The URL can be used to link to this page

12/2012 AUAR Scoping EAW Report FMC SITE REDEVELOPMENT Fridley, MN Alternative Urban Areawide Review Scoping EAW December 2012 FMC Site Redevelopment AUAR Scoping Document TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents 1.Project Title1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2.Proposer1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 3.RGU1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 4.Reason for EAW Preparation1 ......................................................................................................................... 5.Location and Maps1 ........................................................................................................................................... 6.Description2 ........................................................................................................................................................ 7.Project Magnitude Data5 ................................................................................................................................... 8.Permits and approvals required.5 ..................................................................................................................... 9. Land Use.7 ........................................................................................................................................................... 10.Cover Types16 .................................................................................................................................................... 11.Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources16 .................................................................................... 12.Physical Impacts on Water Resources17 .......................................................................................................... 13.Water Use18 ........................................................................................................................................................ 14.Water-Related Land Use Management District19 .......................................................................................... 15.Water Surface Use20 .......................................................................................................................................... 16.Erosion and Sedimentation/Soils.20 .................................................................................................................. 17.Water Quality Surface Water Runoff21 ....................................................................................................... 18.Water quality Wastewater22 .......................................................................................................................... 19.Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions24 ......................................................................................................... 20.Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks26 ....................................................................................... 21.Traffic28 .............................................................................................................................................................. 22.Vehicle-Related Air Emissions29 ...................................................................................................................... 23.Stationary Source Air Emissions30 ................................................................................................................... 24.Odors, Noise and Dust31 .................................................................................................................................... 25.Nearby Resources31 ........................................................................................................................................... 26.Adverse Visual Impacts32 ................................................................................................................................. FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW 27.Compatibility with Plans33 ............................................................................................................................... 28.Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services34 ............................................................................................. 29.Cumulative Impacts34 ....................................................................................................................................... 30.Other Potential Environmental Impacts34 ...................................................................................................... 31.Summary of Issues35 .......................................................................................................................................... Figure # Figure Title 1 EAW/AUAR Regional Location Map 2 Proposed AUAR Study Boundary 3 USGS Map 4 Existing Conditions 5 6 7 Cover Types 8 BAE Well Locations 2010 9 NIROP Well Map 2010 10 Existing Stormsewer Lines 11 Soils ii FMC Site Redevelopment Fridley, MN EAW Scoping Document for a Proposed AUAR This EAW is a scoping document for the proposed Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) which will examine potential redevelopment scenarios for a 122 acre site in Fridley, MN. 1. Project Title FMC SITE REDEVELOPMENT 2. Proposer Honey Badger Acquisitions, LLC. Contact Person Paul Hyde Company Honey Badger Acquisitions, LLC. Address 90 South Seventh Street City, State, Zip Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone 612-904-1513 Prepared By MFRA, Inc. 3. RGU City of Fridley Contact Person Scott Hickok Address 6431 University Ave. NE City, State, Zip Fridley, MN 55432 Phone 763-572-3592 Fax 763-571-1287 E-mail hickoks@ci.fridley.mn.us 4. Reason for EAW AUAR Scoping Preparation 5. Location and Maps The index of figures can be found on the following page. County Anoka City Fridley Legal Description Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, ARMAMENT SYSTEMS DIVISION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota Note on Figures: All figures have been placed in the Appendix at their full size and resolution. When appropriate, duplicate figures have been included within the text of the document for ease-of-use and understanding (although at a smaller size and possibly lower resolution). Please refer to the figure in the appendixes for the best quality and readability. The following is a complete list of figures in this EAW which can be found in Appendix . FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW Figure # Figure Title 1 EAW/AUAR Regional Location Map 2 Proposed AUAR Study Boundary 3 USGS Map 4 Existing Conditions 5 6 Draft Development Scenario 7 Cover Types 8 BAE Well Locations 2010 9 NIROP Well Map 2010 10 Existing Stormsewer Lines 11 Soils 6. Description The description section of an AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included: a.Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. The proposed project is the redevelopment of approximately 122 acres within the City of Fridley, Figure 1 MN, just south of I-694 and east of I-94 & the Mississippi River (see ). An existing 1.8M square foot munitions factory on the site is proposed for initial repurposing and eventual tear down & replacement. The final density on the site is anticipated to include a range from 1.59M to 1.84M square feet of industrial, office and potentially retail uses. b.Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. The area to be studied by the AUAR will encompass approximately 122 acres situated just north of the nearly 14-acre FMC superfund site, and includes the 83-acre Naval Industrial Reserve Figure 2 Ordinance Plant (NIROP) superfund site along East River Road in Fridley, MN (see ). The overall study area is situated on a broad, flat, glacial drift terrace that is approximately 30 1 feet above and 2,000 feet east of the Mississippi River. The adjacent land uses include commercial and light industrial to the north, industrial to the south, recreational to the west of East River Road, and commercial/heavy industrial (including significant rail lines) to the east Figure 3 (see ). 1 NIROP Fridley Third Five-Year Review Report, October 2008, pg 3-1 2 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW The 122 acres are currently characterized by a large parking lot to the south, an existing 1.8M square foot building in the center, and a second large parking lot to the north of the Figure 4 building (see ). Between the two parking lots, there are approximately 2930 parking spaces supporting the industrial building. Redevelopment of the site is planned to begin in late 2013 with construction of up to three buildings in the location of the existing southern parking lot (an 84,000 square foot office showroom building, a 99,900 square foot office/warehouse building, and a 200,000 square foot bulk warehouse building). Redevelopment of the northern parking lot would occur next in 2014 with the construction of three additional buildings (consisting of either a 64,960 square foot office showroom, a 99,900 square foot office/warehouse building, and a 200,000 square foot bulk warehouse building; OR a 37,120 square foot retail building and two (2) 250,000 square foot 6-story office towers). The center portion of the property cannot be redeveloped until removal of the existing building occurs which will not be completed until the end of 2016 at the earliest. Once removed, this portion of the property is envisioned to house six additional buildings: a 60,200 square foot office showroom, a 118,000 square foot office showroom, a 165,000 square foot office/warehouse building, a 200,000 square foot building for light manufacturing; and either two office towers (3 and 6 stories; 125,000 & 250,000 square feet respectively) or a 99,900 square foot office/warehouse building and a 200,000 square foot bulk warehouse building. Once fully redeveloped, the site will contain between 1.59 and 1.84 million square feet of office, warehouse, light industrial and possibly retail space. The two site plans Figures 5 and 6 anticipated to be reviewed as part of the AUAR are attached as . !