Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

Transcription

1 Public comment information EAW public comment period begins: January 7, 2019 EAW public comment period ends: 4:30 p.m. on February 6, 2019 Notice published in the EQB Monitor: January 7, 2019 Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project oc Type: Public Notice Facility specific information Facility name and location: Magellan Rochester Terminal 1331 Highway 42 Southeast Olmsted County Eyota Township Township 106N, Range 12W Facility contact: Aislinn McCann One Williams Center, OTC-8 Tulsa, OK MPCA contact information MPCA EAW contact person: Steve Sommer Resource Management and Assistance ivision Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN Phone: Fax: General information The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is distributing this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a 30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The MPCA uses the EAW and any comments received to evaluate the potential for significant environmental effects from the project and decide on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The MPCA is holding a public informational meeting to provide a brief overview of the project along with environmental review comment procedures. The MPCA s public informational meeting will be on January 22, 2019, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Eyota Ambulance Building at 753 Robert Avenue SW, Eyota, Minnesota. An electronic version of the EAW is available on the MPCA Environmental Review webpage at If you would like a copy of the EAW or have any questions on the EAW, contact the appropriate person(s) listed above. escription of proposed project Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. is proposing to construct a 5-million gallon aboveground gasoline storage tank and associated piping at its existing refined petroleum products terminal facility in Eyota Township, Olmsted County, Minnesota. The following additional changes will be made to the existing facility: installation of a new well, loading bay, and vapor recovery unit, and modifications to the existing traffic routes within the facility Use your preferred relay service Available in alternative formats p-ear2-155a Page 1 of 2

2 Need for an EIS The MPCA Commissioner will make a final decision on the need for an EIS after the end of the comment period Use your preferred relay service Available in alternative formats p-ear2-155a Page 2 of 2

3 July 2013 version ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board s website at: The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be addresses collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 1. Project title: Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project 2. Proposer: Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 3. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Contact person: Aislinn McCann Contact person: Steve Sommer Title: Environmental Specialist II Title: Project Manager Address: One Williams Center, OTC-8 Address: 520 Lafayette Road North City, State, ZIP: Tulsa, OK City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN Phone: Phone: Fax: N/A Fax: Aislinn.McCann@magellanlp.com steve.sommer@state.mn.us 4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) Required: EIS Scoping X Mandatory EAW iscretionary: Citizen petition RGU discretion Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Minn. R , subp. 10, Storage Facilities, Item B: For construction of a facility on a single site designed for or capable of storing 1,000,000 gallons or more of hazardous materials, the MPCA shall be the RGU. 5. Project Location: County: Olmsted County City/Township: Eyota Township PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): SE ¼, NW ¼, Section 10, Township 106N, Range 12W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Zumbro River (HUC ) and Mississippi River- Winona (HUC ) Watersheds GPS Coordinates: Latitude , Longitude: (ecimal egrees) Tax Parcel Number: Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 1 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

4 At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW: County map showing the general location of the project; U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); and Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post-construction site plan. This EAW includes the following Figures and Appendices: Figure 1: Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Location Figure 2: Site Plan Current Conditions Figure 3: Site Plan Post Project Conditions Figure 4: Land Use and Land Cover Figure 5: Olmsted County Land Use Figure 6: Olmsted County Zoning Map Figure 7: National Resources Conservation Service Soils Map Figure 8: Water Resources Map Figure 9: Facility rainage Patterns Figure 10: Groundwater Sensitivity Map Appendix A: Well Log/Soil Borings Appendix B: Minnesota NR Preliminary Well Assessment Appendix C: Minnesota NR Natural Heritage Information System Review Appendix : Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Review 6. Project escription: a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words). Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. is proposing to construct a 5-million gallon aboveground gasoline storage tank and associated piping at its existing refined petroleum products terminal facility in Eyota Township, Olmsted County, Minnesota. The following additional changes will be made to the existing facility: installation of a new well, loading bay, and vapor recovery unit, and modifications to the existing traffic routes within the facility. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities. Current Facility Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. owns an existing refined products terminal facility (Facility) at 1331 Highway 42 Southeast, Eyota Township, Olmsted County, Minnesota (Figures 1 and 2). Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. is the Facility operator. Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. and Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. are collectively referred to as Magellan throughout this EAW. Magellan refers to the Facility as the Rochester Terminal. The Facility was originally constructed in Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 2 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

5 The major activity at the Facility is the loading and unloading of tanker trucks with refined petroleum products, ethanol, biodiesel, and fuel additives for storage and distribution. The Facility stores petroleum products, ethanol, biodiesel and fuel additives in aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) which are described in the following table: Table 6-1 Aboveground Storage Tanks Currently at Facility Identification Number Contents Capacity (gallons) 1397 Gasoline, Non-Oxygenated 1,804, Biodiesel (B100) 91, Biodiesel (B100) 182, Transmix 39, (1) Relief 42, Contact Water 25, Ethanol Blends (E90-E99) 475, Gasoline, Non-Oxygenated 845, Gasoline, Non-Oxygenated 845, iesel, Petroleum 845, Fuel Oil #2 1,265, Fuel Additive, Inactive 1, Fuel Additive (CHS) 2, Fuel Additive, Inactive 1, Fuel Additive (Growmark iesel X) 1, Fuel Additive, Inactive 3, Fuel Additive, Inactive 2, Fuel Additive (Magellan IV) 6, Fuel Additive (Magellan CFI) 4, Fuel Additive (Red ye) Fuel Additive (PA) 2, Fuel Additive (Lubricity) 2, Fuel Additive (FHR) 2,540 (1) Tank 196 is regulated by the Minnesota epartment of Transportation. All other tanks at the Facility are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Magellan currently has two loading bays at the Facility (Figure 2) to transfer products into thirdparty tanker trucks. Each loading bay includes four loading arms (two each for gasoline and diesel fuel). The Facility generates petroleum contact water from various sources such as its two truck loading bays, lab drain, and manifold piping. Petroleum contact water is pre-treated by passing it through the Facility s oil/water separator, and then temporarily storing it in an AST. The water collected in the AST is transported to a licensed facility located in Fridley, Minnesota for treatment and disposal. Industrial stormwater from the Facility s tank s secondary containment areas is inspected for the presence of visible sheen. Stormwater with visible sheen is routed through the Facility s oil/water separator prior to discharge to the ground (Figure 2). Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 3 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

6 The Facility has one existing potable water supply well identified as Unique Well I The Facility also has two monitoring wells (Unique Well Is and ). Proposed Project Magellan is proposing to expand its existing Facility by making the following changes (the Project). All changes will occur within the existing Facility s property boundary (Figure 3): Installing a single field-erected, 120,000-barrel (5,040,000 gallon shell capacity) AST to store gasoline. The AST will include a secondary containment berm. Magellan will test the new AST for integrity prior to placing it into service by filling it with water (i.e., hydrostatic testing). The hydrostatic testing will be done in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 650, Welded Tanks for Oil Storage. rilling a new well for the water needed for the hydrostatic test of the new AST and for future testing of other tanks. Upon completion of the hydrostatic testing of the new AST, Magellan will discharge the water in accordance with the Facility s existing National Pollutant ischarge Elimination System/State isposal System (NPES/SS) Permit MN The water will be discharged at the northwest corner of the Facility property (Figure 3). Constructing a third product loading bay, that includes the following components: o Two loading arms for gasoline and two loading arms for diesel fuel o A new custody transfer meter o A new card reader building o Modification and extension of the existing canopy o New buried drain lines connecting to the existing oil water separator Installing two new pumps, a motor control center (MCC) and building, and above-grade piping to transfer gasoline from the new AST to the loading bays. Relocating the existing biodiesel offloading area to the north side of the new third product loading bay. Magellan will remove and replace the existing secondary containment to accommodate the proposed third loading bay. Installing a vapor recovery unit (VRU) to replace the existing vapor combustion unit (VCU). The VRU will be used to capture vapor and control emissions from all gasoline loading operations at the Facility. The VCU will remain to serve as backup pollution control equipment to the VRU. Modifying the existing traffic routes within the Facility, including installation of additional concrete, to provide the necessary truck turning radius. Modifying the existing Facility electrical infrastructure to include a new MCC and new service drop. Installing underground piping to route stormwater collected from the new AST s secondary containment area to the existing permanent stormwater collection and infiltration basin. Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 4 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

7 etailed Construction Plan Construction of the Project will occur in four primary steps described in detail below. Step 1 (6 to 8 week duration) Step 1 will primarily consist of the following activities: Installing temporary perimeter erosion and sedimentation controls Constructing a temporary road to provide access to the new AST construction areas while maintaining existing operations (Figure 3) Initiating earthwork that includes grading the AST containment area, foundations, and berm Initiating and completing grading to route stormwater to the existing stormwater collection and infiltration basin Step 2 (12 to 14 week duration) Step 2 will consist of multiple sub-stage activities performed simultaneously. Step 2a will primarily consist of the following activities: Paving the existing truck entrance Constructing the foundation for the new AST Initiating construction of the secondary containment area and berm for the new AST Excavating and installing foundations for the aboveground pipeline supports Installing the aboveground pipeline supports Step 2b will primarily consist of the following: Installing the pre-fabricated MCC building Installing underground electrical conduits to house wiring necessary for the new pumps Paving portions of the existing roads within the Facility to slope toward the stormwater collection and infiltration basin Constructing the new concrete containment area within the Facility immediately north of the existing biodiesel containment area. Constructing the VRU foundation Step 2c will primarily consist of the following: Modifying the former biodiesel offloading containment area to house the third loading bay to extend the existing drain system Installing the pre-fabricated loading skid inside the new third loading bay containment area Connecting the underground product pipelines to the new third loading bay Installing the VRU Step 3 (6 to 8 week duration) Step 3 will primarily consist of the following: Installing aboveground pipelines and associated supports to connect the VRU and loading bay Completing construction of the secondary containment berm for the new AST Completion of paving the existing gravel roads within the Facility Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 5 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

8 Step 4 (10 to 16 week duration) Step 4 will primarily consist of the following activities: Modifying the existing AST containment berms to allow for truck access Painting the new AST and its piping Hydrostatically testing the new AST Placing the new infrastructure in-service Removing the temporary construction access road Seeding and stabilizing the exterior of the AST berm and the temporary access road Removing temporary erosion and sediment control devices upon achieving 70% cover on all seed areas epending on the weather, schedule, contractor availability, etc., some subsequent steps will be prioritized and conducted first to complete construction in a timely and orderly fashion. epending on receipt of all necessary permits and weather conditions, construction will start in May 2019 and be complete in 12 to 18 months. c. Project magnitude: Total Project Acreage 19.6 acres Linear project length n/a Number and type of residential units n/a Commercial building area (in square feet) n/a Industrial building area (in square feet) 756 Institutional building area (in square feet) n/a Other uses specify (in square feet) n/a Structure height(s) 48 ft (max) d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of the Project is to increase the Facility s overall efficiency, storage capacity, and offloading capacity. The Project is needed to meet the Facility s customer demands for additional gasoline. The Facility s existing customers are located in the city of Rochester and surrounding communities which are experiencing ongoing population growth. e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? Yes X No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? X Yes No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. The Facility was constructed in 1966 and has never gone through any past environmental review. Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 6 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

9 7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Table 7-1 Project area cover types before and after development Land Cover Type Before (acres) After (acres) Land Cover Type Before (acres) After (acres) Wetlands 0 0 Lawn/landscaping eep water/streams 0 0 Impervious surface Wooded/forest 0 0 Stormwater Pond Brush/Grassland 0 0 Other (describe) 0 0 Cropland 0 0 TOTAL Based on review of aerial photography and Minnesota Land Cover Classification System and as shown on Figure 4. 2 Based on review of aerial photography and as shown on Figure Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter Table 8-1: Project Permits Unit of Government Type of Application Status Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Capped Air Emission State Permit NPES/SS Permit MN (Modification) Submitted Pending submittal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources 2018 NPES/SS General Construction Stormwater Permit #MNR Aboveground Storage Major Facility Permit #50148 (Reissuance) Prevention and Response Plan Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan Water Appropriation - Temporary Projects General Permit (Construction ewatering and Hydrostatic Testing) Pending submittal Submitted Pending update (incorporated within SPCC Plan) Pending update Submitted Olmsted County Grading Plan Review Pending submittal Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Pending submittal Olmsted County Emergency Response Review (completed under CUP process) Eyota Township CUP Application Review Pending submittal Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 7 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

10 Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EAW Item No Land use: a. escribe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, prime or unique farmlands. The Project site is located within the Facility s 30.7 acre parcel. The Facility is adjacent to the northwest side of the city of Eyota, Minnesota (Figure 1). The Facility has been operating at this location as a petroleum product loading and storage terminal since the mid-1960s. Minnesota State Highway 42 borders the Facility to the east and U.S. Highway 14 borders the Facility to the south. The land use in all directions surrounding the Project site is primarily agricultural, apart from the nearby city of Eyota (Figure 4). The closest metropolitan area is the city of Rochester, approximately 7 miles west of the Project site. The Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources (NR) Minnesota Land Cover Classification System designates land use for the pervious areas within the Facility as hydric soils with planted or maintained grasses and impervious areas within the Facility as buildings and pavement with % impervious cover (Figure 4). However, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey ( mapped a majority of the soil at the Project site as well drained (refer to EAW Section 10.b below for more information) and prime farmland. The Farmland Protection Policy Act, which requires the assessment of farmland impacts, does not apply to this Project since all land is privately owned by Magellan and is not active cropland. The Great River Ridge State Trail 1, a paved state trail, is the nearest recreational area to the Project. The trail is 13 miles long and runs from Plainview, Minnesota to a point approximately 1.3 miles north of the Facility at Olmsted County Road 9. The NR is proposing a 2-mile trail extension from County Road 9 to the city of Eyota. The planned trail extension would follow an inactive railroad grade that is near the western property boundary of the Facility (Figure 2). West Side Park in Eyota and Olmsted County s Chester Woods Park are the closest parks to the Project. West Side Park offers athletic recreation and a playground; it is located approximately 1 mile south of the Project site. Chester Woods Park offers recreational opportunities including fishing, camping, hiking, canoeing, swimming, and cross-country skiing; it is located approximately 2.5 miles west of the Project. 1 Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources. Great River Ridge State Trail. [Online] Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 8 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

11 ii. Plans. escribe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. Olmsted County s General Land Use Plan 2 designates all lands in the county as one of three types: Urban Service Areas, Suburban evelopment Areas, or Resource Protection Areas. Land use plans do not restrict or prescribe new land uses according to the plan s designations, but serve to aid in planning and future development by identifying areas that are more suitable for certain types of uses. The Facility is located on parcels zoned for industrial use and are in an area designated as Resource Protection by the Olmsted County Land Use Plan (Figure 5). This land use is defined as: areas intended for exclusive resource related use; areas intended primarily for agriculture and other resource uses, with limited rural residential development; recreational commercial and other resource related business uses; limited land intensive commercial and industrial uses; limited urban commercial and industrial uses in locations with exceptional access and other site characteristics; and natural resource areas. 3 Chapter 6 of Olmsted County s Land Use Plan 4 calls for limited industrial development in lands with the Resource Protection designation and in sensitive areas (such as areas prone to groundwater contamination, soils with severe development limitations, and avoiding areas that may present an unacceptable risk to human health due to present and past pollution). The Project is consistent with Olmsted County s Resource Protection land use designation 4 as it is located in an area with exceptional access, avoids environmentally sensitive areas, requires minimal public infrastructure development, and is compatible with existing development. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. According to the Olmsted County Zoning Ordinance, 5 the Project property is zoned as code I, which represents the Industrial istrict (Figure 6). The Facility is not subject to special districts or overlays. No environmentally sensitive areas, such as shoreland, floodplains, scenic rivers, critical areas, or agricultural preserves are located near the Facility. 2 Olmsted County Planning Advisory Commission and the Rochester-Olmsted Planning epartment. Olmsted County General Land Use Plan. [Online] March 8, Id. 4 Id. 5 Rochester-Olmsted Planning epartment. Olmsted County Zoning Ordinance. [Online] Updated October 2, County%20Zoning%20Ordinance_2017.pdf Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 9 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

