The URL can be used to link to this page

261763 � .I R [[['''�� yyy A WHITE -�CITY CLERK - ��-j PIf�K « • FINANCE TT COII11C11 � CANARY.�'DEPARTMENT � GITY OF SAINT PAIl L v B�UE ��.�AVOR� Fll@ NO. - ~ � Cou cil Re olu io r �, �� Presented By Referred To tt e. . Out of Committee By 9 WHEREAS, the air quality in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is vital to the heal�h and welfare of the citizen.s ; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has adopted, pursuant to federal law, an air quality implementation plan requiring the State to meet a deadline of June 1, i975, with regard to sulfur dioxide emissions ; and WHEREAS, a very practical method of decreasing emissions of sulfur dioxide is the burning of law sulfur coal for electric power generation; and , WHEREAS, the best prac.tical, method for transporting and storing low sulfur coal is by barge delivery to power plan� sites , requiring the establishment of a transfer. facility to move the coal from rail cars �o barges ; and WHEREAS, the absence of such a facility caused a selec- tion of the Pigs Eye Lake site after consider�tion of various alternative sites ; and , . . , WHEREAS, the Pigs Eye site mee�ks ri.eeessary criteria for such a coal transfer facility in that it is isolated from residential and commercial development , is in an area zoned - - and usec� for industrial purposes , is, located in a navigation channel at a point sufficiently wide and deep to accommodate large assemblies of barges , has adequate railroad marshalling areas and appropriate topography; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the transfer facility project, when completed, will be consistent with �'omprehensive land use plans developed and adopted by this Council , recom- mending a multiple land use program for 'the area in question, with a baian�ced complement of industrial , commercial and open COUNCILMEIV Requested by Department of: Yeas gutler Nays ' ]ET� Konopatzki [n Favor Levine Meredith Against BY � xx9�x Roedler Tedesco Mme.President �t HUrit Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY_��A�K�.� By `aproved by MaXor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council a By . , WHITE „- CITY CLERK ' 1 � PINK -'FINANCE CO1111C11 ((�� CANARd' - QEPARTMENT GITY OF SAINT PALTL B4UE ��r�AAYOR� Flle NO. � ��4� i -� Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Page Two �", space and recreational programs ; and WHEREAS, the prope��d Wse is consistent with the Saint Paul Preliminary Land Use Plan designating the area as suitable for heavy industrial and railroad uses , the comprehensive community plan and the Eckbo—Dean Mississippi River Plan and has been approved by the Planning Board of . the �ity of Saint Paul ; and WHEREAS, the Port Authority of the City of Saint Paul , after public hearing, approved the proposed - project by resolution of its Board of Commissioners , Resolution No. 800; and WHEREAS, this Council considered the project on November 21, 1972, and expressed its support and approval by adoption of its Resolutior�, Council File Na . 260170; and WHEREA�, subsequent to the -adoption of said resolution, �1 the memb�r's of the City Council YlA.V@ T@��3�t��_-A, (��'8ft environmental i�pact statement from the Sa�int Paul District of the U. S. Corps of Engineers, wher�in it is stated that the City Council must ac� e�. the project ; and WHEREAS, prompt resolution of the matter by the U. S. Army Gorps ' o.f Engiri'e�ers in the issu�.nce of necessary permits to the Port Au�hority of the City of Saint Paul is imperative to the interests of improved air quality in the metropolitan area, now, therefore , be it COUIVCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas gu,�x, Nays . Konopatzki In Favor Levine ' Meredith Against BY x�ax Roedler Tedesco Mme.President � ��t Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date . Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY�� '�"� By Approved by MaXor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � By BY ,�t WH17E - CI'1�'-CLERK PIfx�K } �IVANGE � COU11C11 �� 63 BLUERV:�tA`ORTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAITL � File NO. �" � '�' Council Resolution . � Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Page �hree RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Saint Paul : 1. That it hereby ratifies and reaffirms it� position as outlined in its prior Resolution, Council File No. 2601'70, adopted November 21, 19'72; 2. That it hereby consents to the project as proposed by the Saint Paul Port Authority; and 3. That it strongly urges and requests �he U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to take the earliest possible action in granting a dredging permit to the Part Authority of the City of Saint Paul , thereby permitting construction of the coal transfer facility. COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas R„t�eY, Nays � Konopatzki � In Favor Levine Meredith AgaiClst BY x�� Roedler Tedesco e� ,19� Mme.President� I�Utlt 1 1 .iV�' � Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date . Certifie ssed by Counc' r y By ��D%��!�� V : �E Approved without the Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council ` signature of the Mayor pursuant to B � ect on . o t e t arter. y PUBLI�HED AU G 41�73 . . : �� i '1 �� , , .H�-E. Marshall Atbert B. Olso� . ``�City Elerk a.�zd t'" �f Counc�zl Recorder �om'htisio�ier of Regiatrmt�,on �//�� `` . . . - . . . f 4� 'LR a S-�` . . . � . . . . .. G �� . � .. �.� I/ti . � � � � � .. � .. �. . f ��=! '` . . . . . .. OFFICE OF THE CITY. CLERK CITY OF SAINT PAUL BUREAU OF RECORDS �86 City Hall St.Paul,Minresota 55102 August 3, i:73 Mr. Rodney E. Cox, �olonel . Corps cf .�ngineers District EYi�ineer Department of �he 11r� St. Paul District Corps of EY��gin�ers 1210 U.S. P�s� Ofz'icA and Cus�orn ��ouUe St. Faul, Ninriesota �51�� Dear :ir: Transraitted herewitn is a reselutior. of the St, Paui Ci�y ^ouncii C,F. :vo. 261.'�63 reaffiz�ning the `:��y C��z:�icil's p-rea�ous positi�n and cvnsenting t;o tize p-rc�p�sa1. :��: �'r�e St. raui. �urt Aut:�ori�� for a coal tr�ns��r facili�y aL �.ne �igs L'ye Lak� si4e. __-.,�ez'Y �ru':r Yc��s� . , , , � �-�� !�,�.' - � _ _. _�,�,,�� ,��//' �.-/..G�� i�;y C�eY'� l ve Attach..�ents �O ,...�:. ,. . , , u : _ ��.:y_.�,t�� , __.�,_ ..�w.-.-..., ,,,�.�..-,. -�� ` J �� ` � � �. � � � � 1 � 1�� . � _ n _� . Gr r� oi� S��:i �,z I':�r_-r� . � �; �� '�y�,� O1�1'I(;1: OI� '1'I�II�. tiI.11"O1� �'a� na.�;� '� 0 � rt . n u t � � V� �.OYiN�.v�+f�S �.? ;y.."-., .. I.:��xr:�.:�: 1>. Gorir.� ��....