision Document
City of Cottage Grove
Washington County, MN
February 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction and Purpose...........................................................................................1
1.1 Background..........................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose and Need of the Project.......................................................................1
1.2.1 Purpose of the Project.......................................................................................2
1.2.2 Need for the Project.........................................................................................2
1.3 The Scoping Process.............................................................................................3
2 Project Alternatives......................................................................................................3
2.1 Proposed Project..................................................................................................3
2.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4
2.3 Site Alternatives.....................................................................................................4
2.4 Technology Alternatives......................................................................................4
2.5 Modified Designs or Layouts................................................................................5
2.6 Modified Scale or Magnitude Alternative..........................................................5
2.7 Incorporation of Reasonable Mitigation Measures Identified Through Public
Comments....................................................................................................................... 5
3 EIS Issues........................................................................................................................5
3.1 Issues to be Addressed in the Draft EIS...............................................................6
3.2 Project Description...............................................................................................6
3.3 Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms....................................................7
3.4 Water Resources...................................................................................................7
3.5 Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources ............ 7
3.6 Air...........................................................................................................................8
3.7 Cumulative Potential Effects...............................................................................8
3.8 Other Potential Environmental Effects................................................................9
4 Identification of Phased or Connected Actions.......................................................9
5 EIS Schedule (Tentative)..............................................................................................9
6 Special Studies or Research......................................................................................1 1
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
i
7 Government Permits and Approvals (Scoping EAW item)....................................13
8 Proposer: Aggregate Industries - MWR, Inc.............................................................14
9 Responsible Government Unit (RGU): City of Cottage Grove, MN.......................14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Draft Scoping Decision Item Summary ........................................................6
Table 5-1 Scoping Process.............................................................................................9
Table5-2 Draft EIS.........................................................................................................10
Table5-3 Final EIS..........................................................................................................10
Table 6-1 Special Studies or Research........................................................................1 1
Table 7-1 Permits and Approvals to be Required or Modified.................................13
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
ii
I Introduction and Purpose
Pursuant to Minnesota Administrative Rules (Minnesota Rules) for nonmetallic mineral mining,
4410.4400, Subpart 9B and Subpart 9C, the City of Cottage Grove, acting as the Responsible
Governmental Unit (RGU) has prepared a Draft Scoping Decision Document (SDD) for Aggregate
Industries — MWR, Inc. (Proposer) Nelson Mine Backwater Project (Project).
This Draft SDD is a companion to the Draft Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (SEAW)
prepared for the Project. The purpose of the Draft SDD is to give the public a preliminary view of the
intended scope and identify the issues and alternatives that will be examined in depth in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The information in this Draft SDD should be considered
preliminary and subject to revision based on the entire record of the scoping process. The Draft SDD also
presents a tentative schedule of the environmental review process. Following completion of the scoping
process, a Final SDD will be developed, and the EIS will be prepared in accordance with the Final SDD.
A mandatory EIS process is required due to the request by the Proposer that fits into these categories of
Minnesota Rules:
4410.4400, Subpart 9B — development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel,
stone, or other nonmetallic minerals other than peat, which will excavate 160 acres of land or
more to a mean depth of 10 feet or more during its existence.
4410.4400, Subpart 9C — development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel,
stone, or other nonmetallic minerals other than peat, which will excavate 40 or more acres of
forested or other naturally vegetated land in a sensitive shoreland area or 80 or more acres of
forested or other naturally vegetated land in a non -sensitive shoreland area.
1.1 Background
Aggregate Industries — MWR, Inc. (Aggregate Industries) is proposing to move its mine area, which
supports the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility, onto an approximately 395-acre parcel of
privately owned land that the company leases in the backwaters of the Mississippi River. Although it
leases the mining area, Aggregate Industries owns the land where the processing plant infrastructure is
located. The planned shift in mine area would take place during a 20 to 25-year period. Aggregate
Industries has been mining at the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility since the early 1950s
when the J.L. Shiely Company (now known as Aggregate Industries) entered into a lease agreement with
the private landowner. A form of this lease agreement remains in place between the private landowner
and Aggregate Industries today.