³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ 3¢¤ ±¨®² Summary No Build Development Option A: Development Option B: LAND USES (Existing Conditions) 1.59M sq ft M sq ft Industrial 1.8M square feet Office/Showroom 125,160 sq ft 60,200 sq ft Office/Warehouse 666,700 sq ft 301,900 sq ft Bulk Warehouse 800,000 sq ft 365,000 sq ft Light Manufacturing 200,000 sq ft Office Only 875,000 sq ft Retail 37,120 sq ft Total square feet 1.800,000 square feet 1,591,860 sq ft 1,839,220 sq ft The proposed area for redevelopment is currently covered by approximately 87% impervious surfaces; both redevelopment scenarios anticipate that total to be reduced. Reworking of the site will involve general grading as necessary to facilitate proper drainage, trench cuts for the installation of needed utilities, and grading as needed for overall stormwater management including on-site ponding. The mitigation plan established by the AUAR will identify actions necessary to ensure that soils disturbed for grading and infrastructure installation are adequately 3 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW monitored for contaminants, and will detail the procedures to be followed should unexpected issues arise. The known and unknown soil contamination and potential regulated waste located on site (due to the historic industrial use of the site) will be properly managed and mitigated during and concurrent with the development grading and excavation through regulatory approved plans that will be described in the AUAR. The AUAR will also identify the process currently in place, and that will be followed, for the long term protection of groundwater at and near the site. There currently exists a groundwater pump and treat (P&T) system which hydraulically contains TCE- contaminated groundwater on site, treats the water and then discharges to the Mississippi River. The most recent 5-year review of the P&T system concluded that the groundwater remedy had been constructed in accordance with all requirements and that: because there are no known completed pathways to receptors. However, for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, hydraulic containment must be maintained and optimal performance of the extraction system 2 must be achieved to ensure long-term protectiveness. Redevelopment of the site will be designed and constructed in conjunction with the groundwater remedy at the site and in such a manner that will not detract from its efficacy. There will be no new public roads constructed as part of the proposed redevelopment, but the AUAR will examine adjacent road capacities and intersection configurations to assess whether the existing infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate the proposed redevelopment and to identify any needed upgrades. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR The topics of proposed design, construction, and operation are significant. The AUAR will include a complete description of the potential development scenarios including the projected timing and length of all phases of construction and operation. The AUAR will describe the process, plans and reporting that will be performed in accordance with local, state and federal environmental laws and regulations for the mitigation of soil, and groundwater impacts at the site and the proper management of all regulated wastes that may be encountered or generated through the redevelopment process. The Response Action Plans that will be developed for the different phases of the work will be supported by regulatory approved Work Plans, Remedial Investigations, Soil Management Plans, Construction Quality Assurance Plans, Contingency Plans and related documents and documentation reporting. 2 NIROP Fridley Third Five-Year Review Report, October 2008, pg ES-1 4 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW c.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. Purpose is reuse of an underutilized and contaminated site d.Are future stages of this development (including development on any other property) planned or likely to happen? No e.Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? No 7. Project Magnitude Data Total project acreage .............................................................................................. 122 acres Total Building Area ........................................................................ 1.59 to 1.84 million sq ft Building Areas for specific uses No Build Development Option A: Development Option B: LAND USES (Existing Conditions) 1.59M sq ft M sq ft Industrial 1.8M square feet Office/Showroom 125,160 sq ft 60,200 sq ft Office/Warehouse 666,700 sq ft 301,900 sq ft Bulk Warehouse 800,000 sq ft 365,000 sq ft Light Manufacturing 200,000 sq ft Office Only 875,000 sq ft Retail 37,120 sq ft Total square feet 1.800,000 square feet 1,591,860 sq ft 1,839,220 sq ft Building Heights ................................. 40 feet for Industrial/Warehouse buildings; 90 feet for 6-story office towers Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR The AUAR will include information describing the magnitude of the land within the AUAR study area in addition to the magnitude of land to be altered as a result of the Project. 8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100. 5 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW #´±±¤³«¸ !²²´¬¤£ !¯¯±®µ «² Needed Unit of Government Type of Application Status FEDERAL US Environmental Soil & Groundwater Remediation plan Protection Agency approvals Land Use Control (LUC) changes US Fish & Wildlife Service Endangered Species Review STATE MN Pollution Control Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Agency National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit (NPDES) Soil and Groundwater Response Action Plan (RAP); Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program (VIC) Demolition Permit Notification 401 Certification (concurrent with Corps Section 404 review) Underground and above ground storage tank (UST/AST) removal permit (if needed) Work Plan approvals Response Action Plan approvals Soil Management Plan, Construction Quality Assurance Plan, Contingency Plan approvals Asbestos Abatement notification Voluntary Response Action Agreement approval Certificate of Completion approval DNR MN Natural Heritage Database Review Well Construction Permit State Historic Preservation Archeological/historic sites review Office MN Dept. of Transportation Design review (if applicable) MN Dept. of Health Watermain Extension Abandonment of Water Wells Asbestos Abatement Well Abandonment 6 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Environmental Services Watershed District Storm and water quality plan approval? Erosion control plan? LOCAL Anoka County Roadway Access Permit Plat Approval Utility/Drainage Permits City of Fridley AUAR Approval Preliminary/Final Plat Rezoning/Site Plan Review Land Alteration Permit (if required) Land Alteration SWPPP Permit to remove underground fuel tanks (if necessary) Permit to install temporary LP tanks for temporary heating systems Sign Permit Demolition Permit Building Permits HVAC Permits Plumbing Permits Electrical Permits Permit for fire sprinkler work Permit for fire alarm work Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR An updated list of known governmental permits and/or approvals required for the proposed project and the responsible government unit will be included in the AUAR. 9. Land Use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The site has a long history of industrial uses, but is mainly characterized by two historic users: Northern Pump Company (later the FMC Corporation) and the United States Navy. 7 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW Northern Pump Company, a privately owned business, was constructed in 1940-41 to produce industrial pumping equipment. With the onset of World War II, the plant became the first government owned/contractor operated (GOCO) facility in the United States and was given the mission to produce naval guns for the expanding war effort using U.S. War Department Funds. In 1941, the plant was in full production making 5 inch gun mounts. In June 1942, the Northern Pump Company established Northern Ordnance Incorporated as a subsidiary. Around that same time, the Navy financed additional buildings on private land for use as manufacturing facilities for Northern Ordnance Incorporated. In 1947, the U.S. acquired the 80.3 acres of land underlying the Navy owned buildings and also purchased the 36.6-acre building and the land north of the building During the 1950s, production changed to guided missile launching systems. In 1964, Northern Ordnance was acquired by the FMC Corporation (FMC), and FMC purchased 18 additional acres to the south of the building. These southernmost 18-acres eventually became the FMC Corp superfund site in 1983, while the manufacturing buildings and the North 40 eventually became the NIROP Superfund Site in 1989. On January 1, 1994, FMC's defense business entered into a limited partnership with Harsco Corporation's defense business to form United Defense, Limited Partnership (UDLP). The northern portion of the facility was government owned and operated by UDLP until 2004, and the remainder of the facility was owned and operated independently by UDLP. In 2004, the Navy sold its interest in the building to United Defense Limited Partnership (UDLP) placing the entire building into private ownership. In June 2005, BAE Systems purchased United Defense, and operated as BAE Systems Land & Armaments, L.P. (BAE). In 2005, the building was sold to the current owner, ELT Minneapolis LLC. Currently, ELT Minneapolis, LLC owns the 3 former NIROP property and leases space back to BAE. Today, the proposed development site comprises approximately 122-acres and is mostly covered with buildings or pavement. The main building at the site is very large, approximately 1,859,180 square feet (or approximately 42-acres) under one roof. The historic operations, as detailed, were heavy industrial operations for the production of the Naval weapon systems; this included a foundry, heat treating and painting operations, welding, cleaning, degreasing, cutting, grinding, chemical storage, warehousing, shipping, receiving, truck and train loading/off-loading, waste management, fuel storage, maintenance and the other support operations for both the production and the thousands of personnel working at the site. As part of site manufacturing operations over the years, chlorinated solventsalso known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs)were used as degreasers for metal parts. The primary VOC used on site was trichloroethylene (TCE). Smaller quantities of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethane (TCA) were also used. In the early 1970s, paint sludge and spent liquid solvents (VOCs) were disposed of in pits and trenches in the North 40. During the long history of industrial operations in this area, TCE was leaked, spilled or disposed of on site. 3 -year Review Report from October 2008, and Braun Intertec. 