Loading...
11-27-00 Joint PC-EC Minutes Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley Environmental Commission Planning Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission November 27, 2000 The joint meeting of the Golden Valley Environmental Commission, Planning Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota on Monday, November 27,2000. Environmental Commission Present: Richard Baker, Nancy Burke, Alicia Brown, David Fellman, Sue Hess, Alan Kuentz - Absent: Dawn Hill Planning Commission Present: Les Eck, Rick Groger, Kevin McAleese, Paula Pentel, Robert Shaffer Absent: Jay Hoffman, Peggy Rasmussen Open Space and Recreation Commission Present: Chuck Cahill, Linda Loomis, Jerry Sandler, Jim Sicora, Jim Vaughan, Tom Zins Absent: Liz Elder, Jim Johnson, Roger McConico - City Representatives: Mayor Mary E. Anderson; Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works; Jeff Oliver, City Engineer; AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator; Deb Somers, Administrative Secretary Guests: Larry Sawyer, General Mills Dick Nowlin, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP Ron Peterson, Peterson Environmental Consulting Inc. Jim DeLambert, Liesch Associates, Inc. Ray Wuolo, Barr Engineering Company Cynthia Drake, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. I. Call to Order Mayor Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Mayor announced that there would be a time for commission members to ask questions after the presentation. The presenters included Larry Sawyer, Dick Nowlin, Ron Peterson and Jim DeLambert. G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc The purpose of the meeting is so the Commissions have an opportunity to hear from the people who prepared the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and to respond to questions from the Commissions. Then each Commission may deliberate and decide if it wants to make a statement or recommendation to the Council as a Commission or individually. Pentel asked if the member's comments tonight were going to be recorded as comments for the EAW. The Mayor informed all attendees that tonight is an informational meeting only and that written comments should be submitted to the Public Works Director during the comment period of December 11, 2000 to January 10, 2001. II. Presentation by General Mills of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Proposed Bassett Creek Nature Preserve Mayor Anderson introduced Larry Sawyer of General Mills. Sawyer gave a brief ... background of how the proposal evolved. He stated that approximately two years ago, "'W' General Mills' management asked him if there was an alternative to abandoning their once through cooling system in the year 2002 as required by law. Currently General Mills has 7 wells, 4 at the headquarters complex and 3 at the James Ford Bell facility. This question lead Sawyer to extensive research into the laws and Minnesota Statutes. The Statutes provided that if General Mills created a nature preserve, they could continue to use their once through cooling system. With this information, General Mills sat down with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to discuss a nature preserve. The discussion included mediation, which resulted in the parties going to court. The judge's decision was in favor of General Mills. The DNR did not appeal this decision. General Mills believes the proposed Bassett Creek Nature Preserve will benefit the community. Sawyer introduced Dick Nowlin, an attorney with Lindquist & Vennum, representing _ General Mills. Nowlin discussed the EAW and the project approval process, a structure for the proposed non-profit organization that would manage the Bassett Creek Nature Preserve and some of the legal background regarding the Statutes. The Non-Profit Structure Nowlin explained that if this project is approved, the land would be conveyed to a non- profit, tax-exempt organization. The Statutes require that both General Mills and the City of Golden Valley be members of this organization. The organization will take the concept plan described in the EAW to a final plan document. The number of square feet to be included in this proposal is an estimate based on the concept plan. After it is organized, the non-profit entity will receive the land and control how the development occurs. It will try to receive funds over and above the commitment by General Mills. It is estimated that this funding will take up to two years to obtain. G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 2 EAW Process Nowlin continued by explaining that the EAW process is an information development process. The purpose of the EAW is to provide good, solid, accurate information about the project; to publish notice of the EAW's availability; to have a 30-day comment period immediately following publication in the State Register. The comment period is to begin no earlier than December 11, 2000. Written comments will be accepted by the City. The City, as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) will take these comments and prepare responses for Council consideration. The Council then determines whether or not the project causes enough significant impact on the environment to warrant further study. If not, the Council adopts a Negative Declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the Council feels there is significant environmental impact, it can authorize preparation of an EIS. The City Council has scheduled a meeting on January 16, 2001 to make this decision. tit Next is the review process, which consists of plan submission and agency review to obtain the necessary governmental approvals. This involves permitting from the Corp of