1.2 Purpose and Need of the Project
When assessing the viability of various alternatives, and per Minnesota Rules (4410.2300 H), the EIS
considers the fundamental need for the Project in addition to the environmental, employment, and
sociological impacts of the proposed action and each major alternative. The purpose and need
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
statements below have been developed by the Proposer and will be expanded in the Draft EIS to include
a more detailed description of the supply of and demand for construction -quality natural aggregate in
the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
1.2.1 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
The existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility mines aggregate in the Lower Grey Cloud Island deposit
and will exhaust its currently accessible minable reserves in approximately five years given the current
rate of mining, market trends, and geologic variations at the site. The proposed Project's purpose is to
exercise Aggregate Industries' lease to continue mechanical dredging operations in an adjacent
backwaters area of the Mississippi River to supply to the Twin Cities and other local markets with
construction quality natural aggregate for an additional 20 to 25 years.
The mined material will extend the functionality of the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine processing
facilities and ship the aggregate to market using the existing Aggregate Industries barge system.
Aggregate Industries is in business to support the demand for high quality natural aggregate in the Twin
Cities metropolitan market.
1.2.2 NEED FOR THE PROJECT
The Aggregate Resources Inventory of the Seven -County Metropolitan Area (prepared by the Minnesota
Geological Survey (MGS) as Information Circular 46 dated May 9, 2000), denotes aggregate resources
are critical and finite resources with an estimated depletion of the local aggregate resources by the year
2029. These calculations were based on realistic urban -growth scenarios that assume no fundamental
changes in land use policies or pit and quarry design at that time.
The MGS estimated that approximately 70% of aggregate reserves in the Twin Cities metropolitan area
are covered by development and are no longer available for use. Several of the natural aggregate
deposits in Hennepin and Ramsey counties are depleted and some are no longer available for mining
due to surface development, protection by open space and park type uses, and/or adjacent
development hinders siting and operational requirements. The top two aggregate producing counties in
the Twin Cites seven county metro are Dakota (#1) and Washington (#2). Many natural aggregate
deposits are in eastern Washington and central Dakota counties but may not be available in the future
due mainly to the reasons stated above.
The Minnesota Legislature recognized the depletion of aggregate resources and established an eight -
member Aggregate Resources Task Force in 2016 (MN Laws 2016, Chapter 189, Article 3, Section 50).
The task force convened in 2017 and provided a Final Report to the Minnesota Legislature, dated
January 15, 2018. The task force was charged with evaluating aggregate mapping progress and needs;
effectiveness of recent aggregate tax legislation and the use of revenues collected by counties; use of
state funds to preserve aggregate reserves; and local land use and permitting issues, environmental
review requirements, and the impacts of other state regulations on aggregate reserves. One of the
recommendations of the task force was to complete additional mapping of aggregate reserves to inform
land use decisions to ensure the preservation and continued supply of aggregate.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
2
Aggregate reserves in the Twin Cities metropolitan area are limited and the need for the proposed
Project is to provide a continued local supply of construction -quality aggregate from a local, accessible
source. Project beneficiaries include projects that require aggregate materials, such as roadway and
other infrastructure projects, by providing a cost -competitive, local aggregate source.
1.3 The Scoping Process
Public review and comment on the Draft SDD will be conducted in accordance with Minnesota Rules
part 4410.2100. After public review and comment the RGU will consider the comments received and
develop a Final SDD. A notice of availability of the Final SDD will be published in the EQB monitor.
2 Project Alternatives
The EIS must evaluate the "Environmental, economic, employment, and sociological impacts"
(Minnesota Rule 4410.2300, Item H.) of the Project and will compare the potentially significant impacts
of the proposed Project with a No Action Alternative and other reasonable alternatives. The Minnesota
Environmental Review Rules require the EIS to address at least one alternative of each of the following
types of alternatives or provide an explanation of why no alternative of a particular type is included in
the EIS (Minnesota Rule 4410.2300, Item G.):
• No Action Alternative
• Alternative Sites
• Alternative Technologies
• Modified Designs or Layouts
• Modified Scale or Magnitude
• Alternatives incorporating reasonable mitigation measures identified through the EIS scoping and
Draft EIS process.