8 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW The current operations on the site (BAE ceased manufacturing in 2012 and the BAE manufacturing equipment is being selectively removed and re-located to other manufacturing facilities out of state) consists of BAE engineering activities and sub-leases to tenants including the following: Scrap Metal Processors is an industrial scrap metal processing and recycling contractor. Metals are sorted, cut, shredded, and bailed for recycling. Tube Technologies is a manufacturer of in down-hole drilling tools. Steel pipe is stored, cut and painted in the tenant space. Tube Technologies also occupies approximately 10,000- square feet of space for storage in Building 50 located on the north portion of the Site. Minnesota Cut Stone is a stone cutting business. Minnesota Cut Stone occupies two areas inside of the Site building. One of the spaces is used to cut stone and the second space is to store raw and cut materials. Wausau Steel cuts and shears steel bar stock. Steel pipe is stored and cut in the tenant space. Aramark provides food services to the Site building in a cafeteria location in the northeast portion of the Site building. Cassidy Turley is the real estate firm that serves and operates at the Site. The Cassidy Turley tenant space is used for office space. U.S. Government (Navy) has a groundwater treatment equipment area in the northwest portion of the Site building. Vacant Spaces in the building currently include former office, process, welding, heat treating, grit blasting and hydraulic testing areas. been detailed by the Navy in their five-year review reports for the NIROP Superfund Site. The most recent report completed in 2008 provides the following: DATE EVENT 1940 to 1941 Naval ordnance manufacturing facility was constructed. 1947 Navy purchased what is now the federally owned portion of NIROP. Northern Ordnance, Inc., a subsidiary of Northern Pump Company, 1942 to 1964 operated the naval ordnance manufacturing complex. FMC Corporation purchased the southern portion of the manufacturing 1964 facility property from Northern Pump Company. Limited disposal of paint sludge and chlorinated solvents in pits and Early 1970s trenches was performed at NIROP. 1980 Navy implemented a program to identify and control environmental September contamination from past use and disposal practices. 9 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW 1981 Anonymous phone call to MPCA regarding disposal practices at the March FMC-operated facility. Three production wells at the site were sampled by MPCA. TCE was March 16 to April 23 detected at 0.035 to 0.200 mg/L. Wells FMC-1 and NIROP-2 and -3 were discontinued for drinking water April 24 usage. Well FMC-1 was intermittently used for process cooling water until June 1983. TCE was detected at 0.0012 mg/L at the Minneapolis water supply intake, just down-river from NIROP. Earlier in 1981, TCE was detected at the water works intake at unquantifiable levels during four sample rounds. Storm sewer outfalls were sampled for several constituents. Quantifiable levels of volatiles were detected in the sanitary sewer underneath NIROP December 31 and at National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfall 20200, at the NIROP property line. The site was divided into the North Study area (government-owned property) and South Study Area (FMC-owned property) for additional investigations by Hickok and Associates (1981). 1982 March 31 Investigation of the North Study area began. 1983 May Navy authorized the Installation Restoration (IR) Program. Initial: Assessment Study (lAS) for the NIROP site was completed. As a result of the lAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers June (USACE) was assigned to manage remediation at NIROP Fridley. USACE installed 33 monitoring wells on and around the site over the next 3 years. 1983 -1984 Approximately 1,200 cubic yards of soil considered hazardous and 43 drums were excavated from the North 40 (a.k.a. North Study) area and November 18, 1983 to March disposed at an off-site Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)- 1984 permitted facility. Samples were analyzed from the soils at the base of each excavation. Soil samples from the bases of several trenches had total VOC concentrations greater than 1 mg/L. MPCA issued a Request for Response Action at the site to the Navy and May 22,1984 FMC Corporation. Eight rounds of groundwater sampling were completed. The last round 1983 to 1986 was conducted in November 1986 by RMT, Inc. (RMT). 1986 RMT was retained by USACE to complete the Remedial Investigation (RI)/Feasibility Study (FS) for OU1 (groundwater). FMC established an agreement with MPCA to pump contaminated June groundwater until total volatile levels in certain wells were less than 0.270 mg/L. Pumped water was discharged to the local sanitary (Pig's Eye) wastewater treatment plant. 10 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW 1987 All use of TCE at NIROP was discontinued. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA) March was put into use in place of TCE. RI Report (RMT, 1987) issued for OU1. June During excavation of an on-site utility trench, a strong odor was detected in the trench by construction workers. Soil exposed during the excavation was later monitored by MPCA using an HNu photoionization detector (PID). The trench is along the northern property line of NIROP. September An anonymous phone call to FMC directed the MPCA's attention to a potential hazardous waste site in the vicinity of the Dealers Manufacturing facility, located approximately 1,000 feet east of NIROP. Results of a soil pore gas survey were included in the Quality Control November Summary Report for the Soil Gas Survey (RMT, 1988). 1988 JulyFeasibility Study Report (RMT, July 1988) issued for OU1. 1989 The Navy established the Technical Review Committee (TRC) for the project and convened the first meeting. TRC meetings were held every 3 February 8 months until the beginning of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) in 1995. May 22 Public meeting to present the RI/FS is held in Fridley, Minnesota. July 14 NIROP proposed for listing on the NPL by the EPA. Public Repository is established at Anoka County Branch Library, 410 N. July 31 E. Mississippi St., Fridley, Minnesota. November 21 NIROP listed on NPL by EPA. 1990 Navy issues final Proposed Plan for groundwater remediation for OU1 May1 after review by MPCA and the USEPA. May9 Public meeting to present the Proposed Plan is held in Fridley, Minnesota. Public comment period for the proposed groundwater remedial action is May 1 to May 30 held. A ROD was signed for OU1 by the Navy, MPCA, and EPA. A September groundwater pump and treat alternative was the alternative selected in the ROD. Fifty-five soil borings were advanced to assess the extent of soil contamination in four areas of the facility (background area, North 40 area, Hazardous Waste Storage Area C, and the southeastern area near Well 9- S). The North 40 area included 22 soil borings to investigate potential soil contamination due to past disposal practices, the locations of former October to November Hazardous Waste Storage Area C included 28 soil borings to investigate potential soil contamination associated with the storage area, and the Southeast Area included four soil borings to attempt to delineate the source(s) of volatiles in groundwater monitoring wells in the area. Maximum concentrations of volatiles, up to 62,000 µg/kg, were detected near the decontamination pad (RMT, 1991). 11 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW 1991 March FFA issued for NIROP Fridley (EPA, 1991). An initial aerial photographic review was conducted by RMT that included photographs from 1945 to 1977. August The installation of four groundwater recovery and containment wells and additional groundwater monitoring wells was completed in late 1991 for OU1. A second review of aerial photographs, including additional photographs, was performed jointly by representatives of the Navy, EPA, MPCA, FMC, December and RMT. As a result of the review and subsequent discussions, additional areas of investigation were identified as OU2 and OU3. May Community Relations Plan issued. 1992 A RAWP (RMT, 1992) was issued for OU2. The RI for the soils OUs addressed soil contamination in the unsaturated zone (i.e. above the water January table) in areas of NIROP Fridley that are not covered by buildings or other surface structures. The scope of the soil RI was to investigate potential outdoor sources that may contribute to groundwater contamination. An Emergency Removal Operation Report (Bay West, 1992) was issued that discussed investigation of the area referred to as the North 40 area. A total of 31 drums were excavated, sampled, and over packed, and the drums, along with approximately 900 cubic yards of soil and debris, were August 20 removed from the excavation. Excavated drums were disposed via incineration at a EPA Superfund RCRA-licensed facility. Associated debris (screened material) was disposed at a sanitary landfill or a RCRA- secure landfill according to analytical results. The groundwater recovery system was completed, and monitoring for OU1 September began. A 90-Day Determination Document (RMT, 1992) was prepared that December evaluated the effectiveness of the OU1 recovery system's operation over the first few months. 1993 An RI (RMT, 1993) was issued for OU2. Results indicated that volatile, September semi-volatile, pesticide, hydrocarbon, and metals contamination was present in the soil at several locations. 1994 Results of East Plating Shop soil sampling were issued to the Navy in a letter report (Bay West, 1994). Two soil borings were completed, and September several metals and cyanide were identified at concentrations greater than background levels determined during the OU2 RI. 1995 A Work Plan (Halliburton NUS, 1995) was issued for investigation of soil and groundwater beneath the East Plating Shop. Proposed field activities March included the installation of six soil borings and three temporary monitoring wells. 12 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW April 16 First NIROP Fridley RAB meeting was held. MK added extraction wells AT-5A and AT-58 to the GTWF to improve April 1, 1995 to May 4, 1995 hydraulic containment of the Ground Water Treatment Facility (GWTF). Results of East Plating Shop soil and groundwater investigation were issued (Halliburton NUS, 1995). The report identified soil and groundwater contamination under the East Plating Shop. TCE was the May primary contaminant found. Other VOCs, including 1,1,1-TCA, acetone, styrene, and metals such as chromium, lead, and cyanide, were detected at concentrations greater than background levels determined during the OU2 RI. Thirty former Areas of Concern (AOCs), located within the NIROP facility were identified on a Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) map June (UDLP, 1995) in order to confirm that all units were being addressed in future investigations. Results of a site evaluation conducted at the NIROP facility in August 1995 were presented in the Site Evaluation Report (Brown & Root September Environmental, September 1995). Fifty-nine AOCs, the sanitary sewer system, and the storm sewer system were identified as potential areas requiring further investigation. 1996 Revisions to the Final Site Evaluation Report (Brown & Root Environmental, 1995) identified nine additional potential AOCs (AOCs 60 February to 68) that were identified but not previously reported because they were not suspected sources of TCE contamination. MK conducted a North 40 drum removal action. Twenty-three drums and April to June 12 smaller containers were removed along with 100 cubic yards of soil. 1997 The Final Field Sampling Plan for the OU3 RI/FS (Brown & Root June Environmental, 1997) was issued. June 25, 1997 to March 25, Phases I and" of the field investigation for the OU3 RI/FS were completed. 