Engineers, City approval of concept plan refinements, rezoning, authorizing a nature preserve use at the location and review by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC). Additional steps that are required include land/easement conveyance, project funding and project implementation. It may be a minimum of two years before the construction can begin. Legal Background/Statutes e Nowlin explained that an exception has been created by the legislature for termination of the once through cooling permit authorization. The court had to decide whether or not General Mills met the requirements for a variance or exception, or whether a permit from the DNR was required for the water appropriation and modification. The court and legislature have said that the idea of creating a nature preserve is a higher priority use than just a once through cooling system. A judgment was handed down in favor of General Mills. The court determination is not an authorization for General Mills to build the nature preserve. This can only happen if General Mills and the City of Golden Valley ultimately agree to meet the statutory provisions for this qualified exception. The statutory provisions state that General Mills must create a nature preserve and spend two times the amount of converting the once through system on the development of the nature preserve. It must designate a non-profit corporation to manage the preserve and allow public use. The lawsuit does not mean this nature preserve is approved. Nowlin continued to say that General Mills would not need to apply for a water appropriation permit or a permit amendment. General Mills does have a water G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes 112700.doc 3 appropriation permit that was issued in 1992, which allows the use of up to 600 million gallons per year, withdrawn from the Jordan Aquifer for its campus. Part of that can be used for the once through cooling system and part is used for domestic purposes. There is no requirement for General Mills, under the statutes, to get an amendment to that permit. The DNR has the authority to suspend and/or stop General Mills' use of the ground water in an emergency. If the DNR believes that emergency conditions exist which warrant a discontinuation of pumping, it can require General Mills to turn off its cooling system. The existing permit is not an automatic or permanent grant to General Mills for use of this water. If the nature preserve is constructed, the DNR, under constitutional law, could go to the legislature and pass an amortization statute, which either has a gradual termination of this use or provides compensation to General Mills for switching over to another use. Ron Peterson of Peterson Environmental Consulting Inc. spoke regarding the concept ~ plan. The Plan provides for: .. . Restoration of the Bassett Creek channel to its historic meanders. . Establishment of sedge meadow wetland and native plants. . Screening parts of the area with trees. . Increase flood storage area where possible. . Outside of the preserve, an active recreation space. . No special wildlife concerns. The Natural Heritage and Non-Game Research program at the DNR has indicated that Blandings' turtles have been reported in the area in the past. However, Mr. Peterson indicated that he did not believe that the site was suitable habitat for such species. Jim DeLambert, Hydrogeologist for Liesch Associates Inc. provided information regarding the Prairie du Chien/Jordan Aquifer, the source of water used for the once through cooling system. The aquifer is: e . An artisan aquifer system. . 465 feet deep. . The largest source of groundwater in the metro area. . Providing 124 billion gallons of water per year in the 5 county metropolitan area under existing authorizations. . Actual usage over the past ten years varies between 56-80 billion gallons per year by various municipalities. . 61 billion gallons are used for non-municipal uses. General Mills intends to use approximately 0.35 billion gallons per year for its once through cooling system. The DNR does monitor water levels in the Jordan and other aquifers. DeLambert reviewed the DNR aquifer monitoring charts located in the EAW. As western suburbs G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 4 expand, most are relying on ground water and most will be using the Prairie du Chien/Jordan Aquifer for their municipal water supplies. Based on the depth of the aquifer, the depth of the wells and the casing depth, there is basically about 200 feet of board free, or water standing in the wells to work with. A one-foot change is approximately one-half of a percent of what is available to a well. This is not enough demand to raise concerns over effects on other ground water usage. In short, based on the history of pumping and what is being proposed, which is more or less a continuation of the status quo, Mr. DeLambert indicated that he does not anticipate any problems at other points of groundwater use or regional impacts on the aquifer due to this proposal. III. Questions e Pentel asked if the land is a part of the cost for General Mills to change from a once through cooling system to a different system? How much money are we talking about? What are the financial implications for the City compared to the long-term maintenance? Nowlin responded that the statutes require that the expenditure for the development of the nature preserve be two times the cost of converting the well field and cooling system to a more efficient alternative use. The judge said that the number to be used is the 1.5 million estimate of conversion costs in 1992. The total expenditure has to exceed 3.5 million dollars. The judge also stated that the value of