An alternative may be excluded from analysis in the EIS if:
• It does not meet the underlying need for or purpose of the Project.
• It would likely not have any significant environmental benefit compared to the proposed Project.
• It would likely not have any significant environmental benefit compared to another alternative that
will be analyzed in the EIS that would likely have similar environmental benefits but substantially
less adverse economic, employment, or sociological impacts.
2.1 Proposed Project
The existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility will exhaust its current minable reserves in
approximately 5 years given the current rate of mining, market trends, and geologic variations at the
site. Aggregate Industries is proposing to move its mine area, which supports the existing Nelson Sand &
Gravel Mine Facility, to mine additional reserves adjacent to the existing mine, on aprivately owned
parcel of land in the backwaters area of the Mississippi River (proposed Project). Current mining means
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
3
and methods at the existing plant would be employed to mine the reserves. Processing techniques,
processing equipment, equipment run rates, hours of operation and staffing at the existing Nelson Sand
& Gravel Mine Facility would all remain unchanged. In addition, the current river -based transportation
system would remain unchanged; assuming consistent market conditions, barge capacities and annual
trips are expected to remain the same. Barges would continue to be loaded at the existing dock wall
location of the Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility using the same equipment.
The proposed mining area would be developed in phases. A floating dredge unit would be in the
proposed mining area and a conveyor network would be reconfigured prior to the initiation of mining.
Mining would begin in the western portion of the proposed mining area within an approximately 35-
acre area and would last up to three years. From there, mining would extend to the east in three
subsequent phases: an approximately 55-acre area in years 4 through 8; an approximately 65-acre area
in years 9 through 13; and an approximately 75-acre area in years 14 through 20.
2.2 No Action Alternative
The EIS must include a No Action Alternative analysis as required by Minnesota Rules. The evaluation of
the No Action Alternative will describe and analyze the potential impacts, outcomes, constraints,
benefits and disadvantages, and economics if the proposed Project did not occur. The description will
include a discussion of the supply of and demand for aggregate in the Twin Cities and surrounding area
and the impact the proposed Project has on both.
2.3 Site Alternatives
The proposed Project site represents a resource that is well situated to produce a significant quantity of
construction quality natural aggregate utilizing the river as a transportation corridor to market. The
proposed Project provides efficiency by shifting operations to continue mining in an adjacent area to the
existing mine with similar production rates and attributes. The need for the proposed Project will
require further evaluation in the context of aggregate reserves in the Twin Cities and surrounding area.
The feasibility of alternative sites that meet the purpose and need of the Project will be evaluated in the
Draft EIS. These may include alternative sites along the river, an expansion of existing mine sites, the
development of new inland mine sites, or sites that produce a different type of aggregate that could be
a reasonable substitute for natural aggregate.
2.4 Technology Alternatives
Aggregate Industries is currently using mechanical dredging to mine aggregate resources in its existing
Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility and proposes to continue mechanical dredging with the proposed
Project. Examples of other available mining technologies include hydraulic dredging and dragline
dredging. Other technologies, and modifications to the proposed mechanical dredging that could
minimize environmental effects, will be evaluated in the EIS.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
4
2.5 Modified Designs or Layouts
The EIS will identify the proposed Project including more detail from the mining plan on the design,
operations, layout, and sizing. The EIS will assess the effect that alternative design elements or layout
configurations would have and whether they represent alternatives that will require additional
consideration. As studies are completed, proposed Project modifications may be identified that change
the design of operations or layout of the mine area to reduce impacts. If modified designs or layouts are
not identified that provide greater environmental protection, the EIS will present the information that
supports that conclusion.