1998 February Updated and reissued Community Relations Plan. The Work Plan for the OU3 RIIFS (Brown & Root Environmental, 1997) July was issued. Phase 1 of MK contract to construct GWTF (outside portion of work) was September to January 1998 issued. 1998 March 30, 1998 to November Phase II of MK contract to construct GWTF (inside portion of work) was 14,1998 issued. August The OU3 RI Report, Revision 0 (TtNUS, 1998) was issued. September First Five-Year Review Report issued. November Community Relations Plan updated and issued. 1999 August The OU3 RI Report, final Revision 1 (TtNUS, 1999), was issued. September Community Relations Plan was updated and re-issued. 13 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW 2000 OU3 FS issued -EPA and MPCA subsequently request Focused FS February instead. March 1999 AMR issued; Revision 6 RAWP issued. April Anoka County Park (ACP) Groundwater Investigation Report issued. May Basewide Work Plan (CH2MHILL Constructors, Inc., 2000) issued. Focused FS issued -Partnering Team subsequently shelves the FS because June EPA determines proceeding directly to a Proposed Plan is appropriate for this site. Final Work Plan Addendum 1 Modification to the Extraction System and August Abandonment of Production Wells (CH2MHILL Constructors, Inc., 2000) was issued. CH2MHILL Constructors, Inc. completed installation of extraction wells December (AT-7, AT8, AT-9, and AT-10), abandoned AT-2, and abandoned production wells NO.2 and NO.3. 2001 2000 AMR issued; Minor Modification Fact Sheet for OU1 Remedy was March issued. Technical Memorandum that finalizes the 1999 AMR and ACP April Groundwater Investigation Report issued (TtNUS, 2001). Final Work Plan Field Application to Enhance In-situ Bioremediation of May Chlorinated Solvents Via Vegetable Oil Injection (Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., 2001) was issued. CH2MHILL Constructors, Inc. completed abandonment of extraction wells AT-1A and AT-4, installed packer at extraction well AT-3A, and May upgraded software/hardware for the GWTF system. Start-up period for the GWTF system with new extraction wells begins. September Vegetable Oil Pilot Study Work Plan finalized. December ACP Vegetable Oil Pilot Study -oil injected. 2002 March 2001 AMR issued. RI for OU3 and Supplemental RI Information Report (OU2) were finalized April (TtNUS, 2002). Excavation of PAH-contaminated soil in Area A4 of the North 40 was June completed per an Action Memorandum issued (TtNUS, 2002). The Proposed Plan for OU2 and OU3 was finalized. The Public Meeting August 2002 for the Proposed Plan was held on August 22. 2003 March The revised OU1 RAWP was finalized. September The HOD for OU2 and OU3 was finalized and signed. Draft Work Plan for Installation of New Wells to Confirm Groundwater September Capture was provided to support ongoing capture analysis. Draft report on capture evaluation by United States Geological Survey December (USGS, 2003). 14 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW 2004 USGS Report, Cross-borehole Radar to Monitor Field-Scale Vegetable Oil January Injection, issued. March Draft 2003 AMR issued NIROP plant sale to United Defense Limited Partnership (UDLP) 17 June completed. MPCA informal regional bedrock aquifer study was unable to confirm that August bedrock PCE contamination at the northeastern NIROP boundary was from the Kurt Manufacturing Site. 2005 March Draft 2004 AMR issued. June Sale of property to ELT Minneapolis LLC. Five additional groundwater monitoring wells (and three additional September borings) installed just beyond the line of groundwater extraction wells to help confirm capture efficiency. September Revision 1 of the 2003 RAWP was issued. 2006 March Final Vegetable Oil Pilot Test Technical Memorandum issued. The pump test at Wells 11-S and 17-S pump test is completed. The test was designed to determine which aquifer zone influences these wells, and April concluded that both are more heavily influenced by the intermediate zone pumping wells. April Draft 2005 AMR issued. August Draft 2006 RAWP update issued. November Final Vegetable Oil Application Report issued. 2007 Draft 2006 AMR issued (delayed due to federal budget continuing July resolution). Final USGS Report, Evaluation of the Contributing Area for Recovery September Wells, is issued. In summary, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) have determined that past disposal practices of hazardous on the site have resulted in releases of hazardous substances causing extensive ground water contamination. The AUAR will review these issues in questions 11, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20. Importantly, the development scenarios to be considered by the AUAR will shift use of this site away from heavy industrial to significantly less impactful uses such as offices, warehousing, retail and/or light manufacturing. 15 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR Information from the scoping EAW will again be provided in the proposed AUAR, but the major issues raised in the examination of past land use will be specifically examined and dealt with elsewhere within the AUAR (i.e. in questions focused on habitat, wells, soils, stormwater and solid wastes). The proposed land uses being studied by the AUAR are largely industrial in nature, so examining impacts on surrounding areas based on a change in land use will be unnecessary. No further evaluation of land use will be provided in the AUAR. 10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Wetlands identified by type (Circular 39) - Watercourses rivers, streams, creeks ditches - Lakes identify protected waters status and shoreland management classification - Woodlands breakdown by classes where possible - Grassland identify native and old field - Cropland - Current development - 0«¤ ²¤ ±¤¥¤± ³® &¨¦´±¤ ¥®± µ¨²´ « £¤¯¨¢³¨® ®¥ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨¦ ¢®µ¤± ³¸¯¤² ¶¨³§¨ ³§¤ ² ±¤ COVER TYPES Acreage Existing Buildings 45.0 acres Impervious Surfaces 61.3 acres* Green Space (within the proposed 15.7 acres development area) TOTAL 122 acres * Some of the listed impervious surfaces consist of aging parking lots and gravel staging areas that likely are not 100% impervious at this time due to their condition. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR Numbers from the EAW table will carry over into the AUAR. Overall, the land cover (cover types) is not anticipated to change materially with the construction of new industrial/office buildings to replace the existing building on the site. No further evaluation is required, so there will be no expanded overview of cover types in the AUAR. 11. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources a.Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. 16 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW b.Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Describe any measures that will be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Provide the license agreement number (LA-___) and/or Division of Ecological Resources contact number (ERDB 20110417) from which the data were obtained and attach the response letter from the DNR Division of Ecological Resources. Indicate if any additional survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results. The Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park which borders the Mississippi River, directly west of the site, is the only nearby area of fish and wildlife habitat. According to t five-o critical habitats of endangered species or national wildlife refuges have been identified near the site. The history of contamination on the site and its impact on groundwater quality raises obvious concerns on fish habitat in the Mississippi River. However, the cleanup levels targeted by the existing on-site groundwater treatment facility are specifically designed to protect all human exposure pathways to contaminated groundwater including the consumption of fish from contaminated waters. Development under either scenario under consideration will not impair the regulatory approved groundwater remediation system(s). Furthermore, redevelopment of the site will be designed and constructed in conjunction with the long-term solutions for groundwater at the site. Importantly, development of the site will allow expedited assessment and remedial action for soil contamination in areas currently inaccessible due to the large main building. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR As part of the AUAR study, a DNR Natural Heritage database query will be completed to identify known occurrences of rare features in the area which could be potentially impacted by the proposed development scenarios. Any identified sensitive resources will be detailed in the AUAR, and the mitigation plan will fully lay out the strategies necessary to protect such resources. 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? No water resources were identified within the proposed project study area, and the proposed project will not involve any physical or hydrologic alterations of any surface waters. One building will be relocated as part of any future development. 