the land being contributed by General Mills would be considered in reaching that determination. - Sawyer indicated that the land is currently zoned as Commercial/Industrial in downtown Golden Valley, which is worth approximately $5.6 million. Of that General Mills has pledged $1,000,000 upfront to start the project. In addition, over the next ten years, General Mills has pledged $500,000 to develop the property, so it is not a burden on Golden Valley. Mayor Anderson stated that the City discussions regarding funding have been primarily at the staff level. The Council is aware of what staff is planning and what the City might contribute if this plan should go forward. Otherwise there has been no definitive discussion about this at all. Pentel asked how much the plan shown tonight would cost? Mayor Anderson stated the Commissions might be able to get a more definitive answer from the staff that has been working on it. Baker asked if there has been an attempt to put a value on the land at its open space value rather than its commercial value. G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 5 Nowlin stated that the appraisal values the wetland, which is a large portion of the land, at a much reduced rate. It does not take into consideration the preserve as a use, but it does take into consideration natural conditions. Sawyer replied that the rate is $0.75 per sq. ft. for the wet area versus best land, or dry area, at $8.00 per sq. ft. Fellman asked what is the size of the property being proposed? Sawyer responded that he took his numbers off the appraisal done at the time General Mills decided to sell the property. Fellman asked if the official number he found is 1,100,000 square feet, which divides out to 23.19 acres less the creek bed. Nowlin replied that an accurate survey of the property would be provided in connection A. with the conveyance. .... Brown stated that the EAW is a preliminary document and using estimates is acceptable. Hess stated that she did not know much about once through cooling systems. Today she called an administrator of a water utility and briefly explained the proposal. The administrator asked if General Mills had a DNR permit. She said that if they have permit, she could be assured that everything was taken care of. Is it fair to conclude that because the DNR has such strict criteria, General Mills would not be able to get a permit or an amendment? Sawyer responded that the statutes state that if General Mills complies with certain requirements, the new permit time regulations do not apply. The provision of the law that terminates General Mills permit does not apply if it puts together a nature preserve fit with the City of Golden Valley. General Mills has a permit for 487.5 million gallons of water. At one time General Mills drew up to 630 million gallons of water. Through conservation efforts, that number has been brought down to where they are now. The judge agreed that General Mills does have a valid permit to draw 487.5 million gallons of water. Eck asked what General Mills motivation is for doing this if it is going cost twice as much money to do this project as it would to convert their system? Sawyer stated that General Mills is frugal. They have seven very good wells that they think someone is going to want some place down the road. If General Mills does change their system, they will cap the wells. General Mills made a conscious choice to build a nature preserve. The once through cooling system is more efficient energy use wise. G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 6 Eck clarified that disregarding the cost of the two possibilities, the ongoing operation of the system is much more economical with the once through cooling method than it is with an alternative method. Sawyer stated that the once through system is.not a lot more economical. He stated that General Mills pays a considerable amount for the water but in terms of the quality of the system it is clearly superior to an air-cooled system. Eck queried about "the quality of the system". Sawyer replied that the cooling medium for a cooling tower when it is 95 degrees is 95- degree air. The cooling medium for a once through cooling system is 50-55 degree water. The starting point on an air-cooling system is much less than on an air conditioner system. The once through is a very good cooling system. e Loomis stated that it is her understanding that there are three wells at the James Ford Bell Center and that facility has been converted. Sawyer responded yes. Loomis asked if those wells are still open and not capped? Sawyer responded yes. Loomis asked if General Mills has looked into a closed loop system as opposed to the once through system? She stated that General Mills would get the same advantage of the water flowing through the ground to cool the water to 55 degrees. - Sawyer stated that he could not answer that. Kuentz questioned Ron Peterson as to whether he has much experience converting sedge meadows? Peterson replied yes. He indicated that his firm has dealt with wetland restorationl conversion projects for all kinds of wetlands. Going both ways, from sedge meadow systems to forestry systems and vice a versa. Burke asked if the wetlands that are being proposed for mitigation are going to be restored? . Peterson replied that that is an open question at this point. He stated that a lot of the wetland on this site has been degraded by drainage and filling. Most likely some of it is not wetland anymore. It still has hydric soils and a lot of the tree species that have come in are characteristic of wetlands that have been drained or altered. G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 7 Clancy stated that, if built, the