2.6 Modified Scale or Magnitude Alternative
The EIS will provide more detail on the scale and magnitude of the proposed Project. The EIS will assess
the feasibility of alternative project scales of operations or annual production and whether they
represent alternatives that will require additional consideration. If alternate scales are not feasible,
rationale for such determination will be described in full. As analysis is completed, Project modifications
to scale or magnitude may be identified that change the design of operations or layout of the mine area
to reduce impacts. If changes in scale or magnitude of designs or layouts are not identified that provide
greater environmental protection, the EIS will present the information that supports that conclusion.
2.7 Incorporation of Reasonable Mitigation Measures Identified
Through Public Comments
The RGU will consider alternatives incorporating reasonable mitigation measures identified through the
Scoping EAW and Draft EIS process. Such mitigation measures will be evaluated against the criteria
identified in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.2300 Subpart G. Alternatives incorporating reasonable
mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIS will be reviewed for further evaluation in the Final EIS.
Mitigation measures will be identified in the Draft EIS to provide decision makers with measures to
reduce environmental impacts.
3 EIS Issues
The RGU has evaluated the Scoping EAW to determine how the topics evaluated will be treated in the
Draft EIS using the following criteria:
A. The topic is obviously not relevant or is so minor that it will not be addressed at all in the Draft
EIS.
B. The topic is minor but will be discussed briefly in the Draft EIS using the same information as in
the Scoping EAW.
C. The topic is significant, but the Scoping EAW information is adequate for use in the Draft EIS.
D. The topic is significant and information beyond what was in the Scoping EAW will be included in
the Draft EIS.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
5
3.1 Issues to be Addressed in the Draft EIS
Table 3.1 identifies the topic and to what degree (as identified in Section 3 A-D above) they will be
addressed in the Draft EIS; Sections 3.2-3.8 provide a description for topics cataloged as "D". Mitigation
if needed and available will be evaluated and presented for each topic and used to evaluate alternatives
and the potential environmental effects.
Table 3-1 Draft Scoping Decision Item Summary
Scoping EAW Item Number and EIS Content Topic
How Topic will be Addressed
in Draft EIS
6. Project Description
D
7. Cover Types
B
9. Land Use
C
10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms
D
11. Water Resources
D
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes
B
13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological
Resources
D
14. Historic Properties
C
15. Visual
C
16. Air
D
17. Noise
C
18. Transportation
B
19. Cumulative Potential Effects
D
20. Other Potential Environmental Effects
D
3.2 Project Description
• A mining plan with a schedule of activities will be presented in the Draft EIS including descriptions
of earth moving activities for operational and resource extraction purposes, stockpiling, phasing
of underwater aggregate removal, reclamation, and other aggregate conveying and storage.
• A description of current mine operations including access roads, utility corridors, conveyance
systems, dust suppression, and other site enhancements to facilitate mining are included in the
Draft SEAW and will be presented in the Draft EIS. Proposed modifications to the mining plan
revealed from the outcome of additional studies would be included in the Draft EIS.
• The Draft EIS will consider potential economic and social impacts of the proposed Project and
how the project would affect employment, direct and indirect economic impacts, and
environmental justice issues.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
6
3.3 Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms
• A detailed description of the geology of the island and mining area will be included.
• The mining plan will describe the construction of the proposed barrier islands, slope stability
evaluation, the removal plan for the islands at the completion of mining, and any associated
impacts that may occur to wetlands or other resources.
• Review of and updates to modeling completed previously will address concerns related to in -
channel head -cutting, downstream sedimentation, potential for rise in flood elevations, and
underwater slope stability.
• Final topography, bathometry, soil slopes, and stabilization measures above and below the water
surface will be described.
• Reclamation using onsite and/or imported soils will described and include discussion about
grading and restoration/reclamation activities.
3.4 Water Resources
• The Draft EIS will include an Underwater Slope Stability Analysis, Bathymetry Survey, Water
Quality Flow Modeling Study, and Sediment Analysis Study to assess the potential impacts to
streambed alterations, surface water disturbances, downstream turbidity and sedimentation,
water quality issues, navigable channel disruptions (if identified), and shoreline erosion.