�x �� ' � �'c��lbcrs of the Sair�t Paul Ci_ty Counci 1 '�'`'�`�� i�".ayor Lawrence D. Cohen DA'1'r : July 31 , 1973 SUl3JI:CT : Council File No , 2�1 '7�,3 �'or� Autnority Coul Transfer :acility On Juiy 27 , 1973 yr�ur ho.lora�le bc�d�,� � � ,-��'�:�n� the United State� . , Pa� sec. a resolution `' Arr��y Corps or L::g,_;,eers to ta;;e act; o;. �'�'� ��rl :�il'L ^a Gi@CiE�1T1P j?@Tli.i� ic�1Cl�I�i1L�Il�; �iiE COI1St7'11CtI0ii pi� �:,%:; l 'crans .fer facili_ty, ti�c I Ci0 i`l0� LIL�.TCC :ti' 1 ti'l CCI"t:l i ii COIiC1 ',LS l �i15 CGIl �;i I 1;C_�(� : :i ��?�-' I"�'SOIUtl_071 . ��i"iC �ICSO�.UZ; lOI1 CGi"1Si:l�i,U�CS i.f1C Op] T11 �J;i O � i.,iC (: 11:'✓ 1,:�,;i�tC 11 �1S 1�e11 flS 1�S C�CS 1T� . r - �-11 rl`t Oi�]_I1"LOIl � lt C:OC,'S ::(�� CO11tii. l�Ui.0 Orr1.Cl�1� �iCi:lOii } cS ;10 AC�10:1 OL tliC' (,i i`✓ �;Ol.iiiC7 i ) S :i:'L�'.SS3Z"y/ IIl �:'Ile lll��t:f,'T' O� tiiC' CO�t : i E'i..;iii?L . , I�C�Cc71. 0 �:�1C1a1S SUC_1 ��S ti1C °�cl`�.'c:�7' � (, i �V Cri�i��C- 1� <;11� , �1 � �i.�� C: �v iti@ iC.'V(',i ; - " ' � , t �c �=,�vcrno7• , �,c, r,o�. ;��ivc a �v�,t�� n��,, �, �;�.� ��al facil.itY , � 1 , � - . I'.�c rc�s��oi,�s i �� 1 it � ��or �;iov�:�r_ at�e<a;: �>r� t��, i s ,�� . � �\� ]"C.'S�S G11�1rC'1�� Ztiti: i.i1C � ;i i. � ' :ir? . iiC�, r O �� t ;il' l� . ,'> . �� 1.07';1$ O� i,I1l�LIlee1S �1�. ,V1�,1 `l i_C' ��CC ?'C�� TV" p;' .'�: �� ilil' L,;i: � ± , _?c� 5�a�es . Color�el C,.- ' � , -, U?� O i. i ';iL i1I111 CU. �i.ai.E,'S 1i�: �' �,r�T':)S O � ;� �11l�LIS Cafl 011iy ]il�,i<<C I"GCG�i1,iiC1lG�it.�l.O,i.� � �.i�iCl (ic l�iCil� �� ;�. �`�ej . �,7�:, �ower i�� , ,. , �,e ii ; �,<<<� i ; �.� '1 �,11 O C d(;1"1 � i.:i.�i 1: �'�C �i 1 1.G L�'C `��. i b C�t 1 0 T i 1 C 1 �i 1> t n �-�_' �� [.SC �l V�tO . T}11S �lC C�lTli10� C�t� , ` � , . . � � , il' ��tor��ey . � l'��C' u�t xl:;i�°:. O��iiliGii Ul � � 1�11. C.VICICIICL ;�,�t_:� ,�(j ,JC' �11CCi �iiU :ii �';.�; T_il�uTC i S'::�111 SU�);�11i. a �Gii,�'I �O ��"tE'. /�7'T11�'`�OTrSC�`t� 1i�jlir�)�,t;-� " 1'lE'�t'S Oil t:11S l;l�ii.�CT' , '��`SO i�itl0il Lp17U.5 COl"iSlttltCS 7T;�I'Gil' �i:"i � '� illlOil Of ti1C Clt;�/ (;OU]1Cli �vJ_Lii CC7'�a1ii C' ` �-��t it is a proper ite�;; ;�or veto or. �;�� _, r� aests . I �o not ieel .nature . Ii1 adiall;lOT1 � l� iiu5 COi�I��. �O ;,",V' d�iteI]tlOi� ti1C �:�dt`.teT' 1S ��'��ii;:, rcvietved uy the Federal E.Lvironm ` el� �al n:otection A�e7�cv , t�� tate� Pollution Control Agency, t'r.e :�etropolitan Council and ,�cr,�aps tne Ramsey County Delegation. ,.:� ,, � , r. . CITY OF SAINT PAUL OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY July 30, 1973 R. SCOTT DAVIES Mayor Lawrence D. Cohen 347 Court House Saint Paul, Minnesota Re: Coal Wharf Facility - Corps of Engineers Permit Dear Mayor Cohen: FA- The Port Authority of the City of Saint Paul has proposed a project whereby a coal wharf facility would be con- structed from the proceeds of the sale of revenue bonds. The facility would be constructed and located in the vicinity of Pig' s Eye Lake in the Red Rock Industrial District, such industrial distri�et having been created by the Saint Paul Port Authority in 1960 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 458. 191. The construction of this proposed project necessitates the dredging of the Mississippi River. By virtue of federal statutes, a dredging permit is required from the Corps of Engineers before such dredging can take place. The Port Authority has applied to the Corps of Engineers. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Corps has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement on July 3, 1973. Following the release of the Environmental Impact Statement to the various state and local agencies as well as private interested persons, Col. Rodney Cox of the U.S. Corps of Engineers District Office was reported to have told a reporter from the St. Paul Dispatch, as reported in the St. Paul Dispatch of Monday, July 2, 1973, ". . . that reaction from citizens and St. Paul elected officials would probably determine the fate of the proposed coal facility at Pig' s Eye Lake . . . Governor Wendell Anderson could veto the facility . . . City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 612 298-5121 � . ` .� ' . � F Mayor Lawrence Cohen Page 'I�ao July 30, 1973 Colonel Cox said it has always been his practice to allow governors in his Corps district to have veto power over Corps activities . . . . He said that since the project is all within the City of Saint Paul, he would 'give considerable weight to the opinions of the elected officials . . . the mayor and the city council' in ma.king 'his final recommendations for approval or disapproval of the project." Based upon this report contained in the St. Paul Dispatch of July 2, 1973, you ask the following UESTION WHAT WEIGHT MAY BE GIVEN TO THE VIEWS AND OPINIONS OF STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO GRANT OR DENY THE DREDGING PERMIT? OPINION By virtue of federal statutes and most specif ically 33 U.S.C.A. Section 565, the Port Authority must obtain a permit for the dredging of tl� Mississippi River. The Corps of Engineers is required to follow and comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) . Section 102 of NEPA cited as 42 U.S.C.A. Section 4332(C) requires that all agencies of the federal govern- ment include in every recommendation or report on ma.jor federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the ]l��r�1Ft11 t�'1].vi_1'�11111��nt Fl ilE?ti� i l f��l t;t.�lt�m�nt-� 1�y t.h� ��ncti� �»� "(T '1'he environmental impact oi Lhe proposed actiori, (II� Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be r�vci;i.clecl �h�u.l.cl tl-�,r nrn{x�fir�l. hc itnj�l.ctnente�l, (7T7) n7 tcrnf�- L-ives to tlle proposed acL-ion, (tV) '1'he relatianship between local short-term uses of man' s environment and the ma.intenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (V) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any federal agency which has jurisdiction by law of special expertise with respect r . � � � " Mayor Lawrence Cohen Page Three July 30, 1973 to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the President, the Council on Environ- mental Quality and to the public as provided by Section 552 of Title 5, and shall accompany the pro�osal through the existing agency review processes; . . . ' It has been established by the Corps of Engineers that the coal wharf facility is a "major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environ- ment" and, therefore, a detailed statement required by virtue of 42 U.S.C.A. Section 4332(C) must be prepared. While 42 U.S.C.A. Section 4332(C) contains a statutory authority for an Environmental Impact Statement and the basic contents of such a statement, the guidelines for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement are established by the Council on