nature preserve would be under the ownership of a non- profit organization, which would likely control the wetland credits. Sawyer added that the credits will be sold and the proceeds would be directed back into the nature preserve. Burke asked if this non-profit organization would take title to the land. Nowlin stated that there would undoubtedly be a need for a Phase I Environmental Assessment to be performed, perhaps even a Phase II. He does not believe there is any substance or waste disposal activity that could result in an environmental condition creating a problem, but he does not know. An agreement may be developed between General Mills and the non-profit organization prior to getting governmental authorization. Questions such as the sale or credit would be addressed in that document. Groger asked about the City's potential use of the wells. General Mills states it has offered the use the wells as a backup to the City's water system. How often, if ever, is it anticipated that the City would actually tap into the wells and under what conditions? Would there be any substantial cost to the City in terms of connecting to the General Mills system? e Clancy replied that about three years ago the Joint Water Commission (JWC) identified the wells as a potential back up in the Comprehensive Water Supply Plan. It is important to note that currently the City has a contract with the City of Minneapolis that does not allow the JWC to accept water from any other sources. That contract has expired and the JWC are starting to re-negotiate with Minneapolis. The City would like the wells to remain as an option at this point in the discussions with Minneapolis. Sawyer added that internally, General Mills has done the engineering and in the event ~ of an emergency, it thinks it could give the City as much water that could be sent down ~ a 16" pipe. General Mills could back pump from the well on the line they have with the City. Vaughan directed his question to Mr. Peterson. It says in the EAW that the temperature of the discharged water is going to increase two degrees during the summer months. What kind of effect does that have on Bassett Creek? Peterson replied that he has tried to find some good solid temperature data on Bassett Creek. One of the aspects of the whole restoration design includes some monitoring of the existing temperature versus just an estimate, which may be lower or it may be somewhat higher. This is a warm water stream and it is not suitable for a lot of aquatic life. The temperature issue is something that needs to be explored further. Pentel stated that she looked in her book on stream restoration today. The society for ecological restoration has as its definition, the process of intentionally altering a site to G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 8 establish and define a historical ecosystem. Changing the meander of this creek will allow it to naturally re-meander, as creeks want to do. In the documents, it states that currently there are no fish to speak of in the creek, so this does not necessarily involve aquatic life. Pentel asked the presenters to please describe what ecologically will be done better, differently in what I see as a linear patch, which is a harder ecosystem, unless it is connected well, this cannot necessarily be connected well. Peterson replied that as restoration projects go, this would not be an easy one. There will be ongoing maintenance involved in this. Most of the restoration projects have had plant and community components similar to this. There are areas of reed canary grass and purple loosestrife. Once the reed canary grass is eliminated, a prescribed mixture of native plants would be planted. Then, during the maintenance phase, evasive plants are kept out. e Peterson explained that there would need to be a decision about the alignment of the stream bank. This would need to be explored in more detail with the BCWMC. Fellman asked where the number 1200 gallons per minute (GPM) came from? He stated that the correct number is 3700 GPM. He went on to state that there is no mention of flooding and the official stormwater management plan shows this as an area that floods. Fellman asked what is the relationship between the discharge of 3300 GPM at times of high water such as when Brookview Golf Course is under water and General Mills is discharging 3300 gallons? Is there an impact on the surrounding community? DeLambert replied that he cannot answer the flooding question. The model referenced by Fellman was prepared by the Hennepin Conservation District in 1997 and is not something created specifically in support of this project. e DeLambert also stated that the 1200 GPM was derived by taking the annual maximum volume and dividing it by 365 days and 1440 minutes. With 630 million gallons per year and annual appropriation it calculates to approximately 1200. That is basically a standard procedure to account for variations in pumping. Oliver responded that the EAW it discusses the impact on flood level. During peak flows of the creek, when this area is flooded, the total increase on the flood stage is approximately .04 of an inch. Oliver suggested that this makes sense given the volume that is discharging during flood conditions. Oliver continued by stating that this area does flood, and is a designated flood plain. The vast majority of the Brookview Golf Course is also flood plain, as are areas on the north side of Highway 55 to the Wisconsin Avenue control structure. The City is currently developing plans to modify the flood control structure at Wisconsin Avenue to lessen the duration of the peak flood in areas upstream of the Wisconsin Avenue control