12 b. iscuss the project s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. The Project is compatible with the surrounding land uses, zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The Project is an expansion of an existing industrial facility and the Project will not change the basic nature of the operation (i.e., a refined products terminal). The Project type is not included in Olmsted County Zoning Ordinance s list of permitted uses for the Industrial istrict 5. Therefore, Magellan will obtain a CUP from Olmsted County prior to construction activities. The CUP application will be reviewed with Eyota Township. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. Magellan will acquire the necessary approval(s) from Olmsted County and Eyota Township for any discrepancies with the county s zoning ordinance. 10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms: a. Geology - escribe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. iscuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. According to the Geologic Atlas of Olmsted County 6 (Plate 3), surficial geology at the Project site consists of till, described as an unsorted, unstratified drift deposited by a glacier; a mix of sand, silt, and clay (typically loam to clay loam). epth to bedrock at the Facility is less than 50 feet, as mapped in Plate 2 of the Geologic Atlas of Olmsted County 6. Stratigraphy reports from the Minnesota Well Index indicate till, consisting primarily of clay, overlies the bedrock. The commercial water well at the Facility (Unique I ) extends 288 feet in depth and terminates in the St. Peter Sandstone Aquifer. The stratigraphy log from this well indicates bedrock lies 22 feet below the ground surface (Appendix A). The uppermost bedrock at the Facility is the Prosser Formation, a thin-bedded limestone and dolomite layer that is part of the Galena Group, or Upper Carbonate Aquifer. The Prosser Formation and underlying Cummingsville Formation, a fine-grained limestone with calcareous shale, comprise the Upper Carbonate Aquifer and total approximately 130 feet in thickness. The ecorah, Platteville, and Glenwood Formations, a group of limestones and shales, underlie the Upper Carbonate Aquifer for approximately 70 feet, followed by 100 feet of the St. Peter Sandstone. No surface karst features (sinkholes or springs) have been identified at the Project or Facility site (Figures 8 and 10). The nearest karst feature is a sinkhole located 0.96 miles southwest of the Project site (Figure 8). The Facility site has low to moderate probability of sinkholes due to the carbonate bedrock beneath the surficial till layers 6. 6 Minnesota Geological Survey. Geologic Atlas of Olmsted County, Minnesota. [Online] Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 10 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

13 Low permeability clay and silt soils are present above the bedrock layer. This surficial till layer results in a lower sensitivity to pollution transport than other locations in Olmsted County, with estimated contamination travel times in the range of several years to a decade 6. A geotechnical study conducted by Kleinfelder in October 2017 corroborated geologic data obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Olmsted County 6 and confirmed there are no surface karst features present at the Project site. The study, which consisted of seven borings, found sand and clay glacial soils underlain by limestone bedrock. epths to bedrock observed in the soil borings range from 19 to 35 feet. Refer to Figure 7 for boring locations. Groundwater was observed in only one boring (ST-B-1) at a depth of approximately 28 feet. Perched water was observed in Boring LT-B-3 at a depth of approximately 20 feet. The study concluded the proposed AST can be constructed using conventional grading and construction techniques. The AST will also include a secondary containment structure as required by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations to contain 110% of the volume of the new AST. This will mitigate the potential for any release from the AST reaching the ground or sub-surface geology. No phases of the Project, from construction to operation, will impact the existing geology underlying the Project site. As discussed in 10.b. below, surficial soils may be removed and filled for construction stability. b. Soils and topography - escribe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. escribe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. iscuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. According to the NRCS, soils present at the Facility consist of silt loams and loams that range from somewhat poorly drained to well drained (refer to Table 10-1 and Figure 7). The majority of the Facility consists of Racine silt loam, a well-drained soil with variable permeability. The remaining soils comprise approximately 30% of the site at the northern, western, and southern Project area boundaries and have varying permeability. No soils at the Facility have steep slopes or a high erodibility rating. The new AST foundation will be designed in accordance with Magellan s Tank Foundation esign Standard, dated August 4, to meet acceptable settlement limits. Clay used to construct the secondary containment berm for the new AST will be compacted to have a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-7 centimeters/second, as required by Minn. R , subp. 5.B.(4) 8. 7 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. Tank Foundation esign Standard. August 4, Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Rules, part [Online] October 2, Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 11 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

14 Project construction will consist of approximately 4.5 acres of grading and 4,700 cubic yards of excavation. The excavated soil will be reused as fill material. A total of approximately 9,000 cubic yards of gravel and clay will be used as fill to construct access to the new AST and its secondary containment berm. The fill material will meet specifications outlined in Minn. R Standard best management practices (BMPs), such as silt fences, ditches, berms, or other appropriate structures will be implemented during Project construction to limit erosion and sedimentation. Post-construction, the excavation and grading areas will be stabilized with vegetation and/or gravel. Table 10-1: NRCS Soil Classifications and Limitations Landform / Percent of rainage NRCS Soil Name Parent Project Rating Material Area Racine silt loam, 1 to 6% slopes (99B) Readlyn loam, 1 to 3% slopes (295) Maxfield silty clay loam, 0 to 2% slopes (378) Floyd silt loam, 1 to 4% slopes (479) Till plains / silty sediments over loamy till Interfluves / erosional sediments from fineloamy till over loamy till Interfluves / loess over till Till plains / silty sediments over loamy till 61.5 Well drained 7.7 Somewhat poorly drained 4.2 Poorly drained 26.6 Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the Most Limiting Layer to Transmit Water (Ksat) Moderately low to moderately high, 0.14 to 0.57 in/hr Very low to moderately low, 0.00 to 0.14 in/hr Very low to moderately low, 0.00 to 0.14 in/hr Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Wind Erodibility Group 1 1 The NRCS rates wind erodibility soil groups from 1 to 8 based on properties affecting susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas; soils in group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion while soils in group 8 are the least susceptible. 11. Water resources: a. escribe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below. i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include NR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. Within the Project Area The Facility site is split by a major watershed divide (Figures 1 and 8). The western part of the Facility is located within the Bear Creek Watershed which is a minor watershed within the Zumbro River Major Watershed (HUC ). The eastern part of the Facility is located within the Upper South Fork Whitewater River Watershed which is a minor watershed within the Mississippi River-Winona Major Watershed (HUC ). Figure 9 shows the drainage pattern for the Facility site Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 12 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

15 Magellan completed a wetland delineation of the Facility site in The delineation identified two palustrine emergent seasonally flooded (PEMC) wetlands at the Facility site (Figures 2 and 8). There is an intermittent drainage way originating near the southwest corner of the Facility s existing impervious area (Figure 2). This intermittent drainage way flows west toward and through the western delineated wetland and ultimately to Bear Creek. There are no National Wetlands Inventory delineated wetlands within the Project area. Outside the Project Area There are no county-jurisdictional drainage ditches, calcareous fens, trout streams or lakes, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding or resting lakes, or outstanding resource value waters near the Facility. The only MPCA Impaired Water within 1 mile of the Project is the Whitewater River, South Fork stream (Figure 8). Bear Creek Watershed Within this watershed, the nearest surface water to the Project site is an unnamed tributary to Bear Creek (NR PWI# M ) which is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the Facility (Figure 8). The tributary is not listed as impaired by the MPCA. Upper South Fork Whitewater River Watershed Within this watershed, the nearest surface water to the Project site is the Whitewater River, South Fork (AUI F16) which is located approximately 750 feet northeast of the Facility. The stream is listed in MPCA s 2018 Proposed Impaired Waters List as impaired for Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments, fishes bioassessments, bacteria, and turbidity. Total Maximum aily Loads have not been established for these impairments 10. ii. Groundwater aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. The Project site overlays the St. Peter, Prairie u Chien, and Jordan bedrock aquifers. The depth to groundwater at the Facility site ranges from approximately 6-28 feet below the ground surface. This groundwater depth information is based on a Project-specific geotechnical investigation completed by Magellan s consultant, Kleinfelder, in October, 2017, and the logs for the existing wells at the Facility (Appendix A). Three wells exist at the Project site (Figures 2 and 8). Two of these wells (Unique Well Is and ), were installed in 1995 as part of a limited Phase II site investigation to determine the presence of soil and groundwater contamination and hydrogeological 9 E3 Environmental L.L.C. Wetland/Waterbody elineation Report: Magellan Rochester Terminal, Olmsted County, Minnesota. September Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Impaired Waters List. [Online] April 4, Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 13 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

16 characteristics of the soils beneath the Facility. The third well (Unique Well I ), is Magellan s potable water supply well. Figure 8 shows the other known wells within 1 mile of the Project site. The city of Eyota s municipal wells and associated Minnesota epartment of Health (MH) wellhead protection area are over 1 mile southeast of the Project site. b. escribe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below. i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. iscuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. The Facility s existing NPES/SS Permit MN authorizes discharge of two wastewaters: petroleum contact water and hydrostatic test water. The Project will not result in the generation of any new types of wastewater. Petroleum Contact Water Petroleum Contact Water means discharges from petroleum loading and transfer areas such as the truck loading bays, lab drain, and manifold piping. The addition of a third loading bay as part of this Project will result in an increase in the quantity of petroleum contact water collected from approximately 12,000 gallons per year to approximately 18,000 gallons per year. The composition of the additional petroleum contact water is expected to be consistent with the existing petroleum contact water collected from the loading bays. After collection within sumps under the loading bays, loading bay petroleum contact water is pre-treated through an oil/water separator and then temporarily stored in aboveground storage tank 339 at the Facility. Magellan contracts with West Central Environmental Consultants to transport the petroleum contact water stored in tank 339 to an off-site, licensed facility located in Fridley, Minnesota for treatment and disposal. The additional petroleum contact water from the third loading bay will be managed in a similar manner. Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 14 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

17 Hydrostatic Test Water NPES/SS Permit MN authorizes the discharge of hydrostatic test water used to test structural integrity of the Facility s above ground storage tanks and onsite piping. Hydrostatic testing of the new AST and associating piping will require approximately 5 million gallons of water. After the hydrostatic test, if the hydrostatic test water is determined to comply with the effluent limits specified within the NPES/SS Permit, it may be discharged to the ground (outside of the containment areas and using controls to prevent erosion and scouring, refer to Figure 3). Hydrostatic test water associated with this Project may either be discharged in accordance with the NPES/SS Permit or managed in another legal and authorized manner (for example, disposed of off-site or pumped back to the source). Sanitary Wastewater There are two restrooms at the Facility and they are currently used by approximately 75 people per day, consisting of five Facility staff and up to 70 truck drivers. Sanitary wastewater is routed from these restrooms to an on-site septic system with drainfield (Figure 2). The quantity and composition of sanitary wastewater produced and treated at the Facility is not expected to change as a result of the Project. Portable toilets will be used during the construction process and will be serviced on a regular basis. No other wastewaters are currently produced or treated at the Facility. No additional wastewaters will be produced or treated at the Facility as the result of this Project. ii. Stormwater - escribe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). iscuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. escribe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. Construction Stormwater A Minnesota Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSW Permit) is required when a project disturbs 1 acre or more of soil. This Project will disturb greater than 1 acre of soil; therefore, a CSW Permit is required for this Project. Magellan will apply for CSW Permit MN R for this Project. The CSW Permit will require Magellan to complete a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must propose erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs to control the discharge of sediment and/or other pollutants from the site. Additionally, because the Project will result in land disturbance greater than 10,000 square feet, Magellan is required to submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Olmsted County Zoning Administrator for approval in accordance with the Olmsted County Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.20). The SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan will include Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 15 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

18 erosion prevention BMPs (e.g., temporary and permanent stabilization, stormwater diversion via ditches, sediment control BMPs (e.g., silt fence, berms), and other construction-related BMPs as required by the CSW Permit and Olmsted County Zoning Ordinance. Also as required by the CSW Permit s Items 23.1 through 23.14, additional BMPs will be implemented for areas of the Facility where construction stormwater may flow toward tributaries of South Fork Whitewater River which is impaired water for turbidity. These additional BMPs will include stabilizing exposed soils within 7 days of temporarily or permanently ceasing soil disturbance. In addition, when practicable, Magellan will leave a 50 foot undisturbed buffer around the identified wetlands during construction. If the construction requires encroachment upon the buffer, Magellan will install redundant (double) down gradient sediment control BMPs. Construction stormwater is anticipated to primarily infiltrate into the ground; however, similar to the Facility s industrial stormwater discharges, during particularly wet periods, construction stormwater from the Facility may follow natural drainage courses through surrounding farm lands and along highway and railroad ditches to either an intermittent stream tributary to Bear Creek or intermittent streams tributary to South Fork Whitewater River (Figure 9). Industrial Stormwater The Facility currently generates industrial stormwater from the water collected in its above ground storage tank s secondary containment areas as well as from other onsite impervious surfaces such as gravel roads. The Project will result in additional industrial stormwater being generated from the new AST as well as the new impervious areas created by the new loading bay. Magellan is required to inspect industrial stormwater collected in its Facility s existing tank s secondary containment basins for presence of a visible sheen prior to discharge. If a sheen is observed, the stormwater is routed through an oil/water separator prior to discharge; if no sheen is observed, stormwater is currently discharged to the ground surface. After implementation of the Project, this water would be discharged to the Facility s existing stormwater infiltration basin. If the stormwater basin were to overflow, the water would flow to the wetland on the northeast side of the Facility site. The industrial stormwater generated from the new AST will be managed in the same manner as the existing AST s. Industrial stormwater generated from other areas of the Facility, such as roads, typically infiltrates into the ground. There is potential that, during particularly wet periods, stormwater discharged from the Facility may follow natural drainage courses through one of the identified PEMC wetlands and then through surrounding farm lands and along highway and railroad ditches to either an intermittent stream tributary to Bear Creek or intermittent streams tributary to South Fork Whitewater River. The CSW Permit, that is required for this Project, also requires projects that create 1 acre or more of new impervious surface to provide permanent treatment of stormwater runoff. This Project will create 1.7 acres of new impervious surface (e.g., from the secondary containment structure for the new AST); therefore, permanent stormwater runoff treatment is required. The permanent treatment must control and treat 1 inch of Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 16 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

19 runoff from each new acre of impervious surface created by the Project. Permanent treatment designs must first attempt volume reduction practices such as infiltration or harvest and reuse. If infiltration is not possible at the site due to poor soils, contamination or other reasons outlined in the CSW Permit, other permanent treatment practices such as wet sedimentation basins or filtration systems are required. Magellan will use both the secondary containment area of its new AST as well as the Facility s existing stormwater collection and infiltration basin to meet this stormwater collection and treatment requirement. Proposed permanent stormwater management will be described further in the SWPPP and the Runoff Control Plan submitted to the Olmsted County Zoning Administrator for approval in accordance with the Olmsted County Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.20). Industrial stormwater collected within the new AST s secondary containment basin is expected to be similar in quality as the stormwater currently collected within the Facility s existing tank s secondary containment basins. iii. Water appropriation - escribe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). escribe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water use and if a NR water appropriation permit is required. escribe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. iscuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. The Project will require the appropriation of water for hydrostatic testing and construction de-watering related to its new AST. Hydrostatic Water Testing Appropriation The Project will require the temporary (approximate 14 days), one-time, appropriation of approximately 5 million gallons of groundwater needed for hydrostatic testing of the Facility s new gasoline AST. The Facility has one existing potable water well (Unique Well ) (Figure 8), however this well does not have the capacity needed for the hydrostatic test, therefore Magellan will install a new high-capacity well at the Facility site (Figure 3). The new well will be approximately 700 feet deep and be drilled into the Jordan Aquifer and have a maximum capacity of 285 gallons per minute. On September 17, 2018, Magellan applied to the NR for a Temporary General Water Appropriation Permit and a preliminary well assessment for its proposed new well and a one-time appropriation of 5 million gallons of water. On November 30, 2018, NR provided Magellan with preliminary approval to construct its new well (Appendix B). Magellan will still need to receive the actual Water Appropriation Permit from the NR before it can use the proposed well for its hydrostatic test. Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 17 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