Environmental Quality. Such guidelines were prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality on April 23, 1971, and are referred to as "Guidelines for Federal Agencies Under the National Envirorunental Policy Act". The guidelines call for state and local input to be considered by the responsible federal off icials who will ma.ke the decision as to whether or not a permit will be granted. The guidelines call for state and local input throughout the entire preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. The guidelines call for a draft of an Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared b the District Office of the Corps of Engineers. Section 3(D� of the guidelines provides: "It is imperative that existing ma.chanisms for obtaining the views of federal, state, and local agencies on proposed federal actions be utilized to the extent practicable in dealing with environmental ma,tters." Mayor La.wrence Cohen Page Four July 30, 1973 The guidelines provide that the draft of the Environ- mental Impact Statement is to contain "where appropriate, discussion of problems and objections raised by other federal, state, and local agencies and by private organi- zations and individuals in the review process in the disposition of the issues involved. (This section may be added at the end of the review process in the final text of the environmental statement. )". After the draft of the Environmental Impact Statement is prepared, as was done in this case on July 3, 1973, the Corps of Engineers then awaits comments from state and local and federal agencies with a time limit of thirty days being placed on these comments . The guidelines fu-rther provide that wherever an agency action is related to air or water quality, the comments of the administrator of the Environ- mental Protection Agency is required. Such administrator has forty-five days to review the draft of the Environmentai Impact Statement and submit his comments. During the thirty day period after the draft of the Environmental Impact Sta�e- ment has been submitted to the relevant governmental agencies of the state or local government and to the private organi- zations or individuals requesting such statement, comments may be submitted by the state and local agencies or the private organizations or individuals to the district office of the Corps of Engineers. It is then incumbent upon the Corps of Engineers office to submit to the Council on Environmental Quality copies of the draft environmental statement, comments made thereon by the local, state and federal agencies, together with all comments made by private organizations or individuals, and once a final text of the environmental statement is prepared, such final text together with all comments received thereon by the responsible agencies of the federal, state and local government as well as private organizations and individuals must be supplied to the Council on Environmental Quality. The Corps of Engineers may not take action on either granting or denying the dredging permit sooner than ninety days after the draft environmental state- ment has been furnished to the Council on Environmental Quality and once the f inal text of the environmental statement is prepared, no action can be taken by the federal agency until thirty days have lapsed after the final text, together with comments, has been made available to the Council on Environmental Quality and the public. The final text of the Environmental Impact Statement is made available to the public as well as Congress. . , . Mayor Lawrence Cohen Page Five July 30, 1973 Y NEPA and the guidelines established by the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to NEPA do not give veto power to a state governor or a state official or any municipal officer or agency. Al1 of these persons in their off icial capacity or as private individua.ls may submit their comments on the Environmental Impact Statement and all of these comments will be considered part of the Environmental Impact Statement. The ultimate decision as to whether a permit will be granted must be made by the chief engineer of the Corps of Engineers or the Secretary of the Army of the United States. In addition to NEPA, the Corps of Engineers is required to establish the federal regulations established for the granting of Corps permits. 33 C.F.R. Section 209. 110(D) deals with the general policies of issuance of permits for Army Corps. Such regulations provide as follows: "In cases where the structure is unob- jectionable but when state or local authorities decline to give their consent to the work, it is not usual for the Chief of Engineers to issue a permit." "In cases of conflicting rights, the Corps of Engineers cannot undertake to ajudicate rival claims. In reporting such cases for the action of the Chief of Engineers, the District Engineer will state the attitude of adjacent or neighboring property owners whose interests may be affected by the work proposed and will also state his views con- cerning any alleged adverse effects so far as regard the possible use of such property. Views of the affected parties are obtained before issuance of a permit." As does NEPA and the guidelines issued pursuant thereto, the federal regulations require the Corps of Engineers to consider opinions and views of private and public individuals or organizations. However, none of the private or public individuals or organizations possesses veto power but, rather, the ultima.te decision as to whether or not a perrnit must be � � Ma.yor Lawrence Cohen Page Six July 30, 1973 granted is to be made by the Chief of Engineers or the Secretary of the Army of the United States. CONCLUSION If the Chief Engineer of the Corps of Engineers or the Secretary of the Army decides that a permit should issue, the Governor of the State of Minnesota, the Mayor of the City of Saint Paul, the City Council of the City of Saint Paul or any other local, federal, or state agency cannot veto the permit. The views and comsnents of all these governmental offices or agencies, together with the views an3 comments of private individuals or organizations, are to be received by the Corps of Engineers both after the draft statement is prepared and the final text of the Environmental Impact Statement is prepared, and such views and comments are submitted together with the Environmental Impact Statement to the Council on Environmental Quality as well as the Chief Engineer of the Co�rps of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. Upon receiving the draft state- ment of the Environmental Impact Statement and the final text of the Environmental Impact Statement, together with all comments by all federal, state and local agencies as well as private individuals and organizations, the f inal and ultimate decision as to whether a permit should issue must be made by the Chief Engineer of the Corps of Engineers or the Secretary of the Army of the United States. Respectfully submitted, /�F�:�e rv R. SCOTT DAVIES City Attorney :.iC.