5.2. SR 09-08-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Mr. Stephen Rohlf Page 7 August 13, 1997 Elsewhere in the EAW, MSA turns the environmental review process on its head by concluding it its traffic analysis in Item 22 that project will reduce air pollution by relieving traffic congestion. This conclusion, however, is premised not on existing traffic levels, but on projections of future traffic that will be generated by development that will occur in the study area only if the infrastructure project is built. The EQB rules require current baseline air quality conditions--and other pertinent factors such as noise, dust, odors, and visual impacts that are addressed in Items 22 through 26--to be compared to conditions that will exist as a result of the urban development associated that will result from the proposed utilities and roadway extensions. The EAW may not ignore these environmental impacts by assuming certain deteriorated conditions will occur regardless of whether the proposed project is constructed, and then suggesting the project will help alleviate these conditions. 2. Incomplete Review The discussion above highlights essentially complete omissions of required analysis in the Urban Service EAW. In other areas, the MSA report is inadequate because while its identifies potential environmental impacts, it fails to determine the extent and significance of such impacts and fails to employ a proper mitigation analysis. This incomplete review is wholly inadequate under EQB's rules and guidelines. For example, in Item 12, the Urban Service EAW indicates that wetlands will be dredged and filled, and that mitigation will be necessary. The report, however, states the extent of necessary mitigation cannot be identified because "actual volume of fill has not yet been determined." MEPA requires information on the extent of impact and required mitigation of potential impacts such as this one to be available before the decision on the need for an EIS can be made. In Item 13, the Urban Service EAW indicates that there will be substantial increases in water use due to development associated with the proposed infrastructure, which will require substantial increases in either, or both, ground water or surface water appropriations and construction of new municipal wells. In Item 29, the report also states that additional municipal water towers and wells are anticipated, although the water supply sources are not identified. Most importantly, neither the current character of these resources, nor the environmental impacts of more intensive use of them, is discussed in any meaningful way in the EAW. Indeed, despite the environmental significance of these matters, the EAW concedes