20 Magellan may need to use this new high-capacity well in the future for additional hydrostatic testing activities of other tanks at the Facility and/or emergency purposes (firefighting). Magellan would need to obtain required Water Appropriation Permit approvals from the NR for any of these appropriations. Construction e-watering Appropriation The Project may require Magellan to conduct dewatering at the Project site. Magellan will also be required to obtain appropriation approval for construction dewatering under its NR s General Water Appropriation Permit The Minnesota County Well Index indicates that there are 28 private domestic water supply wells within 1.5 miles of the proposed well. The NR determined as part of its preliminary well assessment (Appendix B) that potential for domestic well interference is low. The purpose of the NR Water Appropriation Permit program is to ensure management of water resources so that adequate supply is provided to long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and quality control. The Water Appropriation Permit program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state s water when supplies are limited. If a well interference arises, the NR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If the NR determines that a commercial operator is causing the problem, the operator must correct it. The Project will not result in any well abandonment and/or connections to an existing municipal water supply. iv. Surface Waters a) Wetlands - escribe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal. iscuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. iscuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those probable locations. There are two wetlands on the Facility site (Figure 2), however the Project will not alter these or any other wetlands. The Project will include construction of an AST and other work near the two onsite wetlands. Magellan will leave a 50 foot undisturbed buffer around the wetlands during construction to avoid any impact. If the construction requires encroachment upon this buffer, Magellan will install redundant (double) down gradient sediment control BMPs (i.e., two rows of silt fence or other equivalent sediment control devices). Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 18 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

21 The over 13 calcareous fen and the over 7 calcareous fen are located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the proposed well. Calcareous fens are rare wetlands characterized by a non-acidic layer of peat and dependent on a constant supply of cold, oxygen-poor groundwater rich in calcium and magnesium bicarbonates. Calcareous fens may not be filled, drained, or otherwise degraded, wholly or partially, by any activity, unless the commissioner of natural resources, under an approved management plan, decides some alteration is necessary. The over calcareous fens, though, receive their source water from the Galena aquifer. The Galena aquifer is separated from the Jordan aquifer by the ecorah-platteville- Glenwood confining unit, partially saturated conditions in the St. Peter Sandstone, and the lower Prairie du Chien (Oneota Formation) confining unit. The NR determined as part of its preliminary well assessment (Appendix B) that the a single Jordan aquifer well pumping for 14 days and more than 2 miles away is unlikely to have any impact on the over calcareous fens. b) Other surface waters- escribe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. iscuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. iscuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. The Project will not alter any surface water features (lakes, streams, pond, intermittent channels, or county ditches). 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: a. Pre-project site conditions - escribe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. iscuss any potential environmental effects from preproject site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. The Facility has been a petroleum product loading and storage terminal since the mid-1960s. The EPA initially listed the Facility as a federal superfund site under Williams Pipe Line Company (EPA I MN ) in 1987; however, they subsequently determined it did not qualify for the National Priority List and no further remedial action was necessary 11. The Facility was also listed as an Investigation and Cleanup Integrated Remediation site (LS ) as Williams 11 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Magellan Pipeline Co LP - Rochester. WIMN: What's in My Neighborhood. [Online] [Cited: November 15, 2017.] Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 19 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

22 Eyota Terminal associated with a release of petroleum from an AST on site. The MPCA closed the release site file in In addition, a limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed in February to collect soil and water samples to determine if contamination was present at the site. The ESA determined that the soil at the Facility site was not contaminated. The ESA included three soil borings at selected areas of the Facility site (existing wells shown in Figure 8). Two of the three borings were converted to temporary monitoring wells to provide hydrogeologic characteristics of the soils beneath the terminal and determine if groundwater had been impacted by potential petroleum releases; the third boring was grouted from the bottom to the ground surface 15. No groundwater was encountered at the time of the limited Phase II ESA and therefore no information was gathered regarding potential contamination. Magellan has procedures which outline steps to follow if contaminated soils are encountered. Excavation work would stop and a Magellan environmental specialist would be notified for subsequent steps and proper soil handling guidance. The environmental specialist would notify the appropriate regulatory agencies, including the Minnesota State uty Officer, as required. Impacted soils would be segregated, stockpiled, and covered in plastic. Samples would be taken for waste characterization and proper placement or disposal considerations. The Facility complies with United States epartment of Transportation (OT) requirements including emergency response planning regulations found in 49 CFR 194 and hazardous waste spill planning requirements found in 49 CFR 265. The Facility has existing plans to comply with these requirements and which aim to minimize any unplanned release of hazardous waste that could result in potential threats to human health or the environment during design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the Facility. The Facility also has a SPCC Plan which meets the requirements found in 40 CFR 112.The Facility s plans outline worst case spill planning, contracting with spill response organizations, and providing plans/coordinating with local first responders. b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - escribe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. iscuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. Construction of the Project will generate a limited amount of construction waste (e.g., scrap metal, wire rod ends, concrete, cardboard, and packing material). Nonhazardous solid wastes will be hauled off site by a waste vendor and disposed of at a local municipal solid waste landfill. Operation of the new gasoline AST will produce tank bottoms and sludges as waste products. Magellan will dispose of this waste in accordance with its existing Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan (i.e., solid/semi-solid material will be containerized in drums, characterized, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations). 12 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Williams Eyota Terminal. WIMN: What's in My Neighborhood. [Online] [Cited: November 15, 2017.] 13 Secor International Incorporated. Limited Phase II Environmental Assessment: Rochester Terminal. March 24, Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 20 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

23 c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - escribe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. iscuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. The Project will result in the installation of a single field-erected, 120,000-barrel (5,040,000- gallon shell capacity) AST to store gasoline. uring construction, the Project contractor may require onsite storage of a portable diesel fuel tank to supply construction equipment. This temporary tank would be limited to 1,000 gallons and secondary containment would be provided if the tank is placed outside the Facility s existing secondary containment areas. The following items describes the new AST s construction and associated requirements: Secondary Containment: Magellan will extend the Facility s existing secondary containment berm to encompass the new AST (Figure 3). The new berm will be approximately 6 feet high and will be designed to contain the volume of the new AST tank contents plus sufficient freeboard for precipitation (either 110% of the volume of the AST or the amount necessary for a 25-year, 24-hour storm, whichever is greater). The secondary containment area will be constructed with a minimum of 12 inches of compacted clay and have a maximum permeability rate of 1x10-7 centimeters/second. Magellan will perform soil percolation tests after clay compaction to verify the soil permeability rate. The results of the permeability testing will be certified by a registered professional engineer. In addition, a cover layer will be installed over the compacted clay to prevent its drying/cracking and erosion. The proposed AST s secondary containment will conform to the standards in Minn. R , subp. 5. Construction: The new AST will be constructed to meet API Standard 650, Welded Tanks for Oil Storage, which is incorporated by reference in Minn. R , aboveground storage of liquid substances. The AST s floor will be designed with a release prevention barrier (concrete ring wall with under tank leak detection and an impermeable synthetic material liner) consistent with API Standard 650 Appendix I and the Facility s existing Major Above Ground Storage Tank Facility Permit number Labeling: Magellan will label the new AST with the substance stored, capacity, and a unique identification number. Corrosion Protection: Magellan will apply a tank floor coating or liner, in accordance with API Standard 652, to protect the topside of the AST floor. Magellan will install an impressed current cathodic protection system inside the ring wall and above the underfloor of the synthetic liner, in accordance with API Standard 651, to protect the underside of the AST s floor. Overfill Protection: Magellan will design the new AST s overfill protection system in accordance with the requirements of the Facility s existing Major Above Ground Storage Tank Permit and API Standard Specifically, the overfill prevention system will include the following: Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 21 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

24 o o o Calculating the normal operating, high, and emergency high level alarms settings based on tank characteristic data and maximum possible flow rate rates into the tank. The emergency high level alarm will be audible and visible and set to activate when the product reaches a level that is 10 minutes of maximum flow or 6 inches, whichever is greater, before overfill/roof damage/seals rise above the shell overflow slots. The high level alarm will be audible and visible and set to provide 5 minutes of maximum flow or 3 inches, whichever is greater, before the product level reaches the emergency high level alarm. o The normal operating level alarm will be audible and visible and set to provide 5 minutes of maximum flow or 3 inches, whichever is greater, before the product level reaches the high level alarm Maintenance: Magellan will conduct AST maintenance activities in accordance with API Standard 653, the Facility s AST permit requirements, and maintenance program requirements of OT 195. Generally, API inspections will occur on a 5 to 20 year inspection cycle determined in accordance with inspector recommendations, Minnesota AST permit requirements, and API 653 Section Spills: If a spill over 5 gallons were to occur, Magellan will notify the Minnesota State uty Officer and comply with Minn. Stat. 115E. Magellan will respond to any spills as required in its Facility Response Plan, Emergency Response Action Plan, and SPCC Plan. Magellan will update its SPCC Plan, which incorporates the requirements of Minn. Stat. 115E Oil and Hazardous Substance ischarge Preparedness, to include the new AST and other Facility changes associated with the Project. rainage from the new third loading bay will flow into an oil-water separator with an automatic overflow to a water tank designed to handle the single largest compartment of a tank car or tank truck (9,000 gallons). The biodiesel unloading area will have secondary containment designed to handle the single largest compartment of a tank car or tank truck (9,000 gallons). The Facility has a SPCC Plan which meets the requirements found in 40 CFR 112. The Facility s plans outline worst case spill planning, contracting with spill response organizations, and providing plans/coordinating with local first responders. d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - escribe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. iscuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling. Magellan is currently a very small quantity generator of hazardous waste and will remain so after completion of the Project. Hazardous wastes generated at the Facility include: Petroleum contaminated materials (including absorbents and debris) Paint waste materials Spent abrasive blast media Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 22 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

25 Used glycol (non-automotive origin; primarily from the VCU) Aerosol cans Jet fuel filters Residue in the bottom of ASTs (tank bottoms/sludge) Tank seals Magellan has procedures in place to minimize and manage the generation and disposal of hazardous wastes. Wastes are stored in appropriate containers, and in designated waste accumulation storage areas. Hazardous waste containers are inspected weekly, until transported off site. Wastes are sampled and profiled to determine appropriate disposal options. Any surplus materials are assessed for use on other projects. 13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features): a. escribe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site. The Facility site is an active existing refined products terminal facility with limited habitat for wildlife. The western half of the Facility site, beyond the limits of the Project, includes a grassy area and tree line. There is also a delineated wetland on the southwest portion of the Facility site. The grassy area is used as pasture for grazing cattle. Fish habitat is not present within the Facility boundary. The landscape surrounding the Project site is comprised of active agricultural operations, paved roads, and residential areas with shelter belts. b. escribe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA- 898) and/or correspondence number (ERB ) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the NR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results. The Proposer s consultant, Barr Engineering Company (Barr), maintains a license agreement with the NR to access its Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) database. Barr reviewed the NHIS database in November of 2017, and according to the NHIS database, two records for special concern species rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium) and white wild indigo (Baptisia lacteal) are present within 1-mile of the Project site. No Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) Sites of Biodiversity Significance, or native plant communities were identified within 1-mile of the Project site. Additionally, Barr submitted a NHIS database review request to the NR for the Project. The NR responded in a letter dated November 17, 2017, and reconfirmed November 30, 2018, indicating the state-threatened Blanding s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) has been recorded in the vicinity of the Project. According to the NR s response letter, adverse effects to the Blanding s turtle are not anticipated due to the previous land use in the immediate vicinity of the Project (Appendix C). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool identifies three federally-threatened species as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the Project area: the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Leedy s roseroot (Rhodiola integrifolia ssp. Leedyi), and prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptostachya). Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 23 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

26 c. iscuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. The proposed Project will remove approximately 1.7 acres of lawn and landscaping, which provides short grass habitat. Surrounding landscapes, including open grassy pasture, a deciduous tree line, and the surrounding agricultural area will not be impacted by the Project. Wildlife species expected to use the habitat present within the area of disturbance are habitat generalists and would not be adversely impacted by the loss of resources at the proposed Project site, as suitable alternative habitat is located within the Facility boundary. The introduction of invasive species will be controlled through the use of construction BMPs such as requiring that the contractor provide documentation that equipment is free of loose soil/vegetative material prior to transporting to the site. The Proposer s consultant has indicated that adverse effects to known federally threatened species are unlikely. Leedy s roseroot occupies cool, wet groundwater-fed limestone cliffs, which are not present within or adjacent to the Project site. Similarly, prairie bush clover is found in native prairie with well-drained soils, which is not present within or adjacent to the Project site. The northern long-eared bat utilizes upland forest for foraging and uses trees greater than 3 inches diameter at breast height that have loose or peeling bark for summer roosting habitat. Hibernation occurs in caves and mines in the winter. The tree line along the western edge of the Facility boundary could provide very limited foraging and roosting habitat. According to USFWS and NR data, there are no known, occupied roost trees or hibernacula located in Olmsted County. Therefore, Project impacts to northern long-eared bat are unlikely. d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. A Blanding s turtle education flyer will be distributed to contractors working in the Project area to aid in identification and proper handling should a turtle be found on site. Existing vegetation will be retained to the extent possible, allowing for continued use by habitat generalists. Sixteen apple trees will be placed on the southern border of the property during the Project; no trees will be permanently removed from the property. Magellan will check for nests in advance of clearing activities. Any brush slated for removal will be monitored for active bird nests prior to removal, or they will be removed outside of the active migratory bird nesting season, approximately April 15 to July 31. Brush/shrubs with active nests will not be removed until after fledging. Erosion control devices will be installed to prevent sediment from leaving the Facility boundary and impacting fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. 14. Historic properties: escribe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). iscuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 24 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

27 Minnesota SHPO conducted a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for the Project area. SHPO s search identified no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by the Project (Appendix ). 15. Visual: escribe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. escribe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. iscuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. There are no scenic views or vistas on or near the Project Site. The AST associated with the Project will be visible offsite, since it will be 48 feet high. The Project will not introduce any new visual elements to the area, since the new AST will be adjacent to several other existing tanks which range in height from feet. The new AST will be painted white, which is the same color as the existing tanks. The Project will not result in the emissions of any plumes. The Facility is currently illuminated at night. Lighting specific to the new tank and loading bay will be directed downwards minimizing the potential for visual nuisance. Magellan will minimize potential visual Project impacts by planting and/or relocating trees to act as a visual screen. The trees along the western Project boundary will be relocated further west to accommodate the new AST. Sixteen apple trees will be planted along the southern property boundary, approximately 50 feet north of U.S. 14 for visual appeal. No trees will be permanently removed as a result of the Project. 16. Air: a. Stationary source emissions - escribe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. iscuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess the project s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. Stationary Air Emission Sources Table 16-1 describes all currently existing significant stationary air emission sources and those that are proposed as part of the Project. Magellan will also be installing a VRU as part of the Project. The new VRU will capture vapor and control emissions from gasoline loading operations (i.e., the existing loading rack and the new truck loading bay). The existing VCU will serve as backup pollution control equipment to the new VRU. Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 25 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

