5.2. SR 09-08-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Mr. Stephen Rohlf Page 8 August 13, 1997 that "the extent of [impact on water resources] has not been determined." These issues cannot be glossed over in this fashion. The importance of evaluating these concerns before large-scale urban development occurs is highlighted by recent published reports on the serious environmental implications (as well as hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars in public investment) associated with possible use of new, deeper ground water resources due to development in the Savage, Burnsville, Shakopee, Prior Lake and surrounding areas. See Kaszura, "In the suburban search for water, how deep can you go?" Minneapolis Star Tribune, Metro Section, August 3, 1997. In Item 14, the Urban Service EAW claims that neither Trott Brook nor the Mississippi River "will be significantly impacted by the preliminary stage of this project." The report, however, does not indicate what impacts in fact are anticipated, what standard for determining significance was applied by MSA, and most importantly, whether completion of the infrastructure project and related development beyond the preliminary stage may create substantial impacts to these two water resources as well as others not identified in the Urban Service EAW. The report attempts to deflect consideration of such concerns by indicating that future development will be limited by regulation, but this type of reliance on regulatory and permitting processes to mitigate potential environmental impacts was expressly rejected in the Trout Unlimited case discussed below. In Item 18, the Urban Service EAW recognizes that there could be significant adverse effects on water quality due to surface water runoff, but the report fails to identify the cause and extent of such impacts. While the report suggests the impacts may be mitigated by NURP ponds, it fails to analyze at all the extent of mitigation required, what alternatives may be available, and whether the NURP ponds recommended will be sufficient to address the concerns. Indeed, since neither the extent of runoff anticipated nor the number or location of ponds required is identified, this entire mitigation discussion is nothing more than boilerplate. In Item 20, the Urban Service EAW identifies potential ground water contamination associated with the project. In Item 26, moreover, the EAW indicates that cleanup of a closed city dump is necessary. Again, however, the report fails to identify the location, extent and character of these potential contamination concerns. Nothing at all is said about possible contaminant sources, migration pathways, sensitive receptors or other obvious concerns. Without such analysis, MSA's conclusion that contamination can be "minimized by excavating and maintaining stormwater detention ponds" is meaningless.