LINDQUIST & VENNUM, P.L.L.P.
Attorneys At Law
444 Cedar Street
Suite 1700
St. Paul, MN 55101

June 14, 2000

John Shardlow
Planning Consultant
City of Burnsville
100 Civic Center Parkway
Burnsville, MN 55337

Re: Comments Concerning Black Dog Amphitheater Environmental Assessment Worksheet

Dear Mr. Shardlow:

These comments addressing the Black Dog Amphitheater Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) are submitted on behalf of the Bloomington Amphitheater Coalition (BAC) by environmental consultants to BAC including Linda Lehman, Linda Ufland and Dwain Warner of T-Reg, Inc., Bob Beduhn, Dave Johnson and Larry Christensen of HDR, Inc. and Dick Nowlin of Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P. The focus of our examination of the EAW has been on the impacts of the Project on the Minnesota River Valley water resource and ecological system with particular attention to the use of the Freeway Landfill waste deposit as an integral part of the Project.

In accordance with the provisions of part 4410.1600 of the Minnesota Environmental Review Rules, our comments are intended to address:
 

 The accuracy and completeness of the material contained in the EAW;
 Potential impacts that may warrant further investigation before the Project is
        commenced and
 The need for an EIS on the proposed Project.

COMMENTS

Section 6d - Future Stages of Development

For accuracy and completeness, additional discussion is needed to address future stages of the landfill remediation and water withdrawal activity. As mentioned in the EAW, once the Kramer Quarry stops dewatering, measures must be taken to prevent flooding by groundwater and to control leachate migration into the groundwater from the Project site. What are the measures which will be undertaken in the future and what are the potential environmental impacts associated with these activities?

The amphitheater EAW needs to contain (or a separate environmental review document needs to be prepared) discussion about the waste excavation, disposal and landfill closure activities proposed at the site. These activities are integral preliminary requirements for the Project with considerable potential impact. In particular, it would be helpful to address potential
impacts and responsibilities in the event that the amphitheater is closed in the future. Even though some of the effects of the landfill closure may be beneficial, they need to be explained/discussed in this EAW or an alternative environmental review document.

Discussion in the EAW and elsewhere also references future development activity both at the site and in the neighboring area which will be stimulated by the amphitheater development. Park, trail and housing development, River revitalization and other items are discussed as associated parts of the Gateway Redevelopment Project. The EAW needs to contain discussion and analysis relating to environmental impacts associated with the entire gateway redevelopment project since these activities are clearly interrelated and will cause cumulative impacts.
 

Section 8 - Permits and Approvals Required

It would appear based on the description of the Project and current site conditions that a water appropriations permit must be secured from the Minnesota DNR and, if the illegally disposed solid waste in the flood plain is intended to be placed on the closed landfill EAW, a new or amended solid waste disposal facility permit will need to be secured or a variance for such an activity authorized by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

The current major responsibility of the U S. Department of the Interior Fish & Wildlife Service Division for the natural history and all environmental factors of the Lower Minnesota River Valley and their various uses by people is not included as a requisite approval in the EAW and needs to be.

Section 9- Land Use

This section does not provide an adequate discussion of the topic. The recitation of Burnsville's conclusion that the "environmental issues surrounding this matter will have been adequately addressed" provides little help. This section needs to discuss the compatibility of the Project with adjacent and nearby uses, as well as potential impacts involving environmental matters and/or hazards. Items such as the following need to be addressed:

 Discussion/description of the Minnesota River and its complex flood plain and
        project relationship/interaction
 Discussion of the Black Dog Area and its unique natural features and rare and
        threatened species and potential project impact;
 Compatibility with Kramer quarrying operations;
 Compatibility with on and offsite recreational uses
 Fire and explosion hazards at the site due to the methane extraction system,
        transfer station, waste deposit, etc.;
 Contaminant migration based on the surface amphitheater and landfill use as well
        as storm water runoff etc.; and
 The excavation movement of garbage out of the flood plain.

This section is inadequate in that it fails to provide an estimate of the amount of acreage devoted to the cover types before and after Project development. The discussion indicates that the majority of the site is brush/grass land but states only that this category plus the impervious category covers the 94-acre landfill area. The remaining 66 acres is described by present use, proposed use and previous use.
 

Section 11- Fish. Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources

Sub. a - The discussion in this section is inadequate. it needs to include discussion of types of habitat that exist on the site, fish and wildlife resources that exist near the site, how the nearby resources would be affected by the Project as well as actions that have been taken in project design to minimize or avoid impacts on nearby and onsite fish and wildlife resources.

Sub. b - This section needs to be completed based on the DNR Natural Heritage Database inventory. The EAW fails to identify any of the large number of endangered, threatened or special concern species that inhabit one or more areas of land and water adjacent to the site.

This section is incomplete. Though it discusses wetland modification and mitigation, it does not address a number of potential long-term or cumulative impacts involving hydrologic alteration including:

 
 Gradient changes
 Season and periodic water level fluctuations in the River that can cause local
        hydrologic gradient changes;
 Kramer Quarry dewatermg termination;
 NURP Pond elevations and potential for flooding and releases;
 Interceptor trench flooding and effectiveness
 Pumping for water supply or dewatering;

In addition, the following items need to be addressed:
 

 Proposed flood plain modifications and their impact on river hydraulics, erosion and sediment deposition. How do the proposed flood plain modifications and subsequent changes impact wildlife ecology within the refuge and adjacent landowners?