28 Table 16-1 Emission Units Emission Unit (EU) I Existing or Proposed escription TK 012 Proposed 5,040,000 gallon gasoline AST FS 002 Existing and Gasoline loading bays Proposed (this emission unit Modification represents the uncaptured fugitive emissions from the loading bays. Pollutants Generated VOC, HAP VOC, HAP Tank Type Internal floating roof tank (IFRT) Not applicable EU 006 Proposed VRU VOC, HAP Not applicable TK 001 Existing Tank 195 (transmix) VOC, HAP Vertical fixed roof tank (VFRT) TK 002 Existing Tank 196 (transmix) VOC, HAP VFRT TK 003 Existing Tank 625 (gasoline) VOC, HAP IFRT TK 004 Existing Tank 626 (gasoline) VOC, HAP IFRT TK 005 Existing Tank 627 (gasoline) VOC, HAP IFRT TK 006 Existing Tank 788 (kerosene/jet VOC, HAP VFRT fuel) TK 007 Existing Tank 1397 (gasoline) VOC, HAP IFRT TK 008 Existing Oil-water sump (fixed VOC, HAP roof tank) TK 009 Existing Tank 562 VOC, HAP IFRT (gasoline/ethanol) TK 010 Existing Tank 182 (biodiesel) VOC, HAP IFRT TK 011 Existing Tank 183 (biodiesel) VOC, HAP VFRT TK 012 Existing Tank 2407 (gasoline) VOC, HAP IFRT TK 013 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP VFRT TK 014 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP VFRT TK 015 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP VFRT TK 016 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP Horizontal fixed roof tank (HFRT) TK 017 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP HFRT TK 018 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP HFRT TK 019 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP VFRT TK 020 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP HFRT TK 021 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP HFRT TK 022 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP HFRT TK 023 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP VFRT TK 024 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP HFRT TK 025 Existing Tank (Additive) VOC, HAP VFRT EU 001 Existing VCU VOC, HAP, CO, Not applicable NOX EU 002 Existing Biodiesel Offloading VOC, HAP Not applicable EU 003 Existing Butane Unloading VOC, HAP Not applicable EU 004 Existing Ethanol Unloading VOC, HAP Not applicable EU 005 Existing Natural Gasoline VOC, HAP Not applicable Unloading FS 001 Existing Equipment Fugitive Emissions VOC, HAP Not applicable Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 26 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

29 Air Emission Permitting Magellan proposes to add two new, and modify one, emission source (refer to Table 16-1) to the Facility as part of this Project. Magellan has applied for a capped air emission state permit as allowed under Minn. R to replace its existing air emission permit. Similar to the existing permit, the capped permit will restrict the Facility s emissions to levels below federal permitting thresholds but will also allow the Facility to make future changes as long as its actual emissions remain below the Facility-wide permit thresholds and the Facility continues to demonstrate compliance with all requirements. Tables 16-2 and 16-3 describes how the Project will change the Facility s maximum annual and projected actual air emissions: Table 16-2 Maximum Annual Emissions Pollutant Pre-Project Maximum Emissions 1 (tons/yr) Post-Project Maximum Emissions 2 (tons/yr) Change in Maximum Emissions (tons/yr) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) ,2,4 Trimethylpentane Benzene Ethyl Benzene Hexane Toluene Total Xylenes Total HAPs Pre-Project maximum emissions are based on limits set in the Title V Permit Post-Project maximum emissions are based on the maximum emissions based on VCU operations only. Actual emissions take into account VRU operation. Table 16-3 Projected Actual Emissions Pollutant Pre-Project Projected Actual Emissions (tons/yr) Post-Project Projected Actual Emissions (tons/yr) VOC CO NOx ,2,4 Trimethylpentane Benzene Ethyl Benzene Hexane Toluene Total Xylenes Total HAPs Change in Emissions (tons/yr) Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 27 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

30 Title V The Facility currently operates under a Synthetic Minor Permit (Air Emission Permit No ) which contains requirements to limit the Facility potential to emit (PTE) to levels below the major source thresholds for Title V air permitting (40 CFR 70.2). The Facility s new capped permit will also require actual emissions to remain below Title V air permitting thresholds. Prevention of Significant eterioration (PS) The Facility is currently a minor source under federal PS regulations in 40 CFR because the Facility-wide PTE is and will remain less than 250 tons per year (tpy) for all regulated pollutants. The existing Facility air permit restricts the PTE of regulated PS pollutants to less than 100 tpy. After the Project, the facility-wide emissions have the potential to be greater than 100 tpy for VOC and the Facility would become a major PS source. However, by applying for a capped permit, Magellan is proposing to maintain VOC emissions below the major source threshold and remain a minor PS source. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) The Facility s proposed new gasoline AST will be subject to NSPS, specifically 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Kb (Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984). As such, the tank will be constructed with the controls that meet the emission control requirements specified in Subpart Kb. These emission controls include an internal floating roof equipped with dual rim-seals, guide-poles equipped with no visible gap controls, and gaskets and bolts on other appurtenances as required by the regulation. The truck loading bay, including the associated VRU and VCU, is subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart XX (Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals) that requires: Operation of vapor collection equipment to collect VOC displaced from tank trucks during product loading Emission limits from the vapor collection equipment (35 milligram (mg) VOC/Liter (L) gasoline loaded) which will be achieved with the VRU and backup VCU Vapor tightness certification for tank trucks Pressure standards for pressure-vacuum vents on a vapor collection system Monthly inspections for equipment leaks The proposed new VRU with the VCU backup will require a more restrictive emissions rate to reduce the emissions below the 35 mg VOC/L gasoline loaded standard (40 CFR (b)), to 10 mg VOC/L gasoline loaded in order for the Facility to maintain actual emissions rates under the thresholds to qualify for a capped air emission state permit. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) The Facility is currently subject to 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart BBBBBB (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline istribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities; Subpart BBBBBB). Subpart BBBBBB is applicable to area (minor) source gasoline distribution bulk terminals and the Facility is, and will remain, an area (minor) source for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). Subpart BBBBBB affected facilities include gasoline storage tanks, gasoline loading racks, and equipment leaks. Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 28 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

31 Subpart BBBBBB requires the Facility to reduce HAP emissions to 80 mg VOC/L gasoline loaded into cargo tanks and limit the loading of gasoline in cargo tanks demonstrated to be vapor tight (must be tested annually and meet a maximum allowable pressure/vacuum change of 3 inches of water in 5 minutes) using Reference Method 27 or equivalent. The proposed VRU will be designed to meet a more restrictive emissions rate of 10 mg VOC/L gasoline loaded in order for the Facility to meet the requirements for a capped air emission state permit. The back-up VCU will continue to meet the 35 mg VOC/L standards of Subpart BBBBBB. All storage tanks used for the storage of gasoline are subject to Subpart BBBBBB gasoline storage vessel requirements. The tanks are required to meet the requirements of Table 1 of the Subpart which includes installing a floating roof, and complying with the existing storage vessel requirements. Subpart BBBBB also regulates fugitive emissions from piping components in gasoline service. This equipment is inspected according to the provisions of 40 CFR requiring a monthly leak inspection of all equipment in gasoline service. etection method is by sight, sound, and smell. A log book of all inspections is maintained at the Facility. Each detection of a liquid or vapor leak is recorded and repaired according to the timeline proscribed in 40 CFR (c). Fugitive equipment is designated as FS 001. Air Modeling In response to MPCA s request, air dispersion modeling has been performed specifically for this EAW to demonstrate that the maximum modeled concentrations for CO and NO 2 meet all applicable standards. The NO X and CO source at Magellan is the existing VCU which is being redesignated as a backup control device with the addition of a VRU with this Project. The EAW modeling was conducted with AERMO (v16216r) and the MPCA processed 5 year AERMET dataset for Rochester, Minnesota. The Project emission increases were modeled for comparison to the NO 2 and CO Significant Impact Levels (SIL) and are shown in Table 16-4 below. The results demonstrate that the Project s CO air impacts are insignificant and the NO 2 results required further analysis. NO 2 did not pass the SIL, therefore the Project plus the existing Facility, nearby sources, and representative background concentrations was modeled and compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Table 16-4 Project Only SIL Results Pollutant Averaging Period Modeled Air Concentration (1) (µg/m 3 ) (2) Significant Impact Level (µg/m 3 ) Percentage of SIL (%) Insignificant? NO2 1 hour % No Annual % No CO 1 hour ,000 9% Yes 8 hour % Yes (1) Modeled short-term values are high 1 st high air concentration and annual values are maximum annual average. (2) µg/m3 means micrograms per cubic meter Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 29 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

32 Applying MPCA best practices from the Air ispersion Modeling Practices Manual and available tools, the nearby NO X sources were identified and a representative NO 2 background concentration was selected for the 1 hour and annual NO 2 NAAQS analysis. The VCU was modeled assuming it was operating at its full PTE hourly emission rate for 8,760 hours of the year for the 1 hour and annual average modeling analysis. In reality, the VCU will only be operational when the VRU is undergoing maintenance. NO 2 is a pollutant that can be emitted both directly, but also form chemically in the atmosphere from the combination of NO emitted from a source and available ozone in the ambient air. For the NAAQS analysis, the EPA Tier 2 AERMO option, ARM2, was selected which applies a default conversion ratio to the NO X emitted from that modeled sources. The MPCA modeling manual recommends a minimum ratio of 0.5 and a maximum of 0.9, therefore, those were the values entered in the model input files. Table 16-5 shows the 1 hour and annual NO 2 NAAQS results and demonstrates that the proposed Project would not exceed the NAAQS. Table 16-5 Cumulative NO 2 NAAQS Results Pollutant Averaging Period Modeled Air Concentration (1) (µg/m 3 ) Background Concentration (2) (µg/m 3 ) Cumulative Results (µg/m 3 ) NAAQS (µg/m 3 ) NO2 1 hour % Annual % Percentage of NAAQS (%) (1) Modeled short-term values are maximum daily 1 hour high 8 th high air concentration over 5 years. Modeled annual values are the maximum annual average over 5 years (2) Representative background monitor is 420 monitor in Rosemount, MN. Air Emissions Risk Analysis (AERA) Magellan quantified the air toxics emitted from tanks, tank cleaning and landing activities, loading/unloading activities, equipment fugitives, and natural gas combustion. MPCA s Risk Assessment Screening Spreadsheet (RASS) quantifies the potential acute health hazard, subchronic health hazard, chronic health hazard, and lifetime excess cancer risk from the Project s emissions. Magellan completed the RASS using modeled maximum air concentrations from site specific AERMO modeling for all pollutants in the RASS that are emitted from the post project Facility. The AERA conducted for Magellan included assessments for short and long term exposures for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic outcomes and was found to be complete and technically accurate. The AERA results included a modeled benzene concentration that was above the chronic inhalation health benchmark. The largest contributor to the benzene concentration was the VCU. The VCU was modeled as a worst case operational scenario that results in an annual total facility emission rate of 152 tons per year. The currently permitted VCU is being replaced by a VRU with this permit action. The VRU has significantly lower VOC emissions (including benzene) than the existing VCU, such that operation of the VRU does not result in a modeled result above inhalation health benchmarks. Magellan s current operational plan includes the VRU in continuous use and the VCU in place as a back-up unit. Without specific permit conditions requiring the VRU as primary operation, the MPCA confirmed the Facility will need to operate the VRU or proportionally curtail throughput to comply with the capped permit annual VOC emission limit of 90 tons per year. Reporting requirements for the emission estimates of the Facility are annual. Furthermore, the lower VRU emissions of VOCs Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 30 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

33 will be confirmed by performance testing. ue to this additional information from the proposed and approved permitting structure, the air toxics emissions for the Facility are likely to result in air concentrations below all inhalation health benchmarks. b. Vehicle emissions - escribe the effect of the project s traffic generation on air emissions. iscuss the project s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g. traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. Construction traffic related to the delivery of building supplies and the hauling offsite of excess soil will temporarily increase traffic during the estimated 6-week construction phase by approximately 33 vehicle trips per day, on average. These trips will be staggered through the day and are not expected to have an effect on peak hour traffic. To minimize vehicle emissions, in addition to the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, Magellan will encourage its contractors to adopt the following measures: Ensure that diesel-powered equipment is properly maintained and shut off when not in use Prohibit engine tampering to increase horsepower Minimize, to the extent practical, construction-related trips of workers and equipment Where practical, use newer model year equipment and vehicles c. ust and odors - escribe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under item 16a). iscuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. Construction equipment and vehicles will generate dust during Project construction. Magellan will minimize fugitive dust emissions from construction activities through implementation of control measures, including watering or applying dust suppressants to exposed soil surfaces and unpaved roads. The Facility s exiting tanks and proposed new AST do not generate dust. The increased truck traffic at the Facility (approximately 15% increase) does have the potential to increase dust emissions. Magellan will mitigate vehicle dust emissions by paving and/or graveling the driveway and roads on the Facility site. The equipment and operations associated with the proposed Project are consistent with current conditions at the Facility. uring normal operations the existing Facility generates minimal odor. Magellan s existing tanks have a number of features (including mechanical seals, stilling wells and vapor seals) in place that minimize the potential for material carryover (material transfer to the sides of the tank and above the floating roof), thereby minimizing odor impacts. In addition, the VCU will capture and control emissions and odors during truck loading. Therefore, the Project is not expected to noticeably change the existing odor profile at the Facility. Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 31 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

34 17. Noise escribe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. iscuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. The existing noise sources in the Project area include vehicle traffic, farm equipment, wind-blown vegetation (e.g. trees, crops and grasses), insects, animals, birds, etc. The primary noise source in the Project area is vehicle traffic on the adjacent highways. The existing Facility also contributes noise from its truck traffic, pumps, valves, and operation of its VCU. Noise related to Project Construction Project construction activities will result in a temporary (approximately 6 weeks) increase in the noise levels at the Facility. Construction activities will occur on a 6-day weekly schedule with no work occurring on Sundays. Construction noise sources will include jackhammers, truck engines, backup warning signals, diesel generator engines, tractor engines, bulldozers, etc. Construction hours will be limited to the daytime hours to minimize objectionable sound reaching surrounding receptors during the construction period. Noise related to Project Operation Project operation will result in the following new sources of noise: Pumps and valves associated with the new gasoline AST Operation of the new VRU Increased truck traffic due to the addition of a third loading bay The nearest residential noise receptor to the Project area is approximately 0.25 miles to the west of the Facility (Figure 4). The next two closest residences are located slightly further away from the Project area, to the northwest and north of the Facility site. In addition, the Kwik Trip convenience store is located directly southeast of the Facility, in the city of Eyota, near the southeast intersection of Minnesota State Highway 42 and U.S. Highway 14. The Facility must operate in compliance with Minn. R. 7030, Noise Pollution Control. The city of Eyota was consulted to determine if they have received any citizen complaints regarding noise from the current Facility. The city of Eyota indicated that they are not aware of any noise complaints regarding the Facility. Given the distance of the Facility to the nearest residential (or other noise area classification 1) receptors, the Project is not expected to significantly change the level of noise emissions in the area post-construction. 18. Transportation a. escribe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 32 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