• Review of and updates to modeling completed previously will address concerns related to in -
channel head -cutting, downstream sedimentation, potential for rise in flood elevations, and
underwater slope stability to address potential concerns to water resources.
• A wetland delineation report has been completed for the Project and the findings will be included
in the EIS in accordance with Section 404 Clean Water Act and MN Wetland Conservation Act
standards.
• Impacts to wetland and open water functions and values will be identified and mitigation for
impacts proposed in the Draft EIS.
3.5 Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological
Resources
• Direct and indirect impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and other sensitive resources will be evaluated
in the Draft EIS.
• The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) database will be reviewed to determine if any
records of rare species or rare natural resource features are located close to the proposed
Project.
• If needed, the Draft EIS will re-evaluate the proposed Project area for the occurrence of any state
or federal listed species, and potential impacts to rare features.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
7
• Fish populations in and around the mining area will be identified and potential impacts addressed
utilizing all available studies and public data from the MNDNR, USFWS, and other stakeholders.
• There are both federal and state listed mussel species in the proposed Project vicinity. Additional
information will be provided from recently completed surveys to assess potential impacts.
• The presence of and potential impact to macroinvertebrates will be addressed in the Draft EIS
utilizing all available studies and public data from the MNDNR, USFWS, and other stakeholders.
• Indirect impacts to native plant communities including the introduction or spread of invasive
species will be addressed in the Draft EIS.
• The Draft EIS will assess the habitat on and around Grey Cloud Island for suitability of state listed
birds, Blanding's turtle, rusty patched bumble bee, Northern long-eared bat, Leonard's skipper,
sandy stream tiger beetles, and/or other species. The Draft EIS will describe potential impacts
and as needed measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate direct or indirect impacts to state or
federal listed species.
3.6 Air
• Quantification and discussion on the proposed Project's Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions will be
provided.
• Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions will be calculated and presented as will the methods used to
quantify the emissions.
• Mitigation will be considered, and reductions quantified, to reduce the Project's GHG emissions.
• Quantification of the proposed Project's predicted annual and net lifetime GHG emissions (total
tons/# of years) and how total GHG emissions from the Project will be compared against annual
GHG emissions emitted globally, nationally, and within Minnesota will be provided at appropriate
scales.
• Additional analysis will be completed for the barge traffic on the river and a comparison of river
versus road transport of products and the impact on GHG emissions.
• The Draft EIS will identify the quantity, type, source, composition of emissions, and pollution
prevention techniques and controls on mining operations.
3.7 Cumulative Potential Effects
• The Draft EIS will identify and evaluate other projects in the environmentally relevant area that
may be reasonably expected to contribute to a cumulative impact related to the topics identified
in Table 3.1.
• Past operations will be included in the Draft EIS and a cumulative potential effect determined for
the relevant topics identified in Table 3.1.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
8
3.8 Other Potential Environmental Effects
• Climate adaptation and resilience of the proposed Project will be described in relation to the
climate trends in the general location of the Project and how climate change is anticipated to
affect that location during the life of the Project.
• For topics in Table 3.1 that could be significantly impacted by changing climate trends, a
description will be included on how the Project's proposed activities and design would interact
with these trends, and proposed adaptations to address the Project effects identified.
4 Identification of Phased or Connected Actions
A phased action means "two or more projects to be undertaken by the same proposer" that "will have
environmental effects in the same geographic area and are substantially certain to be undertaken
sequentially over a limited period of time." (Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, subp. 60). The existing mine
area and the proposed Project fail to meet this definition because they are not being undertaken in a
limited period of time.
Two projects are connected actions if a responsible governmental unit determines they are related in
any of the following ways (Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 subp. 9c):
A. One project would directly induce the other;
B. One project is a prerequisite for the other and the prerequisite project is not justified by itself, or,
C. Neither project is justified by itself.
The proposed Project and existing mine do not meet these criteria. The proposed Project itself exceeds
two mandatory EIS thresholds and is not necessary to label as a connected action because the potential
environmental effects of the two projects will be assessed as cumulative potential effects as stated in
Section 3.9.