structure. G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 9 Fellman asked if the 3300 GPM that discharges at peak times has an impact in flooding? Oliver replied that it is considerably less than one inch, hundredths of an inch is his recollection. Fellman asked where would that be? Would that be a Brookview Golf Course or the Mississippi River? Oliver responded that the elevation would be measured on the flood plain in this location. Loomis stated that she assumed that the reason some of the natural meanders in the creek were removed was because the water would flow faster from upstream locations. How will restoring the meanders affect the flooding? She stated that the City is considering doing pavement management in that area. How will stormwater ponds be a dealt with? .. Peterson replied that the channelization of the creek had a lot to do with agriculture, which was the use the land was in at the time. The impacts of the meanders would be reviewed with the BCWMC to ensure that the project is consistent with the objectives of the Commission. Clancy stated that, with respect to the pavement management program, the first open house was held a month ago. Staff talked with the residents about any localized flooding problems. Staff is in the concept phase of plan development and options for flood storage will be reviewed. Hess asked what conservation efforts that General Mills has made. She recalled reference to usage of 600-700 million gallons of water for the once through cooling system and now it is about 300 million gallons per year. e Sawyer clarified the current use as 265 million gallons per year. Hess inquired about a reference to installing cooling coils. She asked if there was a possibility of installing more cooling coils and using less water? Sawyer replied that a true once through cooling system exists in the main general office. It is essentially drawing water out of the ground and running it through the radiators without running it through chillers. If General Mills pulled that system out and put a chiller in, there would be a savings of 90 million gallons a year. Hess confirmed that the new plant would have chillers built in and everything operating to full capacity. Baker asked about the circumstances under which the DNR could revoke the permit. G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 10 Nowlin stated that there are two statutory provisions that specifically authorize the DNR commissioner to terminate the amount of aquifer withdrawal. One related to the aquifer specifically. The other is more general. There are rules on that topic. Nowlin stated that he could not say how emergency is defined or know how its been used in the past. Baker inquired about the cost of creating wells like this. Wuolo replied thatin.this portion of the Jordan, a well in the metro area would probably cost between $150,000-$200,000 to develop. Baker asked Peterson about his specific experience with sedge meadow restoration. Peterson stated that the person who would be designing this has had quite a bit of involvement in sedge meadow restoration. e Fellman stated that there is a monitoring well on site near the condominium units. Fellman asked what General Mills was monitoring? Where is the 1996 study by Barr Engineering for General Mills that Sawyer referred to at an earlier meeting? Sawyer referred to it and said there is no environmental impact from pumping the water. Fellman questioned where he could obtain that report. Sawyer explained that there are seven monitoring wells on the property. They are pieziometer wells. Wuolo stated that the pieziometers are designed to monitor not water quality but the water levels. A lot of times they are put in for pumping test wells or determining the capacity of wells. e Oliver stated that these pieziometer well were installed recently in association with the North Office building in that area to help delineate the wetlands. Fellman asked about the 1996 study done by Barr Engineering. Where is that study and is it a public document? Mayor Anderson asked Sawyer to respond to Mr. Fellman, if possible. Burke stated that she felt that General Mills has other property in Golden Valley that is more amendable to being a preserve. How did General Mills decide on this property versus other property that is a nature preserve? Sawyer responded that the site selected met the criteria in the statute. General Mills' water is currently going into that area. Sandler stated that he was curious about the change of chlorine concentration of the water and how it was resolved. G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 11 Sawyer replied that the Department of Health came to General Mills and said that the chlorination levels that General Mills had were not high enough for domestic use. Therefore, General Mills raised the chlorine level to meet the Department of Health requirements. Sawyer continued by stating that after raising the chlorine levels, General Mills was informed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that the levels were too high for discharge into the creek. The levels were adjusted down to meet the MPCA permit requirements. In the file, clearly General Mills was in violation as the levels were too high. This was for a relatively short period of time. Kuentz asked if chlorine was the only chemical that is added to the water. Sawyer replied that there is a chemical added to prohibit fungus from growing inside the pipes. It Kuentz asked for the name of that chemical. Sawyer replied that he could get the name of the approved chemical that goes in at very low levels. Kuentz asked if the levels are low enough to not have an impact? Sawyer stated that it falls within the permit guidelines. Loomis inquired about