35 The Project will not result in any changes to the amount or type of parking accommodations at the Facility. The Project construction phase will temporarily add approximately 200 vehicle trips per week, or 33 trips per day for a 6 day per week construction schedule. For 3 weeks during construction, the vehicle trip rate will double to 66 trips per day. Vehicle visits during the construction phase will be spread throughout the day and are not anticipated to impact peak hour traffic. The Facility currently receives approximately 100 tanker trucks per day (200 trips). The Project will result in approximately 15 additional tanker trucks accessing the Facility per day (30 additional trips), which is an increase of 15%. After completion of the Project, the Facility is expected to receive 130 vehicles per day (260 trips). The peak time for vehicles entering and exiting the Facility is from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm; as traffic to and from the site is continual, estimated existing and projected peak volumes are 25 and 29 trips per hour, respectively. b. iscuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota epartment of Transportation s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: or a similar local guidance. The Facility currently has a single vehicle access point at Minnesota State Highway 42 which is on the east side of the site. Highway 42 includes turn lanes to avoid impeding other traffic. The Project will not result in any additional access points or changes to this or any other nearby roads. According to the Minnesota epartment of Transportation (MnOT) average annual daily traffic (AAT) is 3,150 vehicles at Highway 42 and 5,300 vehicles at U.S. Highway The extra 30 additional vehicle trips associated with the Project will result in an approximately 1% increase in truck traffic on these roads. MnOT installed a round-about at the Minnesota 42 and U.S. Highway 14 intersection in 2015 to improve vehicular mobility and reduce speeds at this location. The Project is not expected to have a significant impact on traffic congestion and no road improvements are needed to accommodate the Project. The Proposer did not conduct a traffic impact study for this Project because less than 250 additional trips will be generated during peak hours and less than 2,500 additional trips will be generated daily. 14 Minnesota epartment of Transportation. MnOT Traffic ata. [Online] Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 33 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

36 c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. None. The existing location maintains a one-way traffic flow through the Facility with a separately designated entrance and exit onto Highway 42 to mitigate potential traffic congestion. In addition, there are dedicated turn lanes on Highway 42 to minimize traffic impediment. Throughout construction and after completion, the one-way flow of vehicles to and from the site will remain the same. 19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EAW Items) a. escribe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. The Project will occur on the current Facility s 30.7 acre parcel. The Facility is adjacent to the northwest side of the city of Eyota, Minnesota. epending on receipt of all necessary permits and weather conditions, construction will start in May 2019 and be complete in 12 to 18 months. b. escribe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. Olmsted County and the city of Eyota indicated the Great River Ridge State Trail is the only proposed project in the same area as the Project. The trail would be limited to the railroad s right-of-way and the Project would be limited to Magellan s property. No potential cumulative effects for the proposed developments were identified. No additional future projects have been identified near the current Project site. c. iscuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. There are no additional cumulative potential effects beyond what has been discussed in the EAW items above. 20. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. None. Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. 34 Environmental Assessment Worksheet

37

38 Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Location Site Plan Current Conditions Site Plan Post-Project Conditions Land Use and Land Cover Olmsted County Land Use Olmsted County Zoning Map NRCS Soils Map Water Resources rainage Patterns Groundwater Sensitivity map

39 T107N, R12W S33 Viola Township T107N, R12W S T107N, R12W S T106N, R12W S3 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, :09 File: I:\Client\Magellan_Midstream\Work_Orders\Rochester_Terminal_ \Maps\Reports\EAW\Figure 1 Site Location Magellan Rochester.mxd User: MAK3 T106N, R12W S5 T106N, R12W S8 T106N, R12W S17 T106N, R12W S4 T106N, R12W S9 T106N, R12W S16 T106N, R12W S21 Zumbro River Project Area PLSS Boundary Civil Township Municipal Boundary Eyota Township HUC Zumbro River Watershed (41) Olmsted County Watershed ivide - MnNR HUC Level 4 Mississippi River-Winona (40) Watershed HUC T106N, R12W S15 T106N, R12W S22 T106N, R12W S !;N 0 1,000 2,000 Feet T106N, R12W S2 Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Location Mississippi River - Winona T106N, R12W S11 T106N, R12W S City of Eyota 142 T106N, R12W USGS 7.5 minute S23Quadrangle via MnGeo MAGELLAN ROCHESTER TERMINAL EXPANSON PROJECT LOCATION Environmental Assessment Worksheet Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Eyota, Minnesota FIGURE 1

40 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, :42 File: I:\Clien t\magellan_midstream\work_orders\rochester_terminal_ \maps\reports\eaw\figure 2 Site Plan Existin g Con ditions M agellan Rochester.mxd User: mak3 No rthe SWENSON, LARRY N rn Na tu r al Ga s SWENSON, LARRY N Stormwater Basin Butane Off-Loading SWENSON, LARRY N >! Septic System Biodiesel Offloading >! >! MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY LP Magellan 42 Existing Vapor Combustion Unit Pipeline Aboveground Valve Site Loading Bays Intermittent rainage Way MA GE L LA N PIP EL IN E COM PA NY L P BLEVINS, CHARLES J 14 KWIK TRIP INC PRIES,HELEN AKOTA MN AN EASTERN RR CORP ;! KRUCO INC N CONVENIENCE STORE INVESTMENTS Feet Project Area Existing Features Olmsted County Parcels Approximate Pipelines Magellan Northern Natural Gas Previous Railroad Septic System Property Line Trees Butante Off-Loading Vapor Combustion Unit (VCU) Utility Intermittent rainage Way Facility Building Surveyed Water Fence Previously elineated Wetland Pipes Elevation Contour >! Well - (MH) County Well Index SITE PLAN - Current Conditions Environmental Assessment Worksheet Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Eyota, Minnesota FIGURE 2

41 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, :41 File: I:\Clien t\magellan_midstream\work_orders\rochester_terminal_ \maps\reports\eaw\figure 3 Site Plan Post Construction Magellan Rochester.mxd User: mak3 Secondary Hydrostatic Test ischarge Structure 42 <! Primary Hydrostatic Test ischarge Structure Wetland <! Stormwater Basin Butane Off-Loading Contractor Staging/ Laydown Area Temporary Hydrostatic Test ischarge Line New Biodiesel Offloading Area & Containment Area New river Building & 3rd Loading Bay Vapor Combustion Unit Existing Loading Bays New Vapor Recovery Unit 339 Contractor Staging/ Laydown Area Hydrotest Well Location! > New Facility MCC Pre-Fabricated Building 183 <! Wetland Proposed Tank <! Temporary Access Road ;! N Feet Imagery: Esri/Vivid-USA igital Globe 11/2016 1:1,200 Serv ice Layer Credits: Source: Esri, igitalglobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographic s, CN ES/Airbus S, USA, USGS, AeroGR I, IGN, and the GIS User Community <! Stormwater Outfall Stormwater Basin Proposed Underground Containment rainage! > Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Supply Well Proposed Tank Previously elineated Wetland Project Area Temporary ischarge Line MCC Pre-Fabricated Building Temporary Access Road Water Line New Vapor Recovery Unit Butane Off Loading Primary ischarge Structure Contractor Staging/Laydown Area river's Building and New 3rd Bay Secondary ischarge Structure Existing Impervious Proposed Impervious SITE PLAN - Post Project Conditions Environmental Assessment Worksheet Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Eyota, Minnesota FIGURE 3

42 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, :32 File: I:\Client\Magellan_Midstream\Work_Orders\Rochester_Terminal_ \Maps\Reports\EAW\Figure 4 Land Cover Magellan Rochester.mxd User: VAW Minnesota Land Cover Classification System 11% to 25% impervious cover with perennial grasses 11% to 25% impervious cover with perennial grasses and sparse trees 26% to 50% impervious cover with perennial grasses 26% to 50% impervious cover with perennial grasses and sparse trees 4% to 10% impervious cover with perennial grasses and sparse trees Cultivated herbaceous vegetation 4% to 10% impervious cover with perennial grasses Buildings and pavement with % impervious cover Cultivated herbaceous vegetation eciduous forest Grassland with sparse deciduous trees Hydric soils with planted or maintained grasses Cultivated herbaceous vegetation Medium-tall grassland Saturated deciduous shrubland Upland deciduous woodland Upland soils with planted, maintained or cultivated deciduous trees Upland soils with planted, maintained, or cultivated coniferous trees Cultivated herbaceous vegetation 26% to 50% impervious cover with perennial grasses and sparse trees Residence Residence 10th St SE 4% to 10% impervious cover with perennial grasses 11% to 25% impervious cover with perennial grasses Residence 42 10th St SE 11% to 25% impervious cover with perennial grasses and sparse trees Upland soils with planted, maintained, or cultivated coniferous trees Cultivated herbaceous vegetation Upland deciduous woodland Cultivated herbaceous vegetation Medium-tall grassland Upland soils with planted, maintained or cultivated deciduous trees 110th Ave SE Cultivated herbaceous vegetation Cultivated herbaceous vegetation Residence Medium-tall grassland 11% to 25% impervious cover with perennial grasses and sparse trees Hydric soils with planted or maintained grasses Medium-tall grassland eciduous forest Buildings and pavement with % impervious cover Cultivated herbaceous vegetation Residence Cultivated herbaceous vegetation 11% to 25% impervious cover with perennial grasses 11% to 25% impervious cover with perennial grasses eciduous forest 14 Medium-tall grassland Residence 4% to 10% impervious cover with perennial grasses Cultivated herbaceous vegetation 26% to 50% impervious cover with perennial grasses 11% to 25% impervious cover with perennial grasses 4% to 10% impervious cover with perennial grasses Granite Ave Sandstone r NW 4% to 10% impervious cover with perennial grasses Cultivated herbaceous vegetation Canyon r NW eciduous forest Canyon La NW Medium-tall grassland 110th Ave SE Residence Cultivated herbaceous vegetation Residence Cultivated herbaceous vegetation 19th St SE Medium-tall grassland Saturated deciduous shrubland 20th St SE Cultivated herbaceous vegetation Cultivated herbaceous vegetation Grassland with sparse deciduous trees eciduous forest Cultivated herbaceous vegetation Imagery: 2015 FSA via MnGEO Project Area Post-Construction Impervious Surface Existing Features Property Line Facility Building Fence!;N Feet LAN USE AN LAN COVER Environmental Assessment Worksheet Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Eyota, Minnesota FIGURE 4

43 Olmsted County Future Land Use Map E Legend Major Roads Public Waters Land Use esignation Potential Suburban Suburban evelopment Resource Protection Rural Mixed Use Suburban Mixed Use Urban Service Area Prepared by the Rochester-Olmsted Planning epartment Long Range ivision March 8, Miles Olmsted County is not responsible for omissions or errors contained herein. If discrepancies are found within this map please notify the GIS ivision at , Rochester Olmsted Planning epartment, 2122 Campus rive SE Rochester, MN

44 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, :29 File: I:\Client\Magellan_Midstream\Work_Orders\Rochester_Terminal_ \Maps\Reports\EAW\Figure 6 Olmsted County Zoning Class Magellan Rochester.mxd User: MAK3 A1 I City of Eyota!;N Sandstone r NW Canyon r NW Feet Imagery: 2015 FSA via MnGEO Existing Features Property Line Facility Building Fence Olmsted County Zoning A1 - Agricultural Protection istrict I - Industrial istrict OLMSTE COUNTY ZONING MAP Environmental Assessment Worksheet Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Eyota, Minnesota FIGURE 6

45 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, :36 File: I:\Client\Magellan_Midstream\Work_Orders\Rochester_Terminal_ \Maps\Reports\EAW\Figure 7 NRCS Soils Magellan Rochester.mxd User: MAK3 285B B B 99B 401C C 99B 479!H 99B!H!H 99B 42!H!H 378!H!H!H!H B B Sandstone r NW!;N 99B Canyon r NW!H Feet Project Area Boring Location Existing Features Property Line Facility Building Fence NRCS Map Unit Name 176;Garwin silty clay loam 1846;Kato silty clay loam, depressional ;Joy silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes 24;Kasson silt loam 285B;Port Byron silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 295;Readlyn loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ;Maxfield silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 401B;Mt. Carroll silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded 401C2;Mt. Carroll silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, moderately eroded ;Floyd silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes 99B;Racine silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 99C;Racine silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Imagery: 2017 FSA via MnGEO 24 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SOILS MAP Environmental Assessment Worksheet Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Eyota, Minnesota FIGURE 7

46 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, :37 File: I:\Client\Magellan_Midstream\Work_Orders\Rochester_Terminal_ \Maps\Reports\EAW\Figure 8 Water Resources Magellan Rochester.mxd User: mak3 Silver Creek Watershed HUC T107N, R12W S Upper North Fork Whitewater River Watershed HUC MAJ Whitewater River, Middle Fork AUI: Impairment: E.coli; FishesBio; InvertBio; T T107N, R12W S Viola Township T rib T107N, R12W S tomiddle Branch (M MAJ ) M AJ MAJ MAJ MAJ Middle Fork Whitewater River Watershed HUC MAJ T106N, R12W S4 T106N, R12W S MAJ T106N, R12W S2 MAJ MAJ MAJ Project Area Olmsted County T106N, R12W S9 Bear Creek Watershed HUC Hydrotest Well Location T106N, R12W S10 MAJ T106N, R12W S MAJ Unnamed Creek (M ) MAJ Eyota Township MAJ Whitewater River, South Fork AUI: F16 Impairment: Fish IBI, Macroinvertebrate, IBI Turbidity, and Bacteria AQL pollutant or stressors are: 1. Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments; 2. Fishes bioassessments; and turbidity. AQR pollutant or stressors are: 1. Fecal coliform Upper South Fork Whitewater River Watershed HUC UnnamedCreek (M ) City of Eyota T106N, R12W S T106N, R12W Imagery 2017 Statewide S21 FSA via MnGEO Bear Creek (M ) T106N, R12W S T106N, R12W S ,200 2, Feet T106N, T106N, R12W R12W S22 Minnesota epartment of Health, S23 Source Water Protection MAJ MAJ !;N Whitewater River, South Branch (M ) Project Area Intermittent rainage Previously elineated Wetland Well - (MH) County Well Index Public Water Inventory Watercourses NR River and Stream Centerlines (Stream Type) Stream (Perennial) Stream (Intermittent) River Centerline Impaired Streams Karst Features (NR) $+ Spring $+ Sinkhole $1 Surface Tile Inlet Wetlands (MN NR NWI Southern Update 2016) Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Watershed Boundary (NR Level 8 HUC) rinking Water Supply Management Area Vulnerability Very High High Moderate Low Very Low Wellhead Protection Area rinking Water Supply Management Area Boundary WATER RESOURCES Environmental Assessment Worksheet Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Eyota, Minnesota FIGURE 8

47 $ 1290 $ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X $ 1293 $ $ 1292 $ $ $ X X X $ / 1290 Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Supply Well 1288 #> rain Valve # Hydrotest Well Location!< Stormwater Outfall Property Boundary Underground Stormwater rainage Swale $ Surface Flow irection!< X X X X X X Culvert Berm $ $ X X X X X X $ $ Bulidings X X Fence Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, :44 File: I:\Client\Magellan_Midstream\Work_Orders\Rochester_Terminal_ \Maps\Reports\EAW\Figure 9 rainage Map.mxd User: MAK3 $ $ X X X X X X X 1288 $ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X $ !< $ 627 X X X X X X $ ISTILLATE $ $ GASOLINE Imagery: Esri/Vivid-USA igital Globe 11/ ISTILLATE $ GASOLINE $ $ 1397 $ X X X X X X X X X X X X X BIOIESEL 1288 ENATURE ETHANOL 182 BIOIESEL RELIEF TRANSMIX GASOLINE 1291 POLE MOUNTE TRANSFORMER (UTILITY OWNE) SHOP PROVER LOOP MAINLINE MANIFOL $ BLG TA5 STORAGE CONEX STORAGE X FIXE ETHANOL PROVER RIVER'S BLG VAPOR COMBUSTOR UNIT BULK AITIVE STORAGE AREA TA4 LAB OFFICE # #> OIL/WATER SEPARATOR TA4 RIVERS CONSOLE BLG X X X GATE TA2 AITIVE TA STORAGE LOAING CONTACT AREA RACK WATER 1290 PROUCT STORAGE (QA/QC SAMPLES) AITIVE ROOM GATE TA6 # #> TA3 $ # $ #> CULVERT $ ASPHALT EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT STORAGE AREA MS1 S1 ETHANOL TRANSFER AREA X X X X X X X X X X $ GRAVEL IESEL AST HAZAROUS WASTE STORAGE AREA $ GRASS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X $ RIVERS BLG GRAVEL RIVE $ $ CULVERT # #> TA7 # #> $ $ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X !< $ $ GRAVEL RIVE $ CULVERT 1278!< GATE X X GATE GRAVEL RIVE XX X X $ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1284 Oil/Water Separator Swing Arm Tank Berm Contour Butane Off Loading river's Building and New 3rd Bay Proposed Tank 2ft Contour (LiAR) Feet RAINAGE PATTERNS Environmental Assessment Worksheet Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project FIGURE 9