 The base of the quarry contains existing open water sites that were evaluated to determine whether they are wetlands. While the project proposer asserts that the open water sites do not meet the wetland requirements, there was no mention whether the open water areas that are the result of surface runoff or a reflection of the local water table. This determination should be made.

 The open water areas in the quarry are proposed to remain as sedimentation basins for the covered and uncovered complex.. Water will be subsequently pumped to adjacent receiving waters. The storm water runoff within the complex will contain numerous process products such as food, trash, beverage liquids, cleaners and other wastes deposited by concert goers or maintenance staff. This is not typical urban runoff. Discussion regarding this type of solid waste and possible impacts on storm water runoff and the River is needed.

 If the open water areas in the quarry are connected to the local table, then won't these basins be classified as Class V injection wells if used for storm water treatment areas?

 In regards to the flood plain analysis, has the impact of moving the levees been evaluated for changes in groundwater gradients? During flood stage, significantly more surface area for groundwater recharge may require more pumping than current pump capacities.

 At what river stage will it become unsafe to maintain large crowds of people significantly below the nearby water level? Discussion regarding the frequency of occurrence of river flooding or levee failure and impact and response to these events is necessary.

 There appears to be a conflict with this proposed Project and the April 2000 Recommended Gateway Area Framework Plan. The Gateway Plan calls for the future creation of Lake Amenity, which according to the EAW, would reach an elevation of approximately 688 The floor of the amphitheater will be at elevation 672 and the stage at 677. This is 16 and 11 feet below the normal level of both the river and the proposed lake. Have the long-term costs and sustainability of the extensive dewatering system that will be required been considered in the overall project planning? Further, how does the end use plan for the lake in the Gateway area impact/interact with possible installation of municipal wells upgradient from the Kramer Quarry?

The "No" response given to this question is inaccurate. An enormous amount of dewatering will be required incident to the development of this Project. Some will be on site and some off site in the Kramer Quarry. This situation needs to be discussed. A DNR water appropriation permit will undoubtedly be required. Also, an impact on the Burnsville water supply may be involved and should be discussed.
 

Section 15 - Water Surface Use

The Minnesota River adjacent to the Project is heavily used For barge traffic It is very likely that people will travel by boat on the River to come to listen to concerts. The effect of the increased leisure craft use of this section of the River on commercial navigation should be examined and discussed as well as any use conflicts or impacts which may result from the proposed Project. A discussion of surface water traffic and regulatory enforcement and other factors should be included.
 

Section 17- Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff

The Project proposes to serve as a catalyst for significant land use changes in the Gateway Redevelopment Area adjacent to the River. This segment of the Minnesota River is water quality limited and subject to waste load aflocations. What are the expected waste load contributions attributable to the Project by type and quantity. A discussion and analysis with regard to phosphorus and BOD loading to the River, both from the Project and related Gateway Development activity needs to be discussed in terms of impact on the River. In addition, the EAW needs to discuss future landfill remediation activities such as River ward trenching, and the impact of remediation on receiving waters. Discussion about NURP Pond flooding and the consequences of frequent flooding of the NURP Pond is necessary and needs to be analyzed.
 

Section 18 Water Quality: Wastewater

This section is inadequate in that it does not account for future pollution prevention efforts including the methane extraction system or groundwater treatment via open trenching. These items need to be discussed and analyzed from a general perspective because of their importance to the Project and its impact on the environment.
 

Section 19- Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions

The EAW does not adequately describe the threat to groundwater pollution caused by the fractured shallow limestone bedrock located 3 - 21' below the bottom of the waste deposit nor how this bedrock complicates the analysis and remediation of groundwater impacts attributable to the landfill. An EAW relating to the landfill closure could also address these issues.

Section 24 - Odor, Noise and Dust

The discussion in this section is apparently preliminary and as such, inadequate. It does not discuss the nature and/or impact of overall noise increases attributable to the Gateway Redevelopment Area nor does it discuss the impact of project noise on wildlife in the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge.
 

Section 25- Nearby Resources: Archeological Resources and Scenic Views and Vistas

The EAW's "No" answers concerning the presence of archeological, historical or architectural resources and scenic views and vistas "on or in proximity to the site" are clearly incorrect and suggest a callous disregard for the location of the Project site within an extremely important natural, historical and scenic area.

Section 26- Visual Impacts

Considerable literature establishes that intense night lights such as will be present in connection with amphitheater productions have significant impacts on people and animals. This issue needs to be discussed and assessed.

Section 29- Cumulative Impacts

The discussion in this section of the EAW is totally inadequate. A discussion of related or anticipated future projects and their cumulative potential environmental affects is absolutely essential to the analysis of this Project. This is not done either in Section 29 or elsewhere in the document. In particular the EAW needs to address the considerable cumulative noise impacts attributable to activities within the area including those resulting from the use beginning in 2002 of the new north/south airport runway.

Section 30- Other Potential Environmental Impacts

The EAW does not provide a sequence or schedule for the performance of the various activities-construction elements and others necessary for this Project. Information relating to this sequence is essential for assessing impacts of the various components and to enable a determination to adequacy and completeness of this EAW. If not placed elsewhere, it should be included in this section.

Based on the discussed EAW inadequacies and the numerous obvious substantial impacts which the development of the Project on this site would have on the environmental and ecological resources within the Minnesota River Valley, it is our position that an Environmental Impact Statement with a thorough alternatives analysis needs to be prepared for this Project.

Thanks very much for your consideration of these comments.

Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P.         HDR Engineering, INC.             TRIG

Dick Nowlin                                     Larry Christensen                     Linda Lehman