�� ✓��" , PIERRE N. R NIFy�� Deputy City Attorney PNR:j r cc: City Council Members City Administrator Mr. Robert SPrafka Mr. Gene Kraut , . ; , . • STATEMENT 0 � � ' THOMAS C. KRYZER 2�� REGARDING � THE COAL HANDLING FACILITY PROPOSED BY THE • PORT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL My name is Thomas C. Kryzer, I reside at 83 East Pleasant Lake Road, St. Paul , Minnesota 55110, and I am a full time employee of Burtington Northern Incorporated at its offices in St. Paul . My title is Vice President - Energy and Minerals. Burlington Northern is a large transportation and natural resource company with headquarters and several other major facilities located in St. Paul . BN employs over 6000 people in the Twin City area alone, with a local payroll in excess of $80 mi 1 1 ion per year. The proposed terminal is at the one site which wi11 minimize � the cost, both environmentally and economically, of bringing low sul- fur coal into the Twin Cities in order to meet standards for improved air quality. Any alternative transportation system will lead to � higher costs for consumers of electricity ar�d will have serious environmental problems. The terminal is primarily being built to supply coal to electrical 'power plants but would also be capable of transferring the coal into individual rail cars for movement to t.hose smaller industrial customers that cannot accommodate either unit trainlnads or barges. Of the 2.6 million annual tons presently committed for outbound barge movement from the terminal , 1 .5 million or 58°jo of the tonnage wilT be used to generate electricity for the Twin Cities metropolitan area. _ In order to maintain EPA standards of air quality, the only alternative to low sulfur coal supplied through the Pig 's Eye terminal is oi7 and gas, in a region already experiencing shortages of these . products. The 2.6 million annual tonnage presently committed through the terminal will bring the equivalent of 330 million gallons of petro- leum products annually to this area and this quantity could be increased as needed. Since most of the traditional coal fields of the east and mid- west lie close to navigible waterways, many major coal users are solely oriented toward barge delivery. Without the proposed facility these coal consumers �:ould be faced with the task of building the large and expensive faciltties necessary to allow them to receive unit trainloads �or the prospect of paying the high freight rates associated with small shipments. In many circumstances it would be physically impossible to construct adequate unit train facilities and. the user would thus be faced with a substantial increase in its fuel costs. In the extreme • case such a fuel cost increase could render the entire plant uneconomical . Some observers have claimed that the terminal should not be built because surface mining of coal will soon be outlawed and coal will not be available to move through the terminal . Montana has recently enacted the toughest surface mining legislation in the nation which ensures that proper reclamation will be done but these laws have not and will not stop surface mining. Burlington Northern serves four major mines and many smaller ones which are currently operating and could supply coal to the terminal . Another large mine has received all necessary per'nits and is near completion. Coal will be available to move through this terminal . - � • • . . , ' - 2 - Wyoming and North Dakota, also potential Pig's Eye coal sources, have also adopted laws requiring reclamation but permitting continued , development of the low sulfur coal and lignite resources of those states. Federal legislation currently being considered by the Congress also emphasizes reclamation requirements rather than outright bans on strip mining. These bills are largely inspired by coal mining condi- tions in the eastern United States,which are far less favorable for reclarnation than those found in Montana and Wyoming, . .___ _ Some protestar�ts have suggested that the concept qf the terminal be retained, but that it be moved to another site. Our personnel con- ducted an intensive survey of 10 sites throughout the Upper Mississippi Valley in the early part of our coal terminal study. While the number of prospective sites may initially seem large, in reality we were able to locate very few that were at alt feasible and none which could - match the Pig's Eye site in overall suitability. In order to operate effectively, such a terminal must be readily accessible to existing rail and barge facilities. Non� of the other sites could rival Pig's Eye in this regard, as three railroads serve this site and it is adjacent to an area of concentrated barge activity. Also, most sites that possessed even the most rudimentary transportation qualifications were environmentally unacceptable in that the presence of the coal terminal could. have represented a degradation of the environment in the area of the terminal far greater than Pig's Eye. Direct rail delivery of low sulfur coal to the power plants has also been studied and fourid to be not only expensive but environ- mentally unacceptable. Problems relating to direct delivery of coal to power" plants can be illustrated by those associated with the Allen King �Plant at Sti] )water which will be the largest user of this coal . The rail route to Stillwater leads through about 3 miles of residentiat � area in Rosearille where houses are as close to the tracks as 200 feet. The line must cross Highway 61 in White Bear Lake and goes through about four miles of residential area paralleling the lake and public beach. It then turns through the Dellwood area right past the golf• course and yacht club. , To handle unit trains, the entire line would require complete upgrading� Even with this upgrading it is doubtful that we could handle as large a train through this area as could be run to Pig's � Eye, which would further increase the delivered cost of coal and in- crease the nUmber of trains which must be run. In summary we feel that in the broad view, the location of the coat transfer terminal at Pig's Eye Lake represents a step forward in the area of environmental quality. If no terminal were constructed, the drive to improve our region 's air quality would be seriously delayed, and if the terminal were located elsewhere, its� utility as a transporta- tion device would be impaired, the cost of electricity in the Twin Cities area wou}d be increased, and the environmental quality of any other site would be significantly degraded. • � � � . � � . . . I� 2��.