48 Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Groundwater Pollution Sensitivity Map T107N, R12W S32 T107N, R12W S33 T107N, R12W S34 T107N, R12W S35 Viola $+ Township $+ $+ $+ T106N, R12W S5 $+ $+ $+ T106N, $+ R12W $+ S4 T106N, R12W S3 T106N, R12W S2 $+ T106N, R12W S1 Eyota Township $+ $+ $+ $+ Olmsted County T106N, R12W S8 T106N, R12W S9 Project Area T106N, R12W S10 T106N, R12W S11 T106N, R12W S12 $+ City of Eyota $+ T106N, R12W S17 T106N, R12W S16 $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ T106N, R12W $+$+ $+ $+ S15 $+ T106N, R12W S13 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 Feet USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle via MnGEO Legend $+ $+ T106N, R12W $1 S14 $+ $+ Minnesota epartment of Health, Source Water Protection $+ $K GROUNWATER SENSITIVITY Environmental Assessment Worksheet Magellan Rochester Terminal Expansion Project Eyota, Minnesota FIGURE 10 Karst Features (NR) $+ Spring $+ Sinkhole $1 Surface Tile Inlet $K Surface Tile Outlet Project Pollution Sensitivity of Near- Surface Materials RATING Karst Water rinking Water Supply Management Area Boundary Wellhead Protection rinking Water Supply Management Area Vulnerability Vulnerability Very High High Moderate Low Very Low Pollution Sensitivity of Near-Surface Materials: This dataset estimates the pollution sensitivity of near-surface materials from the transmission time of water through 3 feet of soil and 7 feet of surficial geology, to a depth of 10 feet from the land surface. Minnesota Geological Survey and the Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources, WSMA Vulnerability: assessment of the likelihood that the aquifer within the WSMA is subject to impact from land and water uses within the wellhead protection ares. It is based upon criteria that are specified under Minnesota Rules, part , subpart 3. Minnesota epartment of Health, Environmental Health ivision, rinking Water Protection Section, Source Water Protection Unit Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, :03 File: I:\Client\Magellan_Midstream\Work_Orders\Rochester_Terminal_ \Maps\Reports\EAW\Figure 10 Groundwater Pollution Sensitivity Magellan Rochester V2.mxd User: VAW

49 Appendix A Well Logs/Soil Borings

50 Minnesota Unique Well Number County Olmsted MINNESOTA EPARTMENT OF HEALTH Entry ate 01/25/1988 WELL AN BORING REPORT Quad Plainview Update ate 02/24/2016 Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Quad I 48C Received ate Well Name Township Range ir Section Subsection Well epth epth Completed ate Well Completed WILLIAM BROS W 10 BAB 288 ft. 288 ft. 11/14/1966 Elevation 1285 Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet) rill Method rill Fluid Address Use commercial Status Active Stratigraphy Information Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness SANY CLAY 0 22 LIMESTONE SHALE BLUE LIMESTONE SHALE SANSTONE Well Hydrofractured? Casing Type rive Shoe? Casing iameter Step down Yes Weight Yes No 4 in. To 240 ft. lbs./ft. 8 in. To 48 ft. lbs./ft. No From Joint Above/Below Open Hole From 240 ft. To 288 ft. Screen? Type Make 0 ft. To Hole iameter 4 in. To 288 ft. Static Water Level 220 ft. land surface Measure 11/14/1966 Pumping Level (below land surface) ft. hrs. Pumping at 25 g.p.m. Wellhead Completion Pitless adapter manufacturer Casing Protection 12 in. above grade At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Material neat cement Amount 4 Cubic yards Model Grouting Information Well Grouted? X Yes No Not Specified From To 0 ft. ft. Remarks Nearest Known Source of Contamination feet irection Type Well disinfected upon completion? Yes No Pump Not Installed ate Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP 1.5 Volt 440 Length of drop pipe ft Capacity g.p. Typ Abandoned oes property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Yes No Variance Was a variance granted from the MH for this well? Yes No Miscellaneous First Bedrock Prosser-Cummingsville Aquifer St.Peter Last Strat St.Peter Sandstone epth to Bedrock 22 ft Located by Minnesota Geological Survey Locate Method igitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (igitizing Table) System UTM - NA83, Zone 15, Meters X Y Unique Number Verification Other, note in Input ate 01/01/1990 Angled rill Hole Well Contractor Thein Well Co Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of riller Minnesota Well Index Report Printed on 11/06/2017 HE

51 Minnesota Unique Well Number County Olmsted MINNESOTA EPARTMENT OF HEALTH Entry ate WELL AN BORING REPORT Quad Chester Update ate 10/14/2016 Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Quad I 49 Received ate 02/27/1995 Well Name Township Range ir Section Subsection Well epth epth Completed ate Well Completed MW W 10 BABC 15 ft ft. 02/15/1995 Elevation 1288 Elev. Method LiAR 1m EM (MNNR) rill Method Auger (non-specified) rill Fluid Address Use monitor well Status Sealed Well HWYS 42 & 14 LM ROCHESTER MN Contact 2728 PATTON R ST PAUL MN Stratigraphy Information Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness SILTY GRAVEL CLAY 0 3 K. BRN CLAY SILTY SAN 3 14 LT. BRN LIMESTONE Well Hydrofractured? Casing Type rive Shoe? Casing iameter Yes Single casing Yes No Weight 2 in. To 4.6 ft. lbs./ft. X No From Joint Above/Below To Open Hole From ft. To ft. Screen? X Type plastic Make TIMCO iameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 2 in ft. 4.6 ft ft. Static Water Level 7 ft. land surface Measure 02/15/1995 Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pitless adapter manufacturer X Casing Protection 12 in. above grade At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Material neat cement Amount Model Grouting Information Well Grouted? X Yes No Not Specified From To 0 ft. 2 ft. Remarks SEALE BY Nearest Known Source of Contamination feet irection Type Well disinfected upon completion? Yes X No Pump X Not Installed ate Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe ft Capacity g.p. Typ Abandoned oes property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Variance Was a variance granted from the MH for this well? Yes No Miscellaneous First Bedrock Galena/Prosser Fm Aquifer Galena/Prosser Last Strat Galena/Prosser Fm epth to Bedrock 14 ft Located by Minnesota Geological Survey Locate Method igitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) System UTM - NA83, Zone 15, Meters X Y Unique Number Verification Address verification Input ate 05/16/2016 Angled rill Hole Yes X No Well Contractor Thein Well Co THEIN, M Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of riller Minnesota Well Index Report Printed on 11/06/2017 HE

52 Minnesota Unique Well Number County Olmsted MINNESOTA EPARTMENT OF HEALTH Entry ate 05/09/2005 WELL AN BORING REPORT Quad Chester Update ate 10/14/2016 Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Quad I 49 Received ate 02/27/1995 Well Name Township Range ir Section Subsection Well epth epth Completed ate Well Completed MW W 10 BBC 20 ft. 15 ft. 02/15/1995 Elevation 1287 Elev. Method LiAR 1m EM (MNNR) rill Method Auger (non-specified) rill Fluid Address Use monitor well Status Sealed Well HWYS 42 & 14 LM ROCHESTER MN Contact 2728 PATTON R ST PAUL MN Stratigraphy Information Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness SILTY SANY CLAY 0 3 BROWN SILTY SANY CLAY 3 8 LT. BRN SILTY CLAY 8 14 LT. BRN SILTY SAN ME FINE BROWN CLAY GRAVEL LT. BRN Well Hydrofractured? Casing Type rive Shoe? Casing iameter Yes Single casing Yes No Weight 2 in. To 5 ft. lbs./ft. X No From Joint Above/Below Open Hole From ft. To ft. Screen? X Type plastic Make TIMCO iameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 2 in ft. 5 ft. 15 ft. To Static Water Level 6 ft. land surface Measure 02/15/1995 Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pitless adapter manufacturer X Casing Protection 12 in. above grade At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Material neat cement Amount Model Grouting Information Well Grouted? X Yes No Not Specified From To 0 ft. 2 ft. Remarks SEALE BY Nearest Known Source of Contamination feet irection Type Well disinfected upon completion? Yes X No Pump X Not Installed ate Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe ft Capacity g.p. Typ Abandoned oes property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Variance Was a variance granted from the MH for this well? Yes No Miscellaneous First Bedrock Aquifer Quat. buried Last Strat pebbly sand/silt/clay- epth to Bedrock ft Located by Minnesota Geological Survey Locate Method igitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) System UTM - NA83, Zone 15, Meters X Y Unique Number Verification Address verification Input ate 05/16/2016 Angled rill Hole Yes X No Well Contractor Thein Well Co THEIN, M Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of riller Minnesota Well Index Report Printed on 11/06/2017 HE

53 Appendix B Minnesota NR Preliminary Well Assessment

54 Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources ivision of Ecological & Water Resources MNNR PERMITTING AN REPORTING SYSTEM REVISION APP I Well Construction Assessment Form Reference Number: ate Submitted to NR: September 17, 2018 at 6:53 PM NR Lead Hydrologist: Joe Richter Area: Rochester joe.richter@state.mn.us Phone: NR Region: Central Region 3 Address: Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN Parties (Individuals and Organizations associated with the assessment) Trena Hallback - Landowner or Government Unit Address: One Williams Center, OTC-8, Tulsa, OK Phone: trena.hallback@magellanlp.com Rachael Shetka - Contact (representing Barr Engineering Company, Inc. - uluth) (submitted application) Barr Engineering Company, Inc. - uluth - Agent Proposed Activity (No information is on file) Address: 325 South Lake Avenue, Suite 700, uluth, mn Phone: rshetka@barr.com Address: 325 Lake Avenue South Suite 700, uluth, MN Phone: NOTICE: THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. All information provided on this application form is considered to be public information in accordance with the Minnesota ata Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13). PAGE 1

55 Location and Water Resources Installation Name: Installation #1 Counties: Olmsted Watersheds: Zumbro River PLS: T106N-R12W-S10 SENW UTM: X: Y: Water Resources: Groundwater Well Construction Assessment Overview 1 What is the main type of work you are proposing to do? Well assessment 2 If drilled, would this well(s) be connected to an existing system that is already covered by a NR water appropriation permit? 3 Which of the following most accurately describes what you are proposing? 4 What is the maximum volume of water you think you will need per year (in million gallons), if known? (For example, enter 2,500,000 gallons as 2.5) 5 If you are not the well driller, please provide their name, phone number, and address. (if known) 6 What is the county property parcel I# for the land where the well(s) are proposed to be drilled (enter multiple if applicable)? (if known) No rilling one (1) new well 5,000,000 million gallons per year To be determined Installation Installation Name: Installation #1 (Well) 1 What is the estimated proposed depth (in feet) of the well? (if known) 700 feet 2 What is the aquifer name? (if known) Jordan 3 What is the maximum desired pumping rate (in gpm) for this well? 285 gallons per minute 4 What is the water source formation? eeper bedrock unit NOTICE: THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. All information provided on this application form is considered to be public information in accordance with the Minnesota ata Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13). PAGE 2

56 Installation (Continued) 5 Counties Olmsted 6 Watersheds Zumbro River 7 PLS T106N-R12W-S10 SENW 8 UTMXY X: Y: Water resources Groundwater Acknowledgment (By the party who submitted the well assessment) þ I attest that: I own or control (by lease, license, or other permission) the land from which groundwater or surface water will be appropriated, AN There are no easements or other restrictions on the land that would prohibit the proposed activities from being authorized under a permit, AN I possess the authority to undertake the work described, or I am acting as a duly authorized agent, AN The information submitted and the statements made concerning this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, AN If I drill the proposed well, I will apply for and receive a NR water use permit prior to pumping. PRINTE: 09/17/2018 at 6:53 PM NOTICE: THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. All information provided on this application form is considered to be public information in accordance with the Minnesota ata Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13). PAGE 3

57 Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources ivision of Ecological and Water Resources MNNR PERMITTING AN REPORTING SYSTEM (MPARS) MN NR EWR 1200 Warner Rd St Paul MN November 30, 2018 Re: NR Well Construction Preliminary Assessment; Tracking No ; T106N-R12W-S10 SENW; Olmsted County. Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. One Williams Center Tulsa, OK ear Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P.: This is your preliminary approval to construct a well. We have reviewed your well drillling proposal and determined that the proposed rate and volume may interfere with other water users or have negative impacts on nearby lakes, streams or wetlands. Basis for recommendation: State law¹ requires that use of water not cause harm to ecosystems, degrade water quality, or significantly reduce the public water supply. We found that your proposed well has the following potential concerns: ¹ Minnesota Statute 103G.287 ² Minnesota Statute 103I S Yellow Level, Well Assessment I 1325, MPARS revision , printed

58 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. November 30, 2018 Re: NR Well Construction Preliminary Assessment Page 2 - The over 13 calcareous fen and the over 7 calcareous fen are located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the proposed well. Calcareous fens are rare wetlands characterized by a non-acidic layer of peat and dependent on a constant supply of cold, oxygen-poor groundwater rich in calcium and magnesium bicarbonates. Calcareous fens may not be filled, drained, or otherwise degraded, wholly or partially, by any activity, unless the commissioner of natural resources, under an approved management plan, decides some alteration is necessary. The over calcareous fens, though, receive their source water from the Galena aquifer. The Galena aquifer is separated from the Jordan aquifer by the ecorah-platteville-glenwood confining unit, partially saturated conditions in the St. Peter Sandstone, and the lower Prairie du Chien (Oneota Formation) confining unit. A single Jordan aquifer well pumping for 14 days and more than 2 miles away is unlikely to have any impact on the over calcareous fens. - The County Well Index indicates that there are 28 private domestic water supply wells within 1.5 miles of the proposed well. While the potential for domestic well interference appears low, please note that if the use of the proposed well deprives nearby homes of their domestic water supply as a result of a valid well interference complaint(s) that is affirmed by the NR, then use of the well must stop until you establish a new water supply for the affected homes. - Two NR public waters, Unnamed Creek No. M and Unnamed Creek No. M , are located approximately 1 mile away from the proposed well. The potential for impact to these streams appears low. - Please refer to the attached "Guide to the Collection of Well Capacity Test ata" when test pumping the proposed well. Water level data collected during a well capacity test can be used to calculate groundwater aquifer parameters for appropriation permits. If properly collected, this information may replace the potential need for an aquifer test. The attached assessment checklist contains further information about our analysis. If you choose to drill this well: The well contractor or property owner needs to notify the MN epartment of Health² before the well is constructed. Then: The landowner needs to apply for a NR water appropriation permit before the well is pumped for production. A permit from the NR is required for water use above 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year. The easiest method to apply for a water use permit is through the Minnesota NR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) at Instructions at this website will assist you, step-by-step, through the application process. To more completely understand the risk to other wells or lakes, streams or wetlands, you may be asked for additional information and testing or monitoring, at your expense. We will use this information to determine how much water can be appropriated.

