Laserfiche WebLink
Comments - The project may have localized impacts on natural vegetation, rare or <br />important species and waterbody and wetland impacts. This project will not significantly <br />affect natural vegetation or threatened or endangered species. Wetland impacts can most <br />effectively be addressed through he Wetland Conservation Act process. Greater effects <br />on the natural and human enviro~nent come from the cumulative effects of these <br />projects. <br /> <br />Response - Staff concurs that this project by itself does not have potential for significant <br />environmental effects. No wetlands are proposed to be altered for this project. Staff is <br />recommending run-off is treated and retained prior to discharging to natural waterbodies. <br />In addition staff is recommending buffer strips (natural vegetation) are retained adjacent <br />to the large wetland complex to the north of the project. <br /> <br />Staff further agrees that the cumulative impacts of projects have a greater potential for <br />significant environmental effects. These cumulative impacts should be identified, as well <br />as mitigated measures 'through the Comprehensive Plan Process (e.g. the transportation <br />plan not causing a reduction in air quality in localized areas, a total dislocation of <br />wildlife, the protection of rare plant communities, etc.). <br /> <br />State Historic Preservation Office - letter dated October 15, 2002 from Britta L. <br />Bloomberg. <br /> <br />Comment - There are no known properties on the National or State Register of Historic <br />Places and no known or suspecte[l archeological properties in the area that will be affect <br />by this project. This comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of <br />the National Historic Preservation Act. <br /> <br />Response - Staff does not know of or suspect any historic or archeological properties in <br />this area. Staff will be contacting the developer requiring Section 106 if they use any <br />federal funding or the project requires a permit or license from the federal government. <br /> <br />Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) - letter dated October 17, 2002 from <br />Lynne Kolze. <br /> <br />Comment - Due to limited resources, MPCA has no specific comments, but their nbt <br />reviewing the EAW does not constitute a waiver of any permits they may require for the <br />project. <br /> <br />Response - It is concerning that MPCA no longer has the resources to devote to <br />environmental reviews. Staff will review the project in regards to required MPCA <br />permits. <br /> <br /> <br />