the depth of the wells and whether deeper wells have been drilled. Sawyer stated that he did not believe General Mills has had to drill deeper wells. e DeLambert added that the four Prairie du Chien/Jordan wells that are part of this proposal range from 455-475 feet deep. Eck asked about the thickness of the aquifer. DeLambert responded that it is 465 feet at the bottom of the Jordan sandstone. The upper portion is constructed with about 260-275 feet of casing. The casing is actually into the limestone but there is approximately 200 feet exposed. Shaffer inquired about proposed property limits. Will the new ownership of the preserve own where the creek is meandering? In that case, would the boundaries follow the meander or would it be an easement? Sawyer stated that the Bassett Creek Nature Preserve would own that land on the left- hand side of the Exhibit C map. South of the condominium site (down the middle) is an G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 12 easement. There is a permanent easement on the south side of the creek. The meander of the creek on the north side would basically follow that wetland line. Shaffer asked if the area between the General Mills' facility and north facility would also be included? Sawyer replied in the affirmative. Sandler stated that early on in the discussions there was talk about putting a road through to create an alternative to the service road past KARE 11. Is that something being considered? Have there been any thoughts to the type of active recreational area to be built? Clancy replied that this neighborhood was scheduled for pavement management last year. When General Mills came to the City about this proposal, the pavement e management project was delayed for one year. Clancy indicated that during the first open house last year, staff heard from some residents that there were difficulties getting out of this neighborhood. Staff thought about different opportunities to access the preserve as well as accessing the neighborhood. Staff took 4-5 of those potential access points to the first open house that was held with the neighborhood. The neighborhood's feedback indicates that they seem to want things left as they are in terms of access at this point. Fellman referred to a handout given at the open house and asked if General Mills is creating any environmental harm. e Sawyer responded that they had asked the known experts whether or not they thought this groundwater cooling system would create environmental harm. Nobody came back and said this was going to have any environmental impact. The bottom line for the company was that if General Mills ever thought there was going to be any environmental harm, they would have never progressed to the point it is at. Loomis asked if there would be any problem with putting shutoff valves on the outlets. Could the water be kept in the General Mills ponds until such time that flooding downstream subsides? Sawyer stated that the ponds on the south side of their building were created at the request of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). These are flood storage ponds and General Mills' water, on a secondary basis, goes into those ponds. The pond on the backside goes by what the conditions are. General Mills has substantial flood storage provisions on its property, which are there to meet the needs of the State. Sawyer indicated that he did not think MNDOT would want the pond on the backside shut off. G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 13 Loomis asked if MNDOT created that pond with the idea that it is going to drain into Bassett Creek? Sawyer replied yes. Three ponds are linked together on the south side and go underneath the road into their culvert and into Bassett Creek. Oliver added that these are also rate control ponds designed to incorporate the General Mills' campus, as well as runoff from Highway 1-394. Baker stated that the DNR and General Mills have valued the conversion costs anywhere from $347,000 (DNR's estimate) to $1.5 million (General Mills' estimate). The judge has determined the value to be $1.5 million. Baker asked what is the comparable value of the mitigation, the value of the preserve? How is a value placed on the preserve? Nowlin stated that the way to value the preserve is by pricing other passive recreational A facilities that have been recently created in the metropolitan area, particularly in the _ center of a first ring suburb. Nowlin stated an example is the Swede Hollow project in St. Paul. This area will involve about 15 acres of very polluted land. The neighborhood community and the City and County have been trying to assemble $1.5 million to get that land from the railroad. The railroad would also make substantial contribution in value to establish that park if it were ever to happen. Baker stated that this site is bounded by two six-lane highways. As a nature preserve, it's a reach. Mayor Anderson indicated that while the proponents would try to answer as best they can, they might not convince you. Do not expect necessarily to have all the answers satisfied. Baker asked about the James Ford Bell property and how many people use it. - Sawyer stated that he had no idea. Baker stated that, as a wooded upland, it must be enormous value in terms of any way you look at it. Brown asked if that area is zoned commercial? Has anything like that been proposed by General Mills or is it being set aside to be a nature area? Sawyer responded that it is zoned Commercialllndustrial. There are ten acres up in the northwest corner, which is about the minimum size of a development. Pentel asked at what point this will remain as undeveloped because it is in a flood plain? G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 