17 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR If further study indicates that water resources will be physically altered under any of the development scenarios being studied, the AUAR will detail such impacts and the mitigation plan will fully lay out the strategies necessary to protect such resources. As no such impacts are anticipated, it is expected that no further evaluation is required, and physical impacts on water resources will not be addressed in the AUAR. 13. Water Use Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or a change in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? __X__Yes _____No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells: public supply affected, changed to be made, and water quantities to be used: the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations and unique well numbers and DNR appropriations permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are not wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed. With respect to possible individual appropriations by future projects, a general assessment of the likely need for such should be included, and if there is potential for major appropriations or environmental issues assessment of those should be included along with discussion of mitigation for potential problems. The site will continue to be served by the City of Fridley municipal water supply system for domestic water use and fire protection. Connections will be made to the existing 20 inch st watermain in 51 Way at the north end of the property. The Site did have three (3) water supply/production wells, but these wells were properly abandoned a number of years ago due to the groundwater contamination issues. An existing water tower on the site is currently dry, and may or may not remain as part of the redevelopment depending upon its utility to provide additional pressure for fire safety based on future water flow tests. No supply wells or production wells are planned and they would not be able to be permitted due to the groundwater impacts at the site. 18 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW There are ten (10) groundwater recovery wells that are part of the groundwater remediation system operating at the Site. These wells provide hydraulic containment of groundwater to prevent or limit contaminated groundwater flow from the Site to the Anoka County Park (ACP) and the Mississippi River. The wells pump groundwater at a combined rate of approximately 600 gallons per minute (gpm) under a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) appropriations permit. Discharge of the treated water is under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the MPCA. There are a significant number of groundwater monitoring wells located at the site. These wells are not for water supply but are a component of the groundwater remedial system. Maps of wells Figures 8 and 9 for the FMC site NIROP site are attached as . Redevelopment of the site will require the proper abandonment and re-construction of some of the pumping and monitoring wells. This work will be done under the review and approval of the MPCA, MN DNR and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR All water use issues will need to be fully addressed in the AUAR including projected needs of each development scenario, where the water is coming from, impacts (if any) to aquifers, and the final status of all wells on the property. The AUAR mitigation plan will fully lay out what must occur to serve the proposed development while protecting water resources. 14. Water-Related Land Use Management District Does any part of the project involve a shoreland district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designed wild or scenic river land use district? _____Yes__X__No The subject site is not located within a Shoreland District or Scenic Riverway District, nor does it contain any areas of floodplain. If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. N/A. Such districts should be delineated on appropriate maps and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be described. If any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the AUAR area are envisioned, this should be discussed. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR No further evaluation is required. Water-related land use management districts will not be addressed in the AUAR. 19 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW 15. Water Surface Use This item need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies. No recreational water bodies are included in or adjoin the proposed study area. Accordingly, the proposed project will not change the number or type of watercraft on any waterbodies. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR No further evaluation is required. An assessment of water surface use is not relevant and will not be addressed in the AUAR. 16. Erosion and Sedimentation/Soils. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres:__122__ cubic yards:_300,000_. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. The highest elevation on the site is 837 near the existing water tower and 827 at the bottom of the existing stormwater pond. Most of the site is between elevations of 833 and 836 with the exception of some small isolated areas. Excavation of native soils, which will be stockpiled on site, will be necessary for building foundations. The most critical area for erosion protection will be the proposed stormwater ponding areas. To protect those slopes, erosion control blanket will be placed as soon as feasible after the slopes are constructed. These requirements will be placed on the project SWPPP to ensure compliance. Permanent vegetation will be established and vegetation types will be clearly labeled on the final SWPPP, grading, and erosion control plans. Permanent vegetation installation procedures will Approximately 122 acres will be re-graded with 300,000 cubic yards (estimated) to be moved. Because of the size of the overall project (over one acre of disturbed soil), a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Stormwater Construction Activity Permit would be required. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would also be prepared to address the temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control. 20 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW The development of this site will require submittal of the plans to the MPCA for additional review because of the size and proximity to the Mississippi River, which is considered impaired for fecal coliform, mercury in fish tissue and pcb in fish tissue. The development of this site will also comply with the requirements of the City of Fridley stormwater management requirements and the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization stormwater management rules. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR The AUAR will provide a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for development with emphasis on unusual or problem areas. Full descriptions of erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used before, during and after the project will be provided as part of the mitigation plan. 17. Water Quality Surface Water Runoff a.Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. The existing site being contemplated for redevelopment is significantly covered by impervious surfaces (primarily buildings, parking lots, and hard-packed gravel rail staging areas). Limited stormwater management defines the current site. Stormwater runoff is collected on site and routed to the Mississippi River through three separate stormwater lines, which are 42 inch, 48 inch and 72 inches in diameter. The 72 inch storm sewer main includes an outfall treatment device at the east bank of the Mississippi River. The proposed development scenarios to be studied by the AUAR will also include significant impervious surfaces, but such surfaces would be accompanied by water quality treatment and quantity discharge controls in accordance with current day regulations. Specifically, stormwater would be treated prior to discharge according to the MPCA requirements for Permanent Stormwater Management System in the NPDES Construction Permit and the City of Fridley requirements for stormwater treatment and rate control. It is anticipated that storm water treatment would include the construction of detention ponds to remove suspended solids prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff. Storm water ponds and outlet control structures would be designed and constructed to minimize sediment transport. The proposed stormwater ponds would be designed to have adequate capacity to provide storage and sediment control for storm water runoff during construction of the development. Permanent best management practices would also include seeding, mulching and sodding. b.Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site, include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. 21 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW The study area currently drains into three storm sewer lines which discharge into the Mississippi River to the west. These storm sewer lines are 42 inch, 48 inch and 72 inches in diameter. Figure 10 highlights the location of these three existing lines and discharge points, as well as the general area generating the stormwater which drains through these lines. The AUAR will describe how stormwater will need to be collected, detained and treated prior to being discharged through the existing storm sewer and discharge points. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR The AUAR will examine how much stormwater is currently being generated and how much will be generated under the potential development options being studied. The mitigation plan will include a complete listing of controls needed to manage and treat runoff should development occur. Should on-site ponds be used, the discussion will indicate the design standards to be followed. The AUAR will also address potential impacts to the receiving water body (presumably the Mississippi) and any necessary mitigation measures. 18. Water quality Wastewater a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. b.Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. c.If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. The site is currently served by a 15-inch sanitary sewer main at the south end of the proposed redevelopment area. This 15-inch sewer is routed to the Metropolitan Council Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant, and is capable of carrying an estimated flow in excess of 1.5 million gallons per day; a capacity significantly larger than any possible flows than could be produced via the development scenarios being studied. Wastewater discharge from the redevelopment would be domestic (commercial) wastewater. The estimated volumes for the development shown below are estimated based on the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Service Availability Charge (SAC) Procedure Manual dated January 2012. One SAC unit equals 274 gallons per day. 22 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW Development Scenario A Use Square Feet SAC Rate SAC Units Gallons/Day 125,160 sq ft Office/Showroom 1/3000 sq ft 41.7 11,436 666,700 sq ft Office (30%) / 1/2400 & 83.3 & 41,100 Warehouse (70%) 1/7000 66.7 800,000 sq ft Bulk Warehouse 1/7000 sq ft 114.3 31,318 1,591,860 TOTALS: 306 SAC Units83,844 gpd square feet Development Scenario B Use Square Feet SAC Rate SAC Units Gallons/Day Office/Showroom 60,200 sq ft 1/3000 sq ft 20 5,480 Office (30%) / 1/2400 & 37.8 & Warehouse (70%) 301,900 sq ft 1/7000 30.2 18,632 Bulk Warehouse 365,000 sq ft 1/7000 sq ft 52.1 14,275 Light Manufacturing 200,000 sq ft 1/7000 sq ft 28.6 7,836 Office Only 875,000 sq ft 1/2400 sq ft 36.6 99,990 Retail 37,120 sq ft 1/3000 sq ft 12.3 3,370 1,839,220 217.6 SAC TOTALS: square feet Units 149,493 gpd Based on SAC guidelines, daily maximum wastewater generated by the proposed development was determined to be between 83,844 gpd and 149,943 gpd. At a peaking factor of 4.0, the proposed development is expected to generate a peak wastewater flow of 600,000 gallons per day. experienced an average wet weather design flow of 251 mgd with an average daily influent of 167.91 mgd over the past 12 months. The Metropolitan facility is capable of treating the volume and composition of wastewater projected to be generated by either of the proposed redevelopment scenarios without pretreatment or other plant facility improvements. The receiving water body from the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant is the Mississippi River. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR Numbers from the EAW table will carry over to the AUAR. Downstream capacity will be verified with the Metropolitan Council along with treatment capacity at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Facility. The AUAR mitigation plan will fully lay out what must occur to serve the proposed development while protecting the downstream waterbodies. 23 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW 19. Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 20 minimum average to bedrock _____ minimum _____ average Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. The overall site is situated on a broad, flat, glacial drift terrace that is approximately 30 feet above and 2,000 feet east of the Mississippi River. The NIROP Fridley site is underlain by an unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifer that overlies a bedrock aquifer. The water table is generally 20 to 25 feet below the ground surface in the unconsolidated aquifer, which has a saturated thickness of approximately 100 feet. A discontinuous clayey glacial till layer is present at various depths below the ground surface. The underlying bedrock consists of Prairie du Chien Dolomite and Jordan Sandstone, which are referred to as the PCJ aquifer. The basal unit of the St. Peter Sandstone, that overlies the PCJ aquifer across the northern portion of the site, acts as a confining layer where it is present. Where it is absent, the unconsolidated aquifer is hydraulically connected to the PCJ aquifer. Groundwater flow in the unconsolidated aquifer is generally from the northeast to the southwest, towards and discharging to the Mississippi River. Groundwater in portions of the unconsolidated aquifer beneath this area contains Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). The VOCs typically detected are listed as follows (from greatest frequency detected to least detected): TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, trans 1,2-DCE, 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), 1,1 DCE, PCE, vinyl chloride, and 1,1,1 TCA. The concentrations vary widely across the site; however, TCE has been detected more frequently and at higher concentrations than any other VOC. TCE is therefore assumed to be the primary indicator parameter for monitoring contamination and the remedial system on this site. Results of laboratory analyses of samples collected from groundwater monitoring and extraction wells during each calendar year are presented and discussed in the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) issued for that year. This is a significant issue as the City of Minneapolis Water Treatment Plant intake, which draws water from the Mississippi River, is located less than 1 mile downstream (south) from the site. A groundwater containment and extraction system currently operating on the site has altered the groundwater flow characteristics. The containment and extraction system was necessary as, in May of 1983, an initial assessment study identified that drummed wastes were disposed of in the North 40. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed and sampled in the area to investigate potential impacts from the discovered drum disposal. From November 1983 to March 1984, approximately 1,200 cubic yards of contaminated soil and 43 drums were excavated and disposed. A remedial investigation/feasibility (RI/FS) study was conducted from June 1986 to May 1989, and the site was listed on the National Priorities List in November 1989. Following the RI/FS, a proposed plan to hydraulically contain TCE-contaminated groundwater was 24 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW implemented which ultimately resulted in the existing on-site treatment facility coming on-line in December 1998, with discharge of treated water into the Mississippi River under an approved 4 NPDES permit. The development at the site will include the further remedial investigation of soils above the water table, and new construction will include a vapor barrier system under building slabs. A vapor barrier system would include impermeable membranes and passive or active venting of accumulated vapors from beneath each building as appropriate. The project will meet MPCA requirements for clean soil cover under the paved areas and building slabs as well as clean soils in buried utility corridors. All soil investigation will be performed according to work plans reviewed and approved by the MPCA. The results of that further investigation may be that some site soils require remedial action such as treatment or off-site disposal. Any additional requirements from MPCA will be developed once the specific environmental investigation is done for each new building. Any of these remedial actions, and any actions necessary to allow for general site grading for the development, will be implemented in accordance with Response Action Plan approvals by the MPCA. Green remediation practices, as promulgated by the MPCA, will be incorporated into the Response Action Plans. In addition, all work associated with soil excavation, grading, loading, hauling, treatment, placement and compaction, and permanent cover; will also have oversight by the EPA and MPCA as may be appropriate. Response Action Plans require definition and implementation of soil management plans, construction quality assurance plans, erosion and sediment control plans, storm water management plans, dust control measures, soil sampling and analysis, stockpile soil management, contractor oversight, construction contingency plans, documentation and reporting. The result of the Response Action Plan implementation will be a reduction in the mass of contaminated soil at the site from what now exists, either through soil treatment on-site, soil treatment off-site or soil disposal off-site. There will also be a reduction in the potential for contaminated soil to be a threat to human health or the environment through the identification and remedial actions of any additional contaminated soils identified. 4 -year Review Report from October 2008, pg 3-1 25 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW b.Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. Figure 11 As shown on , the soils on the site consist of the following: UuB ------- Urban land-Udorthents (cut & fill land) complex, 0% to 6% slopes UhuB ------ Urban land-Hubbard complex, 0% to 8% slopes Ub --------- Urban land-Becker complex, 0% to 3% slopes The contaminated groundwater at the site is greater than 20 feet below ground surface and, therefore, will not be encountered during the development and operation of the site. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR The AUAR will describe the regulatory process that will be required to investigate, plan and implement corrective actions for contaminated soil and regulated waste that is currently known or unknown at the site. These corrective actions will be undertaken concurrently with the development phasing and construction. Soil management plans will ultimately be developed as part of the MPCA approved Response Action Plans that will provide detailed requirements for management of both impacted and clean soils on site during the development construction. 20. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks a. Describes types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including soils animal manure, sludge and ash, producing during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. For AUAR estimate the total quantity of municipal solid waste generated and information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be included. The Site currently generates general solid waste due to the office workers at the facility and the few tenants at the Site. The Site operations were generating some hazardous wastes until production ceased earlier this past year. Certain amounts of regulated wastes are being generated such as bulbs and ballasts. There still remain above-ground storage tanks for propane and petroleum fuels. This wastes and storage of petroleum products will slowly be reduced as the leases at the Site expire and the need for heat and fuel is reduced. When the building is demolished in 2016 or after, the need for bulk petroleum fuel storage on-site will be minimized. 26 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW The generation of regulated solid and liquid wastes by future tenants is anticipated to be at levels typical of office/warehouse/light manufacturing facilities elsewhere. Currently the Site has contaminated soils in a number of areas, from the ground surface, or just beneath building structures, down to the underlying water table. These soils are in different stages of investigation or may be unknown. The implementation of the Response Action Plans will further identify and remediate these soils. Any soils transported off-site as hazardous waste will be done so in strict accordance with RCRA and state and federal transportation and disposal rules. The Response Acton Plans will incorporate the Area of Contamination (AOC) policy, as recognized by the State of Minnesota. Existing soil to groundwater impacts will be reduced by the planned development. Modeling of the short-term potential for increased groundwater impacts by the removal of the main building, and prior to the construction of new buildings will identify measures necessary to prevent or minimize those potential impacts. The existing groundwater remedial system will remain in- place as a contingency to short term leaching impacts. Storm water pollution prevention design and construction for the development will also incorporate measures to protect groundwater at the site. This may include the lining of storm water ponds if the modeling described above shows that need. b.Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternative considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. If any tenants of the new development require storage of petroleum products or other liquid chemicals, that storage will designed and permitted in accordance with the applicable codes such as the International Building Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code and other requirements that the City of Fridley may require of similar installations. The generation of municipal solid waste and any regulated wastes at the new development will be defined by the tenants of the new buildings. The City of Fridley and the developer will require up-to date recycling in accordance with the Minnesota State Building code at the time. Waste minimization will be encouraged through design and encouraged of the tenants. 27 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW c.Indicate the number, location, size and us of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. The MPCA approved Response Acton Plans that will be described in the AUAR will provide for the management of all regulated materials and wastes that may exist at the site currently. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR No further evaluation of Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes or Storage Tanks is required and will not be further addressed in the AUAR. 21. Traffic For most AUAR reviews, a relatively detailed traffic analysis will be needed, especially if there is to be much commercial development in the AUAR area or if there are major congested roadways in the vicinity. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the response to item 22 and to the noise aspect of item 24. Per EQB documents, instead of the information called for in the EAW form, the following information will need to be provided in the AUAR: a.A description and map of the existing and proposed roadway system, including state, regional, and local roads to be affected by the development of the AUAR area. This information should include existing and proposed roadway capacities and existing and projected background (i.e. without the AUAR development) traffic volumes; b.Trip generation data trip generation rates and trip totals for each major development scenario broken down by land use zones and/or other relevant subdivisions of the area. The projected distributions onto the roadway system must be included; c.Analysis of the impacts of the traffic generated by the AUAR area on the roadway system, including: comparison of peak period total flows to capacities and analysis of Levels of Service and delay times at critical points (if any); d.A discussion of structural and non-structural improvements and traffic management measures that are proposed to mitigate problems; Note: in the above analyses the geographical scope must extend outward as far as the traffic to be generated would have a significant effect on the roadway system and traffic measurements and projections should include peak days and peak hours, or other appropriate measures related to identifying congestion problems, as well as ADTs. A study of the transportation issues that may arise out of the development scenarios being studied will be completed as part of the AUAR. The analysis will examine the two proposed development scenarios in comparison to existing conditions. Tasks that will be completed 28 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW include: Collection of traffic count data to understand existing conditions and levels of service; Completing forecasts for no-build and build traffic volumes; Performing capacity and queuing analyses; Determining necessary improvements (either on or off-site); and Preparation of a final report The proposed study parameters will be: a) Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours b) Years to be studied include existing conditions and proposed full occupancies c) Intersections to be studied include: a. East River Road & I&694 WB Ramp; b. East River Road & I&694 EB Ramp; c. East River Road & 51st Way NE; d. East River Road & Site Driveways. Figures 5 and 6 d) The two development scenarios shown in will be studied. Spack, Inc. has been in contact with both Anoka County and the City of Fridley regarding the scope of this study, and the final parameters will address concerns of both jurisdictions. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR A summary of the transportation study will be provided in the AUAR under question #22. The complete traffic study and all associated documentation will be provided within the AUAR appendix. 22. Vehicle-Related Air Emissions monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measured on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. For AUAR be followed for an AUAR. Mitigation proposed to eliminate any potential problems may be presented under item 21 and merely referenced here. Motor vehicle emissions will be associated with vehicles traveling to and from the redevelopment site and from construction equipment necessary for the proposed demolition and 29 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW construction activities. A transportation study of the development scenarios will be completed as part the AUAR. If the traffic study indicates that redevelopment scenarios will cause or worsen traffic congestion, the MPCA will be consulted regarding the appropriate level of air quality modeling that may need to be performed. The AUAR will discuss any mitigation measures necessary to eliminate any potential problems within the discussion of traffic and will reference those measures in this section. The most critical pollutant associated with vehicular traffic in Minnesota is carbon monoxide (CO) for which 1-hour and 8-hour ambient air quality standards have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the MPCA. The air quality analysis will be performed for the final build-out year of the proposed development using MPCA-provided background carbon monoxide measurements, Minnesota vehicle fleet mix, and updated fleet registration data for estimation of emissions factors. All air quality analysis will be performed using models approved by the MPCA. Carbon monoxide dispersion evaluation will be performed for up to four worst-case intersections within the study area based on results of the traffic evaluation. The air quality analysis methodology and results will be reviewed with the MPCA. Mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce CO concentrations in the vicinity of the redevelopment will be identified. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR The AUAR will discuss the vehicle related air emissions generated by the redevelopment scenarios and the mitigation measures (as may be necessary) to reduce CO concentrations. 23. Stationary Source Air Emissions Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emission such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW for a listing) and any greenhouse gases Guidelines (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro- fluorocarbons, hydrofluorcarbons, perfluorcarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review. As such, an assessment of stationary source air emissions will not be conducted as part of the AUAR. 30 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW 24. Odors, Noise and Dust For AUAR Dust, odors and construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan; however, any dust control or construction noise ordinances in effect (will address concerns). If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources a noise analysis is needed to determine if any noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic analysis of item 21. Demolition of the site buildings at the site will include the beneficial re-use of concrete. The concrete at the site will be processed for re-use on site in accordance with City and state noise and dust standards. Noise and dust generation will be minimized and will be kept within acceptable limits through mitigation procedures that will be detailed in the Response Action Plans and engineering Plans and Specifications, developed and used for contracting and implementation purposes. These measures will include barriers, work hour requirements, watering, etc. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR The AUAR will provide a review of existing laws and ordnances that pertain to noise, dust and odors, and the mitigation plan will lay out the procedures needed to ensure the processing of concrete conforms to all requirements. 25. Nearby Resources Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? _ _Yes _ X _No There are no impacts to nearby archaeological, historical and/or architectural resources anticipated as part of this project. However, efforts to verify the existence of such resources near the project study area (as well as any potential effects on these resources) will include consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. Should any such sites exist (such as the Banfill House and/or the Riedel House), an appropriate site survey of high probability areas will be provided to address the issue in more detail. The mitigation plan would then outline methodologies necessary to address such sites. Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? _ __Yes __X __No There are no prime or unique farmlands nor any agricultural preserves on or near the site. 31 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? _ X _Yes __ __No If development of the AUAR will interfere or change the use of any existing such resource, this should be described in the AUAR. The RGU may also want to discuss under this item any proposed parks, recreation area, or trails to be developed in conjunction with development of the AUAR area. Directly west of the study area on the western side of East River Road is the Anoka County Riverfront Islands of Peace Regional Park which borders the Mississippi River. The facility includes picnic areas, picnic shelters, a park building and walking/biking trails connecting to the greater Fridley trail system. The proposed development will not interfere or change the use of this park. Scenic views and vistas? ____Yes __ X __No The proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact on scenic views or vistas. If anything, redevelopment of the area under one of the proposed scenarios should dramatically improve the look and feel of the area. Other unique resources? ____Yes _X_No Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR Unless further study indicates the presence of heretofore unknown archaeological or historical resources, no further evaluation within the AUAR is proposed. 26. Adverse Visual Impacts Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare form intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? ____Yes __X_No No adverse visual impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed development, and all improvements contemplated under the development scenarios being studied should result in visual improvement for the surrounding area. The existing water tower on the site has been identified by the City of Fridley as a node i use as a location for cellular antennas, construction of a new monopole, or the placement of cellular antennas on the proposed structures is a possibility. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR No further evaluation of adverse visual impacts will occur within the AUAR. 32 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW 27. Compatibility with Plans Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, lane use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? __X__Yes ______No If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved, if no, explain. The 2030 Fridley Comprehensive Plan, approved in 2009, guides the subject property a special zoning -considered by the City to be the most appropriate zoning district for implementation of a redevelopment project. The intent of the district is to provide the City with site plan review authority to determine if the proposed project It also provides flexibility to allow a development that fits the site and the developed surroundings better than straight zoning can sometimes provide. In this case, the proposed uses will not represent a dramatic land use change and are consistent with the City a redeveloped site with greater amenities and a long- term solution to the on-site contamination issues. Having discussed the proposed redevelopment scenarios with City staff, we have concluded there will be no conflicts between the proposed The City has also indicated the development will not be subject to any significant overlay district regulations For AUAR the AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its comprehensive plan complies with the requirements set out at 4410.3610, subpart 1. The AUAR document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in the context of the comprehensive plan. If this has not been done as part of the responses to items 6, 9, 18, 21 and others, it must be addressed here: a brief synopsis should be presented here if the material has been presented in detail under other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan elements to allow for any of the development scenarios should be noted. If there are any management plans of any other local, state, or federal agencies applicable to the AUAR area, the document must discuss the compatibility of the plan with the various development scenarios studied, with emphasis on any incompatible elements. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR The AUAR will include a statement of certification from the City that the Comprehensive Plan complies with statutory approval requirements, and will describe the proposed development vis- á-vis the approved Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable planning document(s). Should the proposed development scenarios not comply with one or more of the plans being studied, the mitigation plan will detail what steps are needed to amend the applicable plan(s). At this time, it is anticipated that the proposed development will be in compliance with all planning documents, so major updates within the AUAR to the language above will be unnecessary. 33 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW 28. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? __ __Yes ___X__No If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see for details). EAW Guidelines Completion of this scoping document did not identify any need for expanded utilities, roads, infrastructure or public services. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR The expected impacts on infrastructure and public services are adequately described in this document. Based on the information provided, the anticipated effects would be negligible. No further review in terms of impacts on infrastructure and public services is warranted in the AUAR. Should the AUAR determine that additional physical infrastructure or services are necessary, such findings will be summarized here. 29. Cumulative Impacts Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize and other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts. This item will not be applicable in an AUAR as the entire AUAR document is an examination of the cumulative impacts of development in a geographical area. Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR This item is not applicable to an AUAR. 30. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. It is anticipated that the AUAR being prepared will fully address environmental impacts that could be created by the development scenarios being studied. Should additional issues arise during the Study, they will be addressed within the AUAR. 34 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW Proposed treatment of topic in the AUAR No further environmental impacts are anticipated to be identified as part of this AUAR. 31. Summary of Issues Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. Development of the 122 acres as outlined in this EAW will require study via an AUAR which will focus on the following topics: Identification of all necessary government permits and/or approvals required should the development move forward. Completion of a Natural Heritage database query to identify known occurrences of rare features in the area which could be potentially impacted by the proposed development scenarios; any identified sensitive resources will be detailed in the AUAR, and the mitigation plan will fully lay out the strategies necessary to protect such resources. All water use issues will need to be fully addressed in the AUAR including projected needs of each development scenario, where the water is coming from, impacts (if any) to aquifers, and the final status of all wells on the property. The AUAR mitigation plan will fully lay out what must occur to serve the proposed development while protecting water resources. The AUAR will provide a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for development with emphasis on unusual or problem areas. Full descriptions of erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used before, during and after the project will be provided as part of the mitigation plan. The AUAR will examine how much stormwater is currently being generated and how much will be generated under the potential development options being studied. The mitigation plan will include a complete listing of controls needed to manage and treat runoff should development occur. Should on-site ponds be used, the discussion will indicate the design standards to be followed. The AUAR will also address potential impacts to the receiving water body (presumably the Mississippi) and any necessary mitigation measures. 35 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW Overall wastewater capacity will be verified with the Metropolitan Council along with treatment capacity at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Facility. The AUAR mitigation plan will fully lay out what must occur (if anything) to serve the proposed development while protecting the downstream waterbodies. The AUAR will describe the regulatory process that will be required to investigate, plan and implement corrective actions for contaminated soil and regulated waste that is currently known or unknown at the site. These corrective actions will be undertaken concurrently with the development phasing and construction. Soil management plans will ultimately be developed as part of the MPCA approved Response Action Plans that will provide detailed requirements for management of both impacted and clean soils on site during the development construction. A study of the transportation issues will be completed as part of the AUAR. The analysis will examine the two proposed development scenarios in comparison to existing conditions by analyzing traffic count data, completing forecasts, undertaking capacity and queuing analyses, and determining necessary improvements (either on or off-site). The AUAR will discuss the vehicle related air emissions generated by the redevelopment scenarios and the mitigation measures (as may be necessary) to reduce CO concentrations. The AUAR will provide a review of existing laws and ordnances that pertain to noise, dust and odors, and the mitigation plan will lay out the procedures needed to ensure the processing of concrete conforms to all requirements. The AUAR will include a statement of certification from the City that the Comprehensive Plan complies with statutory approval requirements, and will describe the proposed development vis-á-vis the approved Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable planning document(s). Should the proposed development scenarios not comply with one or more of the plans being studied, the mitigation plan will detail what steps are needed to amend the applicable plan(s). At this time, it is anticipated that the proposed development will be in compliance with all planning documents, so major updates within the AUAR to the language above will be unnecessary. An overall mitigation plan will be prepared within the AUAR to outline what must be done to address potential impacts identified by the environmental review. 36 FMC Site Redevelopment / Scoping EAW RGU Certification I hereby certify that: The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively. Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature: _______________________________________ Date: ___________________ Title: ___________________________________________ 37 A APPENDIX Figure # Figure Title 1 EAW/AUAR Regional Location Map 2 Proposed AUAR Study Boundary 3 USGS Map 4 Existing Conditions 5 6 Draft Development Scenario 7 Cover Types 8 BAE Well Locations 2010 9 NIROP Well Map 2010 10 Existing Stormsewer Lines 11 Soils FIGURE 1 FMC Redevelopment Scoping EAW Burns Twp. Oak Grove East Bethel Columbus Twp. Ramsey Andover Ham Lake ¬ « 101 Anoka Rogers Dayton ¬ « 65 Coon Rapids Champlin Blaine ¬ « Hassan Twp. §Lino Lakes ¨¦ § ¨¦ 10 94 35W Circle Pines Lexington ¬ « 610 Osseo Spring Lake Park Brooklyn Park Corcoran Maple Grove Mounds View ¬ « 252 North Oaks Fridley § ¨¦ 94 Shoreview Arden Hills Brooklyn Center New Brighton £ ¤ Vadnais Height 169 Hilltop § ¨¦ ¬ « Crystal 51 494 Columbia Heights ¬ « 55 New Hope Medina Robbinsdale St. Anthony Plymouth Roseville ¬ « ¬ « 36 100 Medicine Lake Maplewood Lauderdale Golden Valley Falcon Heights Long Lake Minneapolis § ¨¦ ¬ « 394 12 Wayzata Orono § ¨¦ Woodland 94 St. Louis Park St. Paul Minnetonka Beach Deephaven Minnetonka Hopkins ¬ « Tonka Bay 7 Greenwood Lilydale Shorewood Edina Excelsior Legend Project Regional Location h N FIGURE 2 FMC Redevelopment Scoping EAW § ¨¦ 94 Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community h Proposed AUAR Boundary N FIGURE 3 FMC Redevelopment Scoping EAW § ¨¦ 94 USGS Map Legend h N FIGURE 4 FMC Redevelopment Scoping EAW Hardpacked Gravel Rail Staging Area Unused Watertower NIROP Superfund Site 1,859,180 sq ft 2930 Parking existing building Spaces FMC Superfund Site § ¨¦ 94 Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community Proposed AUAR Study Area h Existing Conditions N FIGURE 5 FMC Redevelopment Scoping EAW h Development Scenario "A" N FIGURE 6 FMC Redevelopment Scoping EAW h Development Scenario "B" N FIGURE 7 FMC Redevelopment Scoping EAW Total AUAR Study Area = approx 136 acres Total Development Site = approx 122 acres Existing Buildiings = approx 45.0 acres Existing Hard Surfaces = approx 61.3 acres Development Area Green Space = approx 15.7 acres Non-Development Green Space = approx 14 acres Proposed AUAR Study Area Cover Types Impervious Surfaces Building Coverage Green Space (pervious) FIGURE 10 FMC Redevelopment Scoping EAW 42" 72" 48" h N Existing Stormsewer Lines FIGURE 11 FMC Redevelopment Scoping EAW UhuB UuB Ub UuB W Soils on the site Un UhuB Fo UuB Urban land-Udorthents (cut & fill land) complex, 0-6% slopes Fo UhuB Urban land-Hubbard complex, 0-8% slopes Ub Urban land-Becker complex, 0-3% slopes Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community Soils h N