Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Stephen Rohlf <br />April 4, 1994 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />The EIS should recognize that the project has potential fishery impacts. Please contact <br />John Hiebert, Natural Resource Specialist, Montrose, at (612) 675-3301, for further <br />information regarding how the project can be designed to avoid these impacts. <br /> <br />Section 3.4 Noise <br /> <br />Backup beepers on heavy equipment are often cited by the public as one of the most <br />offensIve sources of noise that originate from mining operations. Were backup bee)?ers a <br />consideration in the noise pollution study and have they been an issue with the public? <br /> <br />Section 3.6 Sociologic and Economic <br /> <br />The Sociological section indicates that Elk River has grown by 64% in the 1980s. The <br />document would be stronger if it included a discussion on: 1) the future demand for <br />aggregate inthe Elk River area (as implied by the growth rate in the 1980s), 2) the current <br />rate of aggregate consumption and the projected rate, 3) the cost of obtaining aggregate <br />from other sources rather than from the mIning district, and 4) a brief discussion on the <br />costs of longer haul distances. Overall, the advantages to the p'ublic and the city of <br />continuing a gravel mining district to provide a local and readily available source of <br />aggregate are not succinctly stated; we believe this to be an extremely important aspect of <br />the EIS. <br /> <br />Sherburne County collects the Aggre~ate Material Tax money, 10% of which is dedicated <br />to a special reserve fund for reclamatIOn. The current language of the statute restricts use <br />of these monies for projects on public lands. Has the County considered what it will do <br />with the substantial reclamation reserve monies that will be generated from this tax? Are <br />avenues available through which this money could be used to enhance progressive <br />reclamation by the mining companies within the gravel district? <br /> <br />If it is possible that the Elk River Landfill will expand substantially in the future into the <br />proposed mining area, then future plans for the expansion and closure of the landfill over <br />the next 75 years should be briefly highlighted in the EIS. <br /> <br />Section 4.1, III. C. Traffic <br /> <br />The DEIS does not discuss haul routes outside the mining district, as well as omitting <br />discussion of average daily traffic (ADT) statistics along those routes attributable to <br />mining. Has truck traffic been an issue with the public and will it substantially increase <br />with an expansion in mining? <br /> <br />Concluding Remarks <br /> <br />As previously stated, the DNR stron~ly supports this joint environmental review and <br />planning effort. The document reqUIres continued refinement, particularly in terms of <br />Impact assessment. However, we are impressed by the progress made to this point. Issues <br />regarding the sensitive forest elements, the overall reclamation scheme, and water quality <br />protection dominate our view of the proposal from a natural resources perspective. We are <br />willing to provide advice or assistance where appropriate in addressing these concerns. <br /> <br />'\. <br /> <br />Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Please contact me at (612) 296- <br />4796 if you have interest regarding our offer of limited assistance or questions regarding <br />