14 Sawyer explained that some of the property is not in a flood plain. Pentel referred to page 19 of the EAW, under Impact on Educational and Recreational Facilities. It states that this would provide an opportunity for the study of natural resources that is not currently available within the community. She asked for a description of just what is going to be studied here versus at the Westwood Nature Center or Eloise Baker? Nowlin stated that the comment is based on City jurisdiction to a degree. Mayor Anderson stated that this is at the concept level, not design level, but the City is working with the school district and working with park and recreation. The Mayor stated that no specifics have been discussed to her knowledge. - Pentel commented that the proposal seems as less of an ecological restoration and more as a way to fulfill the language of the law, which would then allow General Mills to keep the once through system. Loomis asked where this aquifer is recharging locally. DeLambert responded that this aquifer thins as you move to the west and shortly after where that one diagram was located, it is gone. The recharge occurs from rainfall and infiltrating basically everywhere between here and there. To some extent, going further to the east as well, but at some point there is pressure from below, forcing the water up to the river, which is the discharge zone. Loomis confirmed that there is not one general area that recharges more than any other. - DeLambert stated that locally there are some big variations in the rate of recharge, but it is not a pinpoint like the more deeply buried aquifers that are really sealed up, only recharge on their edges. The overlying formations tend to store water and it leaches down to it. Loomis asked if there is knowledge about the fill that has been placed on the site. Peterson stated that the majority of the fill in this site is most likely side cast hydric soils from when wetlands were filled when the freeways were built. It is possible that the upland area on this site is old wetland soil that has been piled on top of other wetlands to create upland. Some of that fill is just material that was excavated when the creek was channelized, was side casted. Loomis wondered if there is asphalt in there. Peterson stated that there is no information suggesting that asphalt or construction debris is buried at the site. G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 15 Loomis asked what guarantees does the City have that General Mills will allow the DNR permit to be terminated, if necessary, and not just take the DNR to court. Nowlin replied that General Mills, like any other water user or user of the Prairie du Chien, wants to be treated equitably with authorization relating to use. Loomis asked what level of proof General Mills is going to want from the DNR that there is an emergency condition existing. Nowlin stated that the DNR likely would not direct its activities or attention on emergency conditions to General Mills. DeLambert advised that there are two conditions that he is aware of that can occur and have occurred in different places around the state. One being where the aquifer goes through a conversion. For this type of aquifer that would mean that this water level _ would have to drop below the top of the aquifer. We have seen on that one graph that . water levels have to drop 20 or 30 feet at Lake Minnetonka. These levels would have to drop another couple of hundred feet in order for an emergency to happen. DeLambert continued by stating that the other situation would be if the governor would declare a water emergency. That would give the DNR a broad authority to step in and really cut down on non-essential uses of water. This situation has happened in sand plain areas, such as Becker and Big Lake, and where there is a lot of irrigation. Fellman stated that the City of Golden Valley is telling residents to shut off the water while they are brushing their teeth on cable television. How is being a partner in this use of once through cooling consistent with telling the residents that they have to shut off the water while they are brushing their teeth? Fellman asked about going ahead with General Mills' proposal but limiting the use to e the design life of the equipment and then quitting. That would be a major compromise from the City and everybody would get what is wants, instead of doing this forever. Mayor Anderson advised that the City is in the process of evaluating this proposal and she does not know whether the Council will approve or disapprove, therefore she could not answer Fellman's first question. Mayor Anderson thanked all the Commission members for being at tonight's meeting and for the very thoughtful and interesting questions they asked. She explained that if any Commission, during its deliberation process, feels it would like additional resources, they should let their staff person know so that those resources can be made available to the Commission. Mayor Anderson went on to state that there were several informational pieces requested tonight that need to be looked up or checked on. She hopes that will be G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 16 e e done soon so that all Commissions have the information in time to do their deliberations. If it is not received, please ask for it. Clancy stated that the comment period is intended to be from December 11 , 2000 through January 10, 2001. The public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 16, 2001. IV. Adiourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deb Somers Administrative Secretary Department of Public Works G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 17