Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />~ STATE OF <br />[N][N]~~@iJ~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br /> <br />APR 7 199' <br /> <br />500 LAFAYETIE ROAD · ST. PAUl, MINNESOTA · 55155-40 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />DNR INFORMATION <br />(612) 296-6157 <br />April 4, 1994 <br /> <br />Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator <br />City of Elk River <br />Elk River City Hall <br />13065 Orono Parkway <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> <br />RE: Elk River Gravel Mining District <br />Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Rohlf: <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Draft EIS for the Elk <br />River Gravel Mining District. We commend the City and project proposers for voluntarily <br />undertaking this joint EIS to examine the cumulative environmental effects expected to <br />occur within the proposed gravel mining district. We reco~ze the value of this decision <br />and believe the final product will serve the interests of all mvolved parties. This process, by <br />recognizin~ up front the various natural and social resource values currently produced at <br />this site, wIll provide a planning framework which can most effectively avoid and minimize <br />potential impacts to these same resources. <br /> <br />In this regard, the DNR strongly supports your proactive stance and offers the following <br />discussion to highlight issues of particular concern or areas that we believe require further <br />elaboration or clarification. We first offer some general comments which are followed by <br />comments relating to specific document references. <br /> <br />Conclusions <br /> <br />There is a general lack of analysis for each of the major technical sections (land use, <br />surface water, etc.) with the exception of Air Emissions. The document describes <br />Alternatives A, B, and C in great detail in terms of data, however there are no overall <br />conclusions drawn. The EIS should clearly detail the significant environmental effects <br />expected to result from project implementation. A brief summary should be provided at <br />the end of each section that presents key findings and conclusions with respect to <br />Alternatives A, B, and C. This is an essential component of the environmental review and <br />future planning process. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Vegetation Impacts <br /> <br />The EIS should clearly spell out the specific project-related effects on vegetation, <br />particularly regarding the Dry Oak Forest communities found on or near the district, for <br />each of the proposed alternatives. Furthermore, the document should clearly recognize <br />that the natIve woodland communities found in Sherburne County are being rapidly <br />converted to other land uses. This conversion results in the degradation or loss of these <br />communities. Impacts to the Dry Oak Forest woodlands in the project area should ideally <br />be considered in the larger context of planning at the city, township, and county level to <br />provide for the protection of significant natural areas. We have provided a map detailing <br />the remaining natural areas in Sherburne County to assist necessary efforts in this regard. <br /> <br />\. <br /> <br />AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER <br />