My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.2. SR 09-08-1997
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1997
>
09/08/1997 - SPECIAL
>
5.2. SR 09-08-1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:32:56 AM
Creation date
8/7/2003 1:52:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
9/8/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Response <br />Minnesota statute defines two projects as "connected actions" if a responsible <br />governmental unit determines: (1) one project would directly induce the <br />other; (2) one project is a prerequisite for the other; or (3) neither project is <br />justified by itself. <br /> <br />The proposed road is needed for proper traffic flow through the city even if <br />the urban area as defined in the EAW remains rural. It is also true that the <br />urban area defined in the EAW could and would develop with urban services <br />without the proposed road. These are not connected actions as defined by <br />Minnesota state statute. However, the city did go beyond would typically be <br />done by other governmental agencies for EAWs regarding roads and <br />identified the proposed urban area. <br /> <br />In their criticism of the detail provided in the EAW on the development of <br />urban service area, Dorsey & Whitney: (1) forget that the EAW was required <br />for the proposed road not the sewer and water expansion; (2) confuse <br />potential for environmental impact with the standard for ordering an EIS, <br />which is the potential for significant environmental effect; and (3) seem to be <br />requesting a level of detail in the EAW that can not be provided without <br />specific development proposals in the urban area. <br /> <br />Comment <br />In several locations in their letter, Dorsey and Whitney comment on the <br />Mississippi River, Trott Brook, and the issue of surface runoff. <br /> <br />Response <br />Staff refers the Council to their response to the DNR regarding these issues. <br /> <br />Comment <br /> <br />Dorsey and Whitney question the detail in which the EAW describes impacts <br />on wetlands and the mitigation of these impacts. <br /> <br />Response <br />The exact impact on wetlands due to development in the urban service area <br />obviously can not be defined because no such development is being proposed <br />at this time. The EAW was completed for the road project. <br /> <br />Even the road project can not infinitely define the impact on wetlands nor <br />absolutely identify the mitigative measures that will be required. The project <br />requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, review under the <br />Wetland Conservation Act, and approval from the Sherburne County Ditch <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.