`�63 s I � � � STATEMENT OF PORT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL , BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL '� JUI,Y 2 , , \ ,, . , . , ' THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPOSED CQAL TERMINAL WILL BE LOCATED IS IN THE VICINITY OF PIGS EYE LAKE AND RED ROCK INDUSTRTAL DISTRICT, AN AREA THAT WAS DECLA.RED AN INDUSTR7AL DEVELOPMENT DTSTRICT AFTER DUE PUBLIC HEARING IN 1960. THE DEVELOPMENT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF: 1. THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2. THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3. THE AEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES• CRITERIA FOR FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT 4. THE RECONA9ENDATIONS OF THE ECKBO-DEAN-AUSTIN-WILLIAMS STUDY - 5. THE ME�ROPOLITAN COUNCIL•S MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY. THE ENTIRE AREA SURROUNDING THIS FACILITY FROM WARNER ROAD TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS AT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY LINE IS DEVOTED TO INDUSTRY- TYPE USAGE, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, RAIL YARDS, SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLANT, AND RIVER ORIENTED INDUSTRIES. THE PORT AUTHOR�ITY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA CONTAIN INDUSTRIES WITH AN INVESTMENT OF MORE THAN $35 MILION, PAYING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $1 MILLION PER YEAR IN TAXES. THE PURPOSE OF THE COAL TERMINAL IS TO MAKE AVAILABLE LOW-SULFUR CONTENT COAL TO ME�R�POL�TAN AREA GENERATING PLAI�PPS AND OTHER USERS ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND AT VARIOUS INLAND POINTS WHO CAN ECONOMICALLY BE REACHED FROM THIS FACILITY. THE PURPOSE OF BURNING LOW-SULFUR COAL IS TO l�EET THE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS OF THE NATIONAL CLEAN AIR ACT AND THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL ACT. - 1 _ � � � c � SHORTAGES OF NATURAL GAS WHICH WILL BE UNAVILABLE FOR POWER GENERATION BY 1980, RESTRICTIONS AND DELAYS ON NUCLEAR PLANT CONSTItUC- TION, AND THE HIGH SULFUR CONTENT OF SOUTHERN COAL REQUIR£ AN ANS[�ER` IF REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS ARE TO BE MET AND THE AIR QUALITY IMPROVED, THE ANSWER IN THIS ARFA IS A PUBLIC COAL TERMINAL. SITE SELECTION BY THE PORT AUTHORITY INVOLVED FOUR DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IN THE PIGS EYE LAKE AREA. THE FINAL SITE, WHICH IS THE ONE PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED, CAN MEET ALL OF THE ENVIRQI�Hr1ENTAL CRITERI.A THAT HAS BEEN REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND IS REC01�9EHI?ED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN TI�E IMPACT STATEMENT. THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED TO BE FINANCED BY PORT AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A PUBLYC TERMIN�IL. THIS IS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE INTERNAL REV£NUE SERVICE ON TNE TAX EXEMPTION ON TNE BONDS, BUT ALSO IS OF BENEFIT TO ALL PERSONS WHO WILL $E RE- QUIRED TO USE LOW-SUI,E[JR COAL. THIS IS ONE OF I�1AAIVY AREAS- AND SITES STUDIED BY THE UTI�,ITIES AND THE RAILROADS. THIS IS THE ONLY STTE THAT CAN BE S�RVED WITH THR£E RAILROADS THROUGH A P'UBbIC TRACK CON- NEC��ON, TMAT `OF ;THE PORT AUTHORITY, TNEREBY EFFECTING COST SAVING3 TNAT MAKE THIS PRACTICAL. THERE ARE OTHER REASONS FOR HAVING THREE RAILROADS SERVE THE PROPERTY, AND WHILE OPPONENTS CLAIM THIS COULD BE DONE IN MANY AREAS IT COULD NOT BE WITH THE COST ADVANTAGES BUILT IN HERE, NOR WHERE THERE IS AN ORGANIZATION SUCH AS THE PORT AUTHORITY WHOSE STATUTORY POWERS PERMIT IT TO OPERATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. - 2 - TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE AND WILL BE IMPOSED ON THE , , FORT AUTHORITY HAVE BEEN STUDIED BY OUR CONSULTANTS, WHO HAVE �NALYZED THE IMPACT ON THE WATElt, AIR, NOISE, PICS EYE LAKE, AND T�i£ SOILS OF THE AREA AND FOUND THAT THER£ WILL BE NO APPRECIABLE DELETERZOITS IMPACT ON THE ARFA. TH£ PUR�;AUTHORITY HAS PRESENTED TESTIMONY TO THIS EFFECT AT A PUBLIC HEARING HELD HERE IN THE COUNCIL CNAMBERS, BEFORE THE PORT AUT}IE3AITY CON�IISSIONERS, ON OCTOBER I7, 1972, AND AGAIN AT EXTENSIVE HEARINGS ON NOVEMBER 22 AND 27, 1972 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NAS GRANTED A PERMIT. IN THEIR PERMIT THEY NAVE ESTABLISHED` CERTAIN PREREQUI�ITE9 WHICH THE PORT AUTHORITY MUST MEET IN TI�IS DEVELf}PMENT. THE PORT AUTHORITY WILL MEET ALL REQUIRENI�NTS. A CONDITIQN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATllRAL RE50URCE5 PERMIT IS A D REDGIN�G P'ERMIT FROM THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF THE CORPS.HAS BEEN CIRCUTATED FOR COIrH�NT AND EACH MEMBER OF THE CTTY COUNCIL HA$ BEEN FURNISHED WITH A COPY. ITS SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT WHEN THE CORPS OF `EN�INEERS ' DISTRIBUTED T1�IR DRAFT STATEMENTS IT WAS STATED THAT UNLESS 3IGNIFICANT AND VALID OBJECTIONS INDICATE UNDULY ADVERSE PUBLIC REACTION HE WOULD " ISSUE THE PERMIT. - 3 - J .. . . .. . .. THE DEADL�VE FOR RESPONDING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT HAS BEEN EXTEN�ED AT THE REQUEST QF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO AUGUS� 20. MI3C�i HAS B�.EN SAID ABOUT THE AFFECT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ON THE HERON ROOKERY. IT TS OUR CONTENTION ANID THAT OF OUR CONSULTANTS THAT THIS FACILITY, MORE THAN ONE MILE FROM THE NESTING AREA, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ROOKERY. IN 1968 AND 1969 THE PORT AUTHORITY CONDUCTED EXTENSIVE TREE CLEARING AND DREDGING OPERATIONS FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS IN THE II�IEDIATE VICINITY OF THE HERON ROOKERY. THIS ACTIVITY DID NOT AFFECT THE BIRDLIFE IN THE AREA. THE RAMSEY C OUNTY OPEN SPACE PLANNERS TiAVE OPPbSED AT TII�S THE COAL TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT AND BASE THEIR OPPOSITION ON THE EFFECTS IT WOULD HAVE ON THE ROOKERY. THEIR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIGS EYE LAKE AR£A INCLUDES PICI�C AREAS, HIKING TRAILS, AND ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE COURSES, ALL OF WHICH BRING PEOPLE, AND PEOPLE ARE MOST UNDESIRABLE SO FAR AS TNE ROOKERY IS CONCERNED. THEY CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE A GREATER IMPACT, BEING IN THE IN�IEDIATE VICINITY, THA1� THE COAL TERMINAL. 1'!�9-�1� `-�'-O U.�A}'�-aJ � ��'�`""'`.