5 EIS Schedule (Tentative)
The schedule in Table 5.2 and 5.3 assumes an extension to the 280-day completion deadline (MN
4410.2800, Subp. 3), as agreed upon by the Proposer and RGU. Coordination between the Proposer and
the RGU is ongoing to maximize the efficiency of the process and the EIS may be completed in a shorter
timeframe than outlined.
Table 5-1 Scoping Process
Planned Date
Event
March 2, 2022
RGU approves resolution
March 8, 2022
Draft Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document
submitted to EQB
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
9
Planned Date
Event
March 15, 2022
Draft Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document
published in EQB Monitor
March 28, 2022
RGU holds public meeting
April 20, 2022
RGU approves Record of Decision and Findings and Scoping
Decision Document
April 25, 2022
RGU decision distributed to agencies and any other
commenters
RGU issues scoping decision (within 15 workings days after
May 5, 2022
comment period ends; this 15-day period shall be extended
by the EQB chair by no more than 15 additional days upon
request of the RGU).
June 20, 2022
EIS preparation notice published in EQB Monitor, RGU
issues press release, 280-day EIS process begins
Table 5-2 Draft EIS
Planned Date
Event
Draft EIS submitted to EIS distribution list and summary if
March 2023
provided to all members of the EAW distribution list and
other commenters
March 2023
Draft EIS published in the EQB Monitor
April 2023
RGU holds informational meeting not les than 15 days after
publication in EQB Monitor
May 2023
RGU publishes responds to substantive comments on Draft
EIS and prepares Final EIS
Table 5-3 Final EIS
Planned Date
Event
Final EIS distributed to all people who received the entire
August 2023
Draft EIS, anyone who submitted substantive comments,
and any person requesting Final EIS (where feasible)
August 2023
Final EIS published in EQB Monitor
September 2023
Interested persons may submit written comments (not less
than 10 days following publication)
November 2023
RGU makes determination of adequacy of the Final EIS (at
least 10 days following publication)
RGU will notify all persons receiving copies of the Final EIS
December 2023
of its adequacy (within 5 days of adequacy decision) and
publish notice in EQB Monitor
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
10
6 Special Studies or Research
A scoping process for the proposed Project was initiated in 2007. A Scoping Decision Document was
published in April 2008, leading to the preparation of a Draft EIS. A Draft EIS was developed to the point
where a preliminary version was made available to participants of the proposed Project's Technical
Advisory Committee. Aggregate Industries made a business decision to pause the proposed Project in
Fall 2010 before the Draft EIS was published for public review and comment. Studies were initiated and
completed in the late 2000's to support the Draft EIS and some of those studies are still relevant, while
others need to be updated or redone due to the time lapse. Table 6-1 summarizes the status of
applicable studies and surveys for the Project.
Table 6-1 Special Studies or Research
Study/Survey
Background
Status
Mussel Survey
There are both federal and state
New field surveys completed in 2021 to
listed species in the Project vicinity
account for current federal and state
that could be impacted, previous
protected species.
surveys were completed and will be
referenced.
Bathymetry Survey
Survey was previously completed in
New field survey completed in 2021 of
the proposed mining area and will be
the proposed mining area to provide data
referenced to document the
reflective of current conditions and to
dynamics of how the Mississippi
better inform wetland impact and
River has changed over time. Survey
mitigation requirements.
is important to help identify the
amount of wetland impact (and
mitigation needs) vs. open water
impact.
Sediment Analysis
Field sampling was previously
New survey completed in 2021 to
Study
completed for the Project, but
account for current conditions, sampling
regulatory changes since the original
standards, and targets.
study have prompted changes to
types of pollutants that are assessed
in sediment analyses (e.g., PFAS).
Underwater Slope
Study previously completed and will
New study completed in 2021 to review
Stability Analysis
be referenced to document the
past study in regard to downstream
dynamics of how the Mississippi
island stability area, which has since been
River has changed over time.
riprapped.