59 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. November 30, 2018 Re: NR Well Construction Preliminary Assessment Page 3 Please note: This preliminary approval to construct a well is information you can use to decide whether to proceed in constructing a well and is based largely on information you provided. It is not notification to the MN epartment of Health, and is not a NR water use permit. Thank you for your attention. We anticipate this process will save money for landowners with water needs near sensitive or limited water resources, and will help avoid water shortages. If you have any questions, please contact me at or daniel.scollan@state.mn.us. Sincerely, aniel Scollan Hydrologist Enclosures

60 (This page intentionally blank)

61 Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources ivision of Ecological and Water Resources MNNR PERMITTING AN REPORTING SYSTEM (MPARS) WELL CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST Re: NR Well Construction Preliminary Assessment; Tracking No ; T106N-R12W-S10 SENW; Olmsted County. This well construction preliminary assessment is not an appropriation permit. State law requires you to obtain preliminary approval to drill a well that is required to have a NR water appropriation permit. A water appropriation permit from the NR is required for all users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or 1 million gallons per year. NR Staff have evaluated your project to determine whether the proposed appropriation is likely to meet statutory requirements in Minnesota Statute section 103G.287. The factors checked below are those that we believe may be impacted by your proposed water use: ü ü Calcareous fens esignated trout streams Lakes and rivers, wetlands Rare Species (Threatened, Endangered, Special Concern), Native Plant Communities (S1-3) Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance (High, Outstanding) Known well interference problems ü Existing water appropriation permits with higher priority as defined in Statute 103G.261 Publicly owned lands such as NR Wildlife Management Areas Municipal Wellhead Protection Areas, rinking Water Source Management Areas, Source Water Protection Areas Known groundwater contamination Groundwater management areas or areas with declining water levels MH Special Well and Boring Construction Areas If any of the factors above are marked with a checkmark, you may be required to install monitoring well(s), perform aquifer test(s), or provide other information to ascertain anticipated impacts to these features. This information will be used to evaluate and make a decision on your water appropriation request. Your water appropriation request may be modified, reduced, or denied based upon site specific information.

62

63

64 Guide to the Collection of Well Capacity Test ata Updated 6/12/2018 Water level data collected during a well capacity test can be used to calculate aquifer parameters for appropriation permits. If properly collected, this information may replace the need for an aquifer test. For the NR to use well capacity test data, follow this guidance as closely as possible: Pumping Method and Rate Use a pump for the test. Airlifting does not provide reliable information. Pump at a rate equal to or greater than the request permit application rate. Pump for a minimum of 24 hours OR until water levels stop changing. Maintain a constant pumping rate, ideally within 10% of the initial rate. Measure the pumping rate at least once per hour using a reliable method such as a flow meter and totalizer. If the flowrate must be changed, note the time of the change to the nearest minute. The start and stop time of pumping should be recorded to the nearest minute. Be sure to have a check valve or other method to keep the water in the pump column from dropping back into the well during recovery. Water ischarge Note the location where pumped water is discharged on a map or air photo, including the distance from the pumping well and how the water is discharged. Water Level Measurements Measure water levels to the nearest ½ inch or better. If possible use an E-tape or steel tape. Record the initial static (non-pumping) water level measurement in the pumped well. Record the time of each measurement to the nearest minute. If possible, it is helpful to collect water level measurements in a nearby well. After the pump has been turned off, continue measuring water levels until they return to 90% of the static water level. ata Collection Record pumping rates, times, and water levels on the attached worksheets. The worksheets show recommended time intervals for taking water level readings during both pumping and recovery.

65 PUMPING PHASE ATA Page 1 Site Name: ate: Well # Casing iameter (inches): Casing Above Ground (inches): Well epth (feet): Operator: Pump epth (feet): Static Water Level (non-pumping) epth to Water (feet): Phone No.: Static Water Level Measurement Time: Pumping Start Time: Totalizer Reading (if flow meter used): ate and Time Time (min) from Start of Pumping epth to Water Feet epth to Water 1/10s or inches Pumping Rate (gpm) 0 (static) (30 sec) (1 hr) 90 (1 ½ hr) 120 (2 hr) 150 (2 ½ hr) 180 (3 hr) 210 (3 ½ hr) 240 (4 hr) NOTES Initial Static Reading

66 PUMPING PHASE ATA Page 2 Site Name: ate: Well # Casing iameter (inches): Casing Above Ground (inches): Well epth (feet): Operator: Pump epth (feet): Static Water Level (non-pumping) epth to Water (feet): Phone No.: Static Water Level Measurement Time: Pumping Stop Time: Totalizer Reading (if flow meter used): ate and Time Time (hours) from Start of Pumping epth to Water Feet epth to Water 1/10s or inches Pumping Rate (gpm) NOTES

67 RECOVERY PHASE ATA Page 1 Site Name: ate: Well # Casing iameter (inches): Casing Above Ground (inches): Well epth (feet): Operator: Pump epth (feet): Static Water Level (non-pumping) epth to Water (feet): Phone No.: Static Water Level Measurement Time: Pumping Stop Time: Totalizer Reading (if flow meter used): ate and Time Time (min) from Stop of Pumping epth to Water Feet epth to Water 1/10s or inches Pumping Rate (gpm) (30 sec) (1 hr) 0 90 (1 ½ hr) (2 hr) (2 ½ hr) (3 hr) (3 ½ hr) (4 hr) 0 NOTES

68 RECOVERY PHASE ATA Page 2 Site Name: ate: Well # Casing iameter (inches): Casing Above Ground (inches): Well epth (feet): Operator: Pump epth (feet): Static Water Level (non-pumping) epth to Water (feet): Phone No.: Static Water Level Measurement Time: Pumping Stop Time: Totalizer Reading (if flow meter used): ate and Time Time (hours) from Stop of Pumping epth to Water Feet epth to Water 1/10s or inches Pumping Rate (gpm) NOTES

69 Measuring Water Use & Flow Meter Requirements Flow Meter Requirements Minnesota Statutes 103G.281, Subdivision 2, requires all installations for appropriating water to be equipped with a flow meter to measure the quantity of water appropriated within the degree of accuracy required by rule (10%). The commissioner may approve alternate methods of measurement based on the quantity of water used, the method of appropriating or using water and any other information supplied by an applicant. Why require Flow Meters? The law is aimed at improving the accuracy of water use reporting and has many benefits. Careful monitoring of water withdrawals can be used to: provide valuable information for management of the resource, detect well and pump problems, improve irrigation efficiency, and determine pumping plant efficiency. As a management tool, accurate flow monitoring can help to conserve both energy and water resources. Accurate data is necessary to evaluate the capability of the resource to sustain water withdrawals and is also important for investigation of well interference complaints. oes everyone need a flow meter? All new permitted installations will be required to have flow meters unless prior NR approval has been given for an alternate method. Existing systems may be allowed to use an approved alternate method. epending upon the type of system, water use and quantity of water used, the commissioner may approve alternate methods for measuring water use. Requests for approval of alternate methods must be submitted in writing to the NR. Proper record keeping is required for all approved methods of determining water use. When is a flow meter required? Flow meters are required when alternate methods cannot provide an accurate measurement of water use. Flow meters will be required where the following circumstances exist: 1. Systems with widely fluctuating discharge rates or when variable speed pumps are used. 2. Systems with alternating zone coverage, such as golf course irrigation systems. 3. Instances where the permit holder has a history of providing inaccurate pumping reports or has failed to submit water use fees and reports. 4. Situations where the adequacy of the resource is a concern or there is a history of well interference problems. What methods are approved? The following methods are approved for measuring water use: 1. Flow meters with a totalizer. 2. Flow rate meters used with timing devices. 3. Timing devices (hour meters and electric meters). 4. Vehicle gallon capacities (i.e. water trucks). aily records of water use and time pumped must be kept for these methods. Methods 2 and 3 are require d to have a constant pumping rate. What if I am using a gravity flow system? Special instructions regarding gravity flow operations are available by calling the NR and requesting the "Measuring Appropriations from Gravity Flow Installations" information sheet. Which methods are not approved? The following methods are not approved for measuring water use: 1. Rain gauges or other methods using application rates, such as irrigation systems that are set to apply a certain amount of water per acre or pass. 2. Buckets used to measure discharge rates. 3. Fuel consumption by gasoline or diesel engines. 4. Estimates using a set volume of water per person or animal. How do I get my method approved? Each year permittees are required to sign an affidavit of compliance on the water use report indicating compliance with the law requiring a flow meter or an approved measuring device. The affidavit of compliance and the annual report of water use are due by February 15 of each year. Permittees using a method of measurement that has not been approved must submit a written request for approval of an alternate method. Requests should include a detailed description of the proposed method (i.e. diagrams, calculations). Requests for approval of an alternate method should be sent to your local NR Ecological and Water Resources Office. Only methods that measure water use within 10 percent accuracy will be considered for approval. Records of water use must be kept for all methods of water use. Failure to have an approved method is a violation of Minnesota Statutes and permit conditions and is punishable as a misdemeanor with fines up to $700 and/or 90 days in jail. General To obtain information about the purchase and/or installation of a flow meter, contact a licensed well driller, irrigation equipment dealer or plumbing supply company (continued on next page) This information is available in an alternative format upon request. Updated: July 2018

70 Calculating Monthly Water Use To calculate monthly water use from: A. Flow Meter: Subtract the reading at the beginning of the month from the reading at the end of the month. If the meter is in cubic feet, multiply the monthly use by 7.48 to convert the usage into gallons. B. Timing evice: Multiply the hours pumped for the month by the pump rate (in gallons per minute, gpm) times 60 (minutes). [Example; 150 hrs x 800 gpm x 60 min/hr = 7,200,00 gallons]. Hourly timing device options: 1. An hourly time clock connected directly to irrigation pumping plant system. 2. Kilowatt Hours: Monthly hours of pumping determined by dividing monthly electric usage by electric meter's monthly power demand rate (Kw). [Example: 3000 Kwh of electricity was used in the month of June and the electric meter recorded a peak demand for the month of 25 Kw, then the total hours pumped is found by dividing 3000 Kwh by 25 Kw, which yields 120 hours pumped for the month. To find water use take 120 hrs x 300 gpm x 60 min/ hr = 2,160,000 gallons]. * Approved Alternatives for Estimating Water Pumping Rate from Agricultural Irrigation Systems The following alternate methods are approved by the NR for agricultural irrigation systems: Pumping flow rate test. Center pivot/linear system's manufacturers nozzling chart. - for a center pivot with a corner swing unit, refer to the following section. Traveling gun nozzling chart. Lateral line irrigation systems nozzling chart. gph per 100' of trickle tube* feet/100 = gpm Open discharge pump's manufacture curve. ESTIMATING ISCHARGE OF A CENTER PIVOT WITH CORNER UNIT A good average discharge flow rate estimate for a center pivot with a corner arm can be determined by taking the average of the discharge rate when the corner arm is fully extended and fully retracted. The water discharge from a center pivot with a corner swing arm varies depending on the postion of the swing arm, usage of flow control/regulators, and the slope of the pump performance curve. STEPS TO ESTIMATE GPM FOR A TRAVELING GUN 1. etermine nozzle size to nearest 1/100th of an inch and nozzle type (bore or ring): [ex: 1-1/4" = 1.25 inches taper & bore nozzle]. 2. etermine average operating pressure at the base of the sprinkler. If pressure varies between first and last travel runs, take the average between the first and last runs: [ex: 1st run = 95 psi, last run = 85 psi, average = ( )/2 = 90 psi]. 3. Select the appropriate discharge table (bore or ring nozzle) listed below and find the estimated gpm for your nozzle size and average operating pressure or use gun manufacturer's published discharge table. If your nozzle size or operating pressure values follow between the table numbers, make an interpolation between the smaller and larger numbers to get a more accurate estimate of flow: [ex: have 1.25" bore 90 psi; table gives at 90 psi " and 1.4"; then to estimate the gpm for 1.25" nozzle calculate as follows: gpm = 405 gpm + [(1.25" - 1.2")/(1.4" - 1.2")] X (545 gpm gpm) = (0.05/0.20) X 140 = X 140 = = 440 gpm Typical ischarges for Single Large Nozzle Sprinkler Guns Sprinkler Straight or taper bore nozzle sizes (inches) Pressure (psi) Sprinkler discharge in gpm Ring Nozzle Sizes (inches) (psi) Sprinkler discharge in gpm Table Sources: Nelson Irrigation Corp. - sprinkler charts. Rain Bird, Agri Products ivision - sprinkler charts. SCS National Sprinkler Irrigation Book - Chapter 15. *Prepared by: Jerry Wright, Extension Agricultural Engineer, University of Minnesota, For additional information or questions, contact: ivision of Ecological and Water Resources MN NR Phone: MN Toll Free: MINNNR ( ) Telecommunication evice for the eaf: MN Toll Free

71 Appendix C Minnesota NR Natural Heritage Information System Review

72

73

74 Instructions for the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) ata Request Form The ivision of Ecological and Water Resources maintains the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that provides information on Minnesota's rare plants and animals, native plant communities, and other rare features. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and the Minnesota County Biological Survey (MBS) is a major source of this information. Use this form to request information on rare features within an approximate one-mile radius of an area of interest. You may reproduce this form for your own use or to distribute. An electronic copy of the form is available at the NR s web site. If you are interested in obtaining the Rare Features atabase electronically as a GIS shapefile, do not fill out this form. Please see this Natural Heritage ata document for more information on this option. WHO IS REQUESTING THE INFORMATION? The person whose name is entered on the form under the Who is Requesting the Information section must sign the form as an acknowledgment of the State of Minnesota s copyright on all generated reports. All correspondence and invoices will be sent to this person. Please do not ask us to send this information to a different party. Please include a complete mailing address. Responses will be sent via unless you specify differently. INFORMATION WE NEE FROM YOU: Include a legible map (topographic maps or aerial photographs are preferred) clearly showing: 1) location and boundaries of the project, 2) associated infrastructure, and 3) any waterbodies that may be affected by the proposed project. If the project boundary is large or complex, please provide a GIS shapefile (NA 83, UTM Zone 15) of the project boundary/area of interest. o not include any buffers. An additional digitizing fee may be charged for projects that require a substantial amount of time to digitize. Provide a complete list of sections that the proposed project or area of interest falls within. o not include any buffer area. Please double-check this information. Incorrect sections can delay the processing of your request, and may result in an invalid review. Please provide a detailed project description, attaching separate pages to the form if necessary. Identify the type of development (e.g., housing, commercial, utility, ethanol facility, wind farm) being proposed, the size and # of units (if applicable), construction methods, and any associated infrastructure such as access roads, utility connections, and water supply and/or discharge pipelines. We cannot begin processing data requests until we receive all parts of the request, including a map and a completed, signed form. INFORMATION WE PROVIE TO YOU: The Natural Heritage review and database reports are valid for environmental review purposes for one year, and they are only valid for the project location and description provided on the form. Please contact Lisa Joyal at lisa.joyal@state.mn.us if project details change or if a data update is needed. Please note that the Natural Heritage review and database reports do not address/contain locations of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), state-listed as special concern, or Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), federally-listed as threatened, as these species are not currently tracked in the Natural Heritage Information System. See page 4. FEES / TURNAROUN TIME: There is a fee for this service. All fees are subject to change. The current fee schedule is available online. The minimum charge is $90.00, and increases based on the time it takes us to process the request (dependent upon project size and the results of the query). Please do not include payment with your request; an invoice will be sent to you. There is generally a 3-4 week turn-around time to process requests. PLEASE SEE NEXT PAGE FOR AITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION * Please see the instructions on page 3. Page 3 of 4