��' 'K. � � T}IE DISTANCE OF THIS FACILITY FROM THE NEAREST ST. PAUL RESIDENCE TS (�VER ONE-HALF MILE AND FROM THE HERON ROOKERY WELL OVER A MILE. IT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ON W}�AT WAS UNTIL I1�ST YEAR THE ST. PAUL DUMP, OR THE PIGS EYE LAKE LANDFILL AREA, WHICH PRESENTLY LEACHES TOXIC MATERIALS INTO THE ENTIRE BODY OF PIGS EYE LAKE. - 4 - ' THE PORT AUTHORITY AT ITS JULY 19, 1973 MEETING APPROVED THE SALE OF 1,080 ACRES IN THE PIGS EYE LAKE AREA TO RAMSEY COUNTY FOR OPEN SPACE PURPOSES. IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT THE PORT AUTHORITY HAS DEVOTED AND PRESERVED FOR OPEN SPACE PURPOSES MORE LAND THAN ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODY INTERESTED IN ST. PAUL AND PRESENTLY HAS MORE THAN 60% OF THE LAND:�T OWNS DEDICATED TO OPEN SPACE. ° OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE C OUNCIL IS THE PORT AUTHORITY•S PLEDGE THAT IT WILL MEET ALL OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS THAT IT WILL DEVOTE 1,080 ACRES IN THE II�IEDIATE AREA TO OPEN SPACE. LOW-SULFUR COAL IS FOR THE Il�'Il�DIATE FUTURE, AND FOR �, LONG TIME TO COME, GOING TO BE THE ANSWER TO PART OF THE AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS AND THE ENERGY CRISIS. THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES HAS GRANTED A PERMIT. THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY HAS PERMIT APPLICATIONS BEFORE IT WHICH CANNOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE CORPS GRANTS ITS DREDGING PERMIT, AND IN THE CASE OF POLLUTION CONTROL, PERMITS ARE GRANTED BASED UPON THE APPLICANT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. WE HAVE REAMS OF TESTIMONY AT TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS BY THE PORT AUTHORITY STAFF AND BY CONSULTANTS. THE OPPONENTS TO THIS PROJECT ATTENDED BUT DTD NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE ENVIROI�Il�IENTAL IMPACT OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THE VISUAL IMPAC? �ND THE CONSTRUCTION MIGHT ALTER A PORTION OF THE AREA. THIS CERTAINLY IS TRUE BUT ANY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOFMENT OR ANY DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KII�ID DOES ALTER THE AREA INVOLVED, AT THE SAME TIME IT PROVIDES BENEFITS THROUGH INCREASED T A}�S, INCREASED EMPLOYMENT AND INCREASED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, WHICH AFTER ALL IS THE DESIGNATED AND LEGAL PURPOSE OF THE PORT AUTHORITY, - 5 - � ' � . - • . ' WHO ARE AFTER ALL, RESPONSIBLE TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL AND ITS �7CPAYERS. WE UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PROJECT OR PIAN HAS VALUE TO THE CON�IIJNITY. WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COAL WHARF PLAN IS A GOOD ONE. WE FEEL THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD DEFER TO THE STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPERTISE OF THE PORT AUTHORITY, THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THE REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMEidT OF NATURAL RESOURCES IS PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT SINCE THEIR JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF THE FLOODPLATN IS CONCLUSIVE UNDER THE PRESENT STATUTORY SCHEME. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE TRANSCRIPT OF THESE HEARING� AND HAVE FURNISHED THEM TO YOUR STAFF. WE FIND LITTLE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SAID ON THE SUBJECT OR CONTAINED IN THE RECORDS. — 6 — • - �t ,� r� Fr_ _ . . ' � '"��j�� V� Statement from Da,vid F. McElroy When Congress ena,cted the Nationa.l Air Qua,lity Act in 1967, and the Clean Air Act amendments in 1970, it set in motion a chain of events of momentus impact and consequence. Improvement of air qua,lity in the United Sta.tes wa,s established almost as a national goal. To meet this Congressional mandate, na,tiona,l air qua,lity standa.rds were published, and each state submitted a pla.n for achieving complia.nce with these na.tiona.l standa,rds. Last year, Governor Wendell Anderson approved an Air Qua,lity Implementation Plan for Minnesota. June 1, 1975, wa,s set as the da,te for compliance with the na,tiona.l standards. - As part of the state plan, Northern States Power Company and Minnesota., through the Pollution Control Agency, executed a stipula,tion agreement, setting da.tes by which certain NSP facilities must be in complia.nce with air qua,lity regulations. Many NSP plants have already been brought into complia,nce with the new sta.nda.rds, including two of our four ma,jor pla.nts in the metropolitan area,. Already, NSP has spent $7. 8 million for a new chimney and new ash-collecting equipment at High Bridge, plus $2. 5 million for a, rail system which permits delivery of low-sulfur coa,l to the pla,nt. At Riverside, a $3. 5 million a,ir improvement project completed last year included a new chimney and new ash- collecting equipment. Control of emissions of sulfur dioxide is a ma.jor element of NSP's agree- ment with the Pollution Control Agency. At the present time, the only practical method for reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from our plants is through the use of low-sulfur coa,l, which generally comes from the western United States. _ _ _ ___ � . ' , , - 2 - The King and Bla.ck Dog plants must still be brought into compliance. The only wa,y this can be accomplished is by the delivery of low-sulfur coa,l to the plants. The only practical wa,y to ma,ke the delivery is by barge. Intensive rail or truck delivery would be disruptive and una.cceptable to the many people living along these routes. For example, to meet the regulations via truck delivery would require at each pla,nt approximately 25 truck loa.ds per hour, 24 hours a, da,y, 7 days a week. NSP looked at possible sites for the coal facility in 1970. Both�the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers were covered, to as far south as Lake Pepin. Several potential sites were discarded because of environmental or economic considerations, and others because of possible infringement on public recreation areas. Consideratiori of the Pig's Eye loca.tion for the coa.l facility ha.s been going on for over a year. If a decision is made soon, and a permit granted late this year, there is a chance the fa,cility can be in operation by the June 1, 1975, deadline. But if the compa,ny is forced to find another site for a fa,cility, the metropolitan area could face at least a yea,r's dela.y in achieving the new air qua.lity standa,rds. It will take an estimated 18 months for the St. Paul Port Authority to construct the coa.l facilit,y. Already we are behind schedule. Further dela.y will seriously jeopardize the air qua,lity implementation plan for our state. NSP serves a population in Minnesota of about 2. 