Visual Impact
Study was conducted previously,
New field survey completed in 2021
Assessment
however, the National Park Service
based on current NPS visual assessment
(NPS) has a new visual assessment
methodology (not seasonally
methodology now that is not
dependent).
seasonally dependent.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
11
Study/Survey
Background
Status
Wetland Delineation
Study previously completed and will
Wetland delineation and functional
and Functional
be referenced to document the
assessment completed in 2021 to assess
Assessment
dynamics of how the Mississippi
current conditions. An agency meeting
River has changed over time.
(technical evaluation panel) will be
needed at the site to verify boundaries.
Upland Species Study
Upland species study not previously
Upland areas surveyed in 2021 to identify
completed.
habitat for state or federal listed species.
Aquatic Plant Study
Aquatic species study not previously
Plant survey completed in 2021 to
completed.
identify state or federal listed species.
Waterbird Study
Study was previously completed and
Update previous study with more current
USFWS information available that is
USFWS information.
more current than this study
information.
Fishery Population
Study previously completed by a
Update study per additional data
Assessment
subconsultant and by the DNR.
collected by DNR, USFWS, and other
stakeholders, if needed additional field
survey to be completed.
Macroinvertebrate
Survey previously completed.
Update study with additional information
Survey
collected by Metropolitan Council and
other stakeholders, if needed additional
field survey to be completed.
Water Quality Flow
Study previously completed.
The previous model will be reviewed to
Modeling Study
determine edits needed, and potentially
rerun the model to evaluate the results.
Cultural Resources
Previous study was completed for
Updating the Phase I file review and
Study
upland and underwater areas and
coordination with SHPO and THPOs to be
included a site visit with Tribal
completed.
Historic Preservation Officers
(THPOs). No resources were found,
and findings were submitted to
SHPO and USACE.
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
12
7 Government Permits and Approvals (Scoping EAW item)
Table 7-1 Permits and Approvals to be Required or Modified
Unit of Government
Type of Application
Status
United States Army Corps
• Section 10
• New permit to be obtained
of Engineers
• Section 404
• New permit to be obtained
Section 106
. Tribal coordination will be
conducted by USACE
United States Fish and
• Endangered Species Act Section 7
• To be completed
Wildlife Service
consultation (required for Section
404/Section 10 process)
Minnesota Pollution
• NPDES/SDS Construction
• Existing permit to be
Control Agency
Stormwater Permit, if needed
modified
• Air Permit
• Existing permit to be
modified, if needed
• Section 401 Water Quality
• Existing permit to be
Certification (required for Section
modified
404/10 process)
Individual Stormwater Permit
0 Existing permit to be
MN0001309
modified
Spill Prevention Control and
0 Existing plan to be modified
Countermeasures Plan
Minnesota Department of
. Work in Public Water
0 New permit to be obtained
Natural Resources
• Mississippi River Corridor Critical
• New permit to be obtained.
Area (MRCCA) — Land Alteration
Permit
• MRCCA —Vegetation Clearing
• New permit to be obtained.
Permit
State Historic
• Section 106 Concurrence (required
• New permit to be obtained
Preservation Office
for Section 404/10 process)
City of Cottage Grove
• Mining Permit
• New approval within the
existing permit
South Washington
Wetland Conservation Act
0 New permit to be obtained
Watershed District
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
13
8 Proposer: Aggregate Industries - MWR, Inc.
Contact person: Patty Bestler
Title: Regional Manager, Environmental & Land Services
Add ress: 2815 Dodd Road, Suite 101
City, State, ZIP: Eagan, MN 55121
Phone: (612) 214-8577
Email: Patty.bestler@aggregate-us.com
9 Responsible Government Unit (RGU): City of Cottage
Grove, MN
Contact Person: Emily Schmitz
Title: Senior Planner
Address: 12800 Ravine Parkway South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Phone: (651) 458-2874
Email: eschmitz@cottagegrovemn.gov
Aggregate Industries Nelson Mine Backwater Project Draft Scoping Decision Document
14