97-089 RES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

July 29, 1997, from Dennis Gimmestad; the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, by letter dated August 13, 1997, from Thomas Balcom; and Dorsey & Whitney on behalf of their client, Cargill, Incorporated, by letter dated August 13, 1997, from Gregory Fontaine. 5. All substantige comments have been responded to as required by the EQB Rules by the City as RGU in the staff memorandum to the City Council, dated September 8, 1997, from Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator. 6. The environmental review process mandated by the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and implemented through the EQB Rules has been followed, and this resolution shall be the City's record of its compliance with the EQB Rules and decision in this matter. 7. The City, as RGU, may order the preparation of an EIS only if the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 8. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the City is to apply the criteria set forth in Section 4410.1700, Subparts 6 and 7 of the EQB Rules. NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE EAW, THE COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE EAW AND THE RESPONSES THERETO FROM CITY STAFF IN THE MEMORANDUM TO THE COUNCIL DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 1997, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FINDS THAT THE PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A. The environmental effects of the Project are minimal. Bo The Project will be undertaken by a governmental entity, the City of Elk River, and will be subject to ongoing regulatory authority by other state agencies. Co The Project will not cause future development to occur, but will reduce the environmental effects of future development which will occur with or without the Project. BeckP 527933.1 2