3 million people, 75 per cent of whom live in the Twin Cities metropolitan area,. In addition, NSP is the largest coal user in the state, importing more than 4 million tons in 1972 to fuel electric generating units. What our company does with its facilities has a direct impact on many people. - �. � . � • - 3 - It is vital that we seriously tackle all facets of the a.ir pollution problem. We cannot do half a job. We have already ma,de m�,jor commit- ments to cleaner air, a,nd we will continue to do so, but we cannot meet our responsibilities without support and cooperation from others. In this case, it is impera,tive that the coa� transf�r facility be constructed at the earliest possible da,te if we are to move forward with the task of improving air qua,lity. " . • STATEMENT OF . . : � - - THOMAS C. KRYZE'R �� ` ' REGARD 1 NG ��'� . THE COAL HANDLING FACILITY PROPOSED BY THE PORT AUTHORITY OF THE �ITY OF ST. PAUL My name is Thomas C. Kryzer, I reside at 83 East Pleasant Lake Road, St. Paul , Minnesota 55110, and I am a full time employee of Burlington Northern Incorporated at its offices in St. Paul , My title is Vice President - Energy and Minerals. gurlington Northern is a � large transportation and natural resource company with headquarters and several other major facilities located in St. Paut . BN employs over 6000 people in the Twin City area alone, with a local payroll in excess of $80 mi 1 1 ion per year. . The proposed terminal is at the one site which wi � l minimize the cost, both environmentally and economically, of bringing low sul- � fur coal into the Twin Cities in order to meet standards for improved air quality. Any alternative transportaxion system will lead to higher costs for consumers of electricity and will have serious environmental problems. The terminal is primarily being built to supply coal to electrical "power plants but would also be capable of transferring the coal into individual rail cars for movement to those smaller industrial customers that cannot accommodate either unit traintoads or barges. Of the 2.6 million annual tons presently committed for outbound barge movement from the terminal , 1 .5 million or 58% of the tonnage will be used to generate electricity for the Twin Cities metropolitan area. In order to maintain EPA standards of air quality, the only • alternative to low sulfur coal supplied through the Pig's Eye terminal is oil and gas, in a region already experiencing shortages of these products. The 2,6 million annual tonnage presently committed through the terminal will bring the equivalent of 330 million gallons of petro- leum products annually to this area and this quantity could be increased as needed. Since most of the traditional coal fields of the east and mid- west lie close to navigible waterways, many major coal users are solely ' oriented toward barge delivery. Without the proposed facility these coal consumers would be faced with the task of building the large and expensive facilities necessary to allow them to receive unit trainloads or the prospect of paying the high freight rates associated with small shipments. In many circumstances it would be physically impossible to . construct adequate unit train facilities and the user would thus be faced with a substantial increase in its fuel costs. In the extreme • case such a fuel cost increase could render the entire plant uneconomical . Some observers have claimed that the terminal should not be built because surface mining of coal will soon be outlawed and coal will not be available to move through the terminal . Montana has recently enacted the toughest surface mining legislation in the nation which ensures that proper reclamation will be done but these laws have not and will not stop surface mining. Burlington Northern serves four major mines and many smaller ones which are currently operating and could supply coal to the terminal . Another large mine has received all necessary permits and is near completion. Coal will be available to move through this terminal . � , . . . � � ' - 2 - . Wyoming and North Dakota, also potentiai Pig's Eye coal sources, have also adopted laws requiring reclamation but permitting continued , development of the low sulfur coal and lignite resources of those states. Federal legislation currently being considered by the Congress also emphasizes reclamation requirements rather than outright bans on strip mining. These bills are largely insoired by coal mining condi- � tions in the eastern United States,which are far less favorable for reclamation than those found in Montana and Wyoming. _ ._.. , Some protestants have suggested that the concept of the terminal be retained, but that it be moved to another �site. Our personnel con- ducted an intensive survey of 10 sites throughout the Upper Mississippi Valley in the early part of our coal terminal study. While the number � of prospective sites may initially seem large, in reality we were able to locate very few that were at all feasible and none which could match the Pig's Eye site in overatl suitability. In order to operate effectively, such a terminal must be readily accessible to existing rail and barge facilities. None of the other sites could rival Pig's Eye in this regard, as three railroads serve this site and it is adjacent to an area of concentrated barge activity. Also, most sites that possessed even the most rudimentary transportation qualifications were environmentally unacceptable in that the presence of the coal terminal could have represented a degradation of the environment in the area of the terminal far greater than Pig's Eye. Direct rail detivery of low sulfur coal to the power plants has aiso been studied and found to be not only expensive 6ut environ- mentally unacceptable. Problems relating to direct delivery of coal to power plants can be illustrated by those associated with the Allen � King Plant at Stillwater which will be the largest user of this coal . The rail route to Stillwater leads through about 3 miles of residential area in Rosea�ille where houses are as close to the tracks as 200 feet. The line must cross Highway 61 in White Bear Lake and goes through about four miles of residential area paralleling the lake and public beach. It then turns through the Dellwood area right past the golf• course and yacht club. To handle unit trains, the entire line would require complete upgrading. Even with this upgrading it is doubtful that we could handle as large a train through this area as could be run to Pig's Eye, which would further increase the delivered cost c,f coal and in- crease the number of trains which must be run. In summary we feel