75 AITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The NR Rare Species Guide is the state's authoritative reference for Minnesota's endangered, threatened, and special concern species. It is a dynamic, interactive source that can be queried by county, ECS subsection, watershed, or habitat. Information on the gray wolf (Canis lupus): NR website gray wolf Species Profile USFWS website Monitoring Report Information on the Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis): NR website Canada Lynx Species Profile USFWS website Canada Lynx profile Minnesota's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy is an action plan focused on managing Minnesota s native animals whose populations are rare, declining, or vulnerable to decline. It identifies Species in Greatest Conservation Need and the Key Habitats that support them. The Minnesota Geospatial Commons allows users to download GIS shapefiles of MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance, MBS Native Plant Communities, MBS Railroad Rights-of-Way Prairies, and Scientific and Natural Area Boundaries. Information on MBS Site Biodiversity Significance Ranks Information on MBS Native Plant Communities Questions? Please contact Lisa Joyal at or lisa.joyal@state.mn.us. * Please see the instructions on page 3. Page 4 of 4

76 Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources ivision of Ecological & Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN November 17, 2017 Correspondence # ERB Ms. Rachael Shetka Barr Engineering Company 325 South Lake Avenue, Suite 700 uluth, MN RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Magellan Rochester - Storage Tank, T106N R12W Section 10; Olmsted County ear Ms. Shetka, As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed project. Based on this query, rare features have been documented within the search area (for details, please visit the Rare Species Guide at for more information on the biology, habitat use, and conservation measures of these rare species). Please note that the following rare features may be adversely affected by the proposed project: Blanding s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species, have been reported in the vicinity of the proposed project. Given the previous land use in the immediate vicinity of the project area, impacts to this rare turtle are not anticipated. In the unlikely event that a Blanding s turtle is found on site, please remember that the destruction of threatened or endangered species is prohibited by state law and rules, except under certain prescribed conditions. The attached flyer should be given to all contractors working in the area. If Blanding s turtles are found on the site, please remember that state law and rules prohibit the destruction of threatened or endangered species, except under certain prescribed conditions. If turtles are in imminent danger they must be moved by hand out of harm s way, otherwise they are to be left undisturbed. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should address whether the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect the above rare features and, if so, it should identify specific measures that will be taken to avoid or minimize disturbance. Please include a copy of this letter in any state or local license or permit application. Please note that measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the above rare features may be included as restrictions or conditions in any required permits or licenses.

77 Page 2 of 2 The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota s rare natural features, is maintained by the ivision of Ecological and Water Resources, epartment of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary. For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results are only valid for the project location (noted above) and the project description provided on the NHIS ata Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or for an updated review if construction has not occurred within one year. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the epartment of Natural Resources as a whole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. If you have not done so already, please contact your NR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist to determine whether there are other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project (contact information available at Please be aware that additional site assessments or review may be required. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover. Sincerely, Samantha Bump Natural Heritage Review Specialist Samantha.Bump@state.mn.us Enc. Cc: Blanding s Turtle Fact Sheet & Flyer Wildlife Friendly Erosion Control Becky Horton Leslie Parris Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources Ecological & Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155

78 Preventing Entanglement by Erosion Control Blanket Plastic mesh netting is a common component in erosion control blanket. It is utilized to hold loose fibrous materials in place (EG straw) until vegetation is established. Erosion control blanket is being utilized extensively and is effective for reducing soil erosion, benefitting both soil health and water quality. Unfortunately there is a negative aspect of the plastic mesh component: It is increasingly being documented that its interaction with reptiles and amphibians can be fatal (Barton and Kinkead, 2005; Kapfer and Paloski, 2011). Mowing machinery is also susceptible to damage due to the long lasting plastic mesh. Potential Problems: Plastic netting remains a hazard long after other components have decomposed. Plastic mesh netting can result in entanglement and death of a variety of small animals. The most vulnerable group of animals are the reptiles and amphibians (snakes, frogs, toads, salamanders, turtles). ucklings, small mammals, and fish have also been observed entangled in the netting. Road maintenance machinery can snag the plastic mesh and pull up long lengths into machinery, thus binding up machinery and causing damage and/or loss of time cleaning it out. Suggested Alternatives: o not use in known locations of reptiles or amphibians that are listed as Threatened or Endangered species. Limit use of blanket containing welded plastic mesh to areas away from where reptiles or amphibians are likely (near wetlands, lakes, watercourses, or rock outcrops) or habitat transition zones (prairie woodland edges, rocky outcrop woodland edges, steep rocky slopes, etc.) Select products with biodegradable netting (preferably made from natural fibers, though varieties of biodegradable polyesters also exist on the market). Biodegradable products will degrade under a variety of moisture and light conditions. O NOT use products that require UV-light to degrade (also called photodegradable ) as they do not degrade properly when shaded by vegetation. Solution: Most categories of erosion control blanket and sediment control logs are available in natural net options. Specify Natural Netting for rolled erosion control products, per MnOT Spec See Table Specify Natural Netting for sediment control logs, per MnOT Spec 3897 The plastic mesh component of erosion control blanket becomes a net for entrapment. Literature Referenced Barton, C. and K. Kinkead o erosion control and snakes mesh? Soil and Water Conservation Society 60:33A-35A. Kapfer, J.M., and R.A. Paloski On the threat to snakes of mesh deployed for erosion control and wildlife exclusion. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6:1-9. ( Best Practices for Meeting NR GP (version 4, October 2014) Chapter 1, Page 25

79 Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species of Minnesota Blanding s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) Minnesota Status: Threatened State Rank 1 : S2 Federal Status: none Global Rank 1 : G4 HABITAT USE Blanding s turtles need both wetland and upland habitats to complete their life cycle. The types of wetlands used include ponds, marshes, shrub swamps, bogs, and ditches and streams with slow-moving water. In Minnesota, Blanding s turtles are primarily marsh and pond inhabitants. Calm, shallow water bodies (Type 1-3 wetlands) with mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation (e.g., cattails, water lilies) are preferred, and extensive marshes bordering rivers provide excellent habitat. Small temporary wetlands (those that dry up in the late summer or fall) are frequently used in spring and summer -- these fishless pools are amphibian and invertebrate breeding habitat, which provides an important food source for Blanding s turtles. Also, the warmer water of these shallower areas probably aids in the development of eggs within the female turtle. Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands, often some distance from water bodies. Frequently, nesting occurs in traditional nesting grounds on undeveloped land. Blanding s turtles have also been known to nest successfully on residential property (especially in low density housing situations), and to utilize disturbed areas such as farm fields, gardens, under power lines, and road shoulders (especially of dirt roads). Although Blanding s turtles may travel through woodlots during their seasonal movements, shady areas (including forests and lawns with shade trees) are not used for nesting. Wetlands with deeper water are needed in times of drought, and during the winter. Blanding s turtles overwinter in the muddy bottoms of deeper marshes and ponds, or other water bodies where they are protected from freezing. LIFE HISTORY Individuals emerge from overwintering and begin basking in late March or early April on warm, sunny days. The increase in body temperature which occurs during basking is necessary for egg development within the female turtle. Nesting in Minnesota typically occurs during June, and females are most active in late afternoon and at dusk. Nesting can occur as much as a mile from wetlands. The nest is dug by the female in an open sandy area and 6-15 eggs are laid. The female turtle returns to the marsh within 24 hours of laying eggs. After a development period of approximately two months, hatchlings leave the nest from mid-august through early-october. Nesting females and hatchlings are often at risk of being killed while crossing roads between wetlands and nesting areas. In addition to movements associated with nesting, all ages and both sexes move between wetlands from April through November. These movements peak in June and July and again in September and October as turtles move to and from overwintering sites. In late autumn (typically November), Blanding s turtles bury themselves in the substrate (the mud at the bottom) of deeper wetlands to overwinter. IMPACTS / THREATS / CAUSES OF ECLINE loss of wetland habitat through drainage or flooding (converting wetlands into ponds or lakes) loss of upland habitat through development or conversion to agriculture human disturbance, including collection for the pet trade* and road kills during seasonal movements increase in predator populations (skunks, raccoons, etc.) which prey on nests and young *It is illegal to possess this threatened species.

80 Minnesota NR ivision of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding s Turtle. 2 RECOMMENATIONS FOR AVOIING AN MINIMIZING IMPACTS These recommendations apply to typical construction projects and general land use within Blanding s turtle habitat, and are provided to help local governments, developers, contractors, and homeowners minimize or avoid detrimental impacts to Blanding s turtle populations. List 1 describes minimum measures which we recommend to prevent harm to Blanding s turtles during construction or other work within Blanding s turtle habitat. List 2 contains recommendations which offer even greater protection for Blanding s turtles populations; this list should be used in addition to the first list in areas which are known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding s turtles (contact the NR s Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program if you wish to determine if your project or home is in one of these areas), or in any other area where greater protection for Blanding s turtles is desired. List 1. Recommendations for all areas inhabited by Blanding s turtles. List 2. Additional recommendations for areas known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding s turtles. GENERAL A flyer with an illustration of a Blanding s turtle should be given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners should also be informed of the presence of Blanding s turtles in the area. Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved, by hand, out of harms way. Turtles which are not in imminent danger should be left undisturbed. If a Blanding s turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the nest. Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated. Turtle crossing signs can be installed adjacent to roadcrossing areas used by Blanding s turtles to increase public awareness and reduce road kills. Workers in the area should be aware that Blanding s turtles nest in June, generally after 4pm, and should be advised to minimize disturbance if turtles are seen. If you would like to provide more protection for a Blanding s turtle nest on your property, see Protecting Blanding s Turtle Nests on page 3 of this fact sheet. Construction in potential nesting areas should be limited to the period between September 15 and June 1 (this is the time when activity of adults and hatchlings in upland areas is at a minimum). WETLANS Small, vegetated temporary wetlands (Types 2 & 3) should not be dredged, deepened, filled, or converted to storm water retention basins (these wetlands provide important habitat during spring and summer). Wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided, and run-off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes. Shallow portions of wetlands should not be disturbed during prime basking time (mid morning to mid- afternoon in May and June). A wide buffer should be left along the shore to minimize human activity near wetlands (basking Blanding s turtles are more easily disturbed than other turtle species). Wetlands should be protected from road, lawn, and other chemical run-off by a vegetated buffer strip at least 50' wide. This area should be left unmowed and in a natural condition. ROAS Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes (this reduces road kills by slowing traffic and reducing the distance turtles need to cross). Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4 inch high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred (Blanding s turtles have great difficulty climbing traditional curbs; curbs and below grade roads trap turtles on the road and can cause road kills). Tunnels should be considered in areas with concentrations of turtle crossings (more than 10 turtles per year per 100 meters of road), and in areas of lower density if the level of road use would make a safe crossing impossible for turtles. Contact your NR Regional Nongame Specialist for further information on wildlife tunnels. Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade.

81 Minnesota NR ivision of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding s Turtle. 3 ROAS cont. Culverts between wetland areas, or between wetland areas and nesting areas, should be 36 inches or greater in diameter, and elliptical or flat-bottomed. Wetland crossings should be bridged, or include raised roadways with culverts which are 36 in or greater in diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical (raised roadways discourage turtles from leaving the wetland to bask on roads). Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical. Road placement should avoid separating wetlands from adjacent upland nesting sites, or these roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your NR Nongame Specialist for details). Road placement should avoid bisecting wetlands, or these roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your NR Nongame Specialist for details). This is especially important for roads with more than 2 lanes. Roads crossing streams should be bridged. Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum (this reduces road-kill potential). Because trenches can trap turtles, trenches should be checked for turtles prior to being backfilled and the sites should be returned to original grade. UTILITIES LANSCAPING AN VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible. Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs (some non-natives form dense patches through which it is difficult for turtles to travel). Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1 st and before June 1 st ). As much natural landscape as possible should be preserved (installation of sod or wood chips, paving, and planting of trees within nesting habitat can make that habitat unusable to nesting Blanding s turtles). Open space should include some areas at higher elevations for nesting. These areas should be retained in native vegetation, and should be connected to wetlands by a wide corridor of native vegetation. itches and utility access roads should not be mowed or managed through use of chemicals. If vegetation management is required, it should be done mechanically, as infrequently as possible, and fall through spring (mowing can kill turtles present during mowing, and makes it easier for predators to locate turtles crossing roads). Protecting Blanding s Turtle Nests: Most predation on turtle nests occurs within 48 hours after the eggs are laid. After this time, the scent is gone from the nest and it is more difficult for predators to locate the nest. Nests more than a week old probably do not need additional protection, unless they are in a particularly vulnerable spot, such as a yard where pets may disturb the nest. Turtle nests can be protected from predators and other disturbance by covering them with a piece of wire fencing (such as chicken wire), secured to the ground with stakes or rocks. The piece of fencing should measure at least 2 ft. x 2 ft., and should be of medium sized mesh (openings should be about 2 in. x 2 in.). It is very important that the fencing be removed before August 1 st so the young turtles can escape from the nest when they hatch! REFERENCES 1 Association for Biodiversity Information. Heritage Status: Global, National, and Subnational Conservation Status Ranks. NatureServe. Version 1.3 (9 April 2001). (15 April 2001). Coffin, B., and L. Pfannmuller Minnesota s Endangered Flora and Fauna. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 473 pp.

82 Minnesota NR ivision of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blanding s Turtle. 4 REFERENCES (cont.) Moriarty, J. J., and M. Linck Suggested guidelines for projects occurring in Blanding s turtle habitat. Unpublished report to the Minnesota NR. 8 pp. Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 237 pp. Sajwaj, T.., and J. W. Lang Thermal ecology of Blanding s turtle in central Minnesota. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4): Compiled by the Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources ivision of Ecological Resources, Updated March 2008 Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., Box 25, St. Paul, MN /

83 Rachael A. Shetka From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Bump, Samantha (NR) Friday, November 30, :22 PM Rachael A. Shetka Horton, Becky (NR); Parris, Leslie (NR) RE: NHIS Response: Magellan a.pdf; Ebfactsheet2008.pdf; NR Best Practices Erosion Control and Mesh Netting.pdf Hi Rachel, I have reviewed the NHIS regarding the Magellan Rochester Storage Tank project. There are no new records in the vicinity of the project; As such, the Natural Heritage letter dated November 17, 2017 is valid until November 30, Thank you for consulting us on this matter. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Have a great day, Samantha Bump NHIS Review Specialist Ecological & Water Resources Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN Phone: Samantha.Bump@state.mn.us mndnr.gov From: Rachael A. Shetka <RShetka@barr.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, :14 PM To: Bump, Samantha (NR) <samantha.bump@state.mn.us> Cc: Horton, Becky (NR) <becky.horton@state.mn.us>; Parris, Leslie (NR) <leslie.parris@state.mn.us> Subject: RE: NHIS Response: Magellan Samantha, The Magellan Rochester Storage Tank EAW is still in progress; therefore, could you please confirm if the attached review is still valid? Thank you! Rachael A. Shetka Senior Environmental Specialist uluth, MN office: RShetka@barr.com 1

84 If you no longer wish to receive marketing s from Barr, respond to and we will be happy to honor your request. From: Bump, Samantha (NR) Sent: Friday, November 17, :48 PM To: Rachael A. Shetka Cc: Horton, Becky (NR) Parris, Leslie (NR) Subject: NHIS Response: Magellan Hi Rachael, Attached is the NHIS response regarding the Magellan Rochester Storage Tank EAW. Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great weekend! Samantha Bump NHIS Review Specialist Ecological & Water Resources Minnesota epartment of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN Phone: samantha.bump@state.mn.us mndnr.gov 2

85 Appendix Minnesota Historic Preservation Office Review

86