that in the broad view, the location of the coal transfer terminal at Pig's Eye Lake represents a step forward in the area of environmental quality. If no terminal were constructed, the drive to improve our region 's air quality would be seriously delayed, and if the terminal were located elsewhere, its utility as a transpo''rta- tion device would be impaired, the cost of electricity in the Twin Cities area would be increased, and the environmental quality of any other site would be significantly degraded. �„ � , ; „` , � . - ��r�� W� The Chicago and North Western Transportation Company is in favor of the proposed coal terminal in the area known as Pigs Eye. The location is well suited for the North Western to deliver low sulphur coal to St. Paul from both the southeastern and western states and also for the movement of outbound coal through our Hoffman Avenue Yard to small utilities and coal burning industries in the North Country. At present, we have applied to the Interstate Commerce Com- �; mission for the construction of 76 miles of track into the northeastern part ;�;� . of Wyoming. In the future, this will enable the Chicago and North Western � �.; to transport as an origin carrier, the environmentally favorable low sulphur a�; `4 coal on an economic basis into the Pigs Eye facility for the people of St. ti : Paul and surrounding communities. Y z� �' . ; J ,, ' � ,..« ' , � , ' , ,i ;,:; , . � . ; - _ ; ' , , , �, , , (612) 339-2725 � . . � .. � . � . . ♦ .. . . , . . . . . . . .. i s VIRGIL H. STEINHOFF � ' � MANAGER . � � INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT , • , ' t� t ) . �.r, CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY � SUITE 646�730 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH � - � . � . MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA55402 • . � � . � . . , , , . .. . ' ' . . � ti � . , . . . ' . � �_� . . � .. .. . . . . ' � ' .� \ �. . .. . . . . ' . .. . . . . .. . . . . � . ` . . . , ' . � � . � ' . . .�` , � � . .. , . ., � ' . �: . . . .� . . , . �. .. , . . . :..':.', . . , . . . .. . . ' . � ' � �. . � . . . . . . , . . . . . . y ' .,? � �. �,�. � ,, , ,`. .. • �C,��~�� • ; � The Chicago and North Western Transportation Company is in favor of the proposed coal terminal in the area known as Pigs Eye. The location is well suited for the North Western to deliver low sulphur coal to St. Paul from both the southeastern and western states and also for the movement of outbound coal through our Hoffman Avenue Yard to small utilities and coal burning industries in the North Country. , At present, we have applied to the Interstate Commerce Com- ,; mission for the construction of 76 miles of track into the northeastern part �.: . of Wyoming. In the future, this will enable the Chicago and North Western +� , to transport as an origin carrier, the environmentally favorable low sulphur �� `'� coal on an economic basis into the Pigs Eye facility for the people of St. � Paul and surrounding communities. ti 1:;, ;' , • , � , � � �+ ,� ' � ' � :a .�, , , , � , .. , , : - ; . , r , , f, . . �I � . ' � � . � . . ' .� . . . . . �� . . . � � . . . . J . . . . . ' � � � .. � . . .n; ] � . , . . . . . . . . ,� a � . . � . . ' , �� ... �� , • ' `., . . ... _ � � . � ' . � . .� . R../� ' . ' ' � , . � _ , �� \ , . , . � • � . . , � . . , . .. t. . . /' � : � , , s , ,r, � � �. � � � " � �� 2000 I,inc oln Avenue St. Paul, Minaesota 55105 27 July 1973 Members of the City Counc3.l of Saint Paul: When Colonel Rodney Cox released the U.S. ,Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact Statemen� on 2 July� he asked to hear the opini.ons oY St. Paul citizens on the coal terminal proposed for Pig�s Eye Lake. He said that in makiag his decision on the proposed facility� he Wou1d rely heavi.ly upon the �enti- ments and argumeats on the citizens oi the city. He �urther commented that he would be strongly influenced by the eta�ements of the May►or and City Council. Accordingly� early in July I Bent a letter to Council Presidettt Ruby Hunt, reminding her of a March-7th resoiution passed unanimously by the Association of St. Paul Communities recommending full and open Council hearings on the proposed coal terminal. I urged Mrs. Hunt to hold those hearinga in order to allo�r business groups� neighbarhood associations� and private citizens to air �u].ly their support, opposition, attd arguments before the Council, the press� and thair Yellor citizens� so that a7.1 membere of the City Couacil could be iully 3.nformed before making their vital. deci�ion. Colonel Coa could be iully conPident� then, that the Council had made its deciaion ia the bright light oi citizen opinioa. Also, Colonel Cox Would �ow that upon reconsideration the Council had rectified its earlier hast�r passage of a reeolutioa of support based on Yalse testimony� insufYicient facts� and essentially no citizen counsel. Perhaps you can imagine the extent of my disappointmeat to learn that no hearings are even contemplated oa so important a measure as support or re�ection of the terminal. When I learned by telephone that a resolution of support had been tentatively scheduled for today�s Cowncil agenda� without publicity� I realized that once again most St. Paul bu�3ness groups� neigh- borhood association�, and citizene would be leYt xithout the opportun�ty to directly advise the Council at the time of its decision on the coat terminal. By privatel�r notifying only a fex groups of the tentative ageada item, the Council has put itself in the a�rkward position of selecting only the voices it wants to hear and denying others the opportuni.t9 oY public comment. Enen though my organiaation, the A�sociation of St. Paul Commuuitie+�� was one of thoBe selected for notification and, thus� encouraged to present its view� I can neither condone nor imagine the legality of such a method of gathering public counsel. I have heard every member of the current Council express his or her concern for increased citizen participation in the affairs of goveram�nt. Today, you have an opportunity to maniYest that concern by del�}ring a decision . . ' , • Winter--2 ", - • on the coal term3.na1 until you can hear all interested citiaens and groups in a well-publicized meeting. You can then i.mpress Colonel Cox arith the informed natnre oY your deci�ion and impress the citizens with your concern for their counsel. I vrish that I could be xith you today to �xpress my vie�rs personally� but the duties of my �ob Will not permit my attendance. A night meeting of the Council devoted tv the te�na]. would allow the many others with daytime arork commitmenta to ofYer their views on the pro3ect. Sinc ely yo �f� , � -c;: /�"-�" �r W, Winter /