My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 01/18/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Environmental Policy Board
>
2017
>
Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 01/18/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 11:52:46 AM
Creation date
3/14/2017 11:40:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Environmental Policy Board
Document Date
01/18/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
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
Item-by-item guidance Chapter <br /> purpose of avoiding adverse CPE. Another example of such a plan would be a TMDL plan developed <br /> by the PCA for cumulative water pollution abatement for impaired waters. In the common situation <br /> where there is no plan,the RGU should make this clear in response to this factor.If there is a <br /> qualifying plan,then the question becomes whether the project under review will be in compliance <br /> with the specific mitigation prescribed in the plan. <br /> • Factor 4. The efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project. If there is no <br /> plan in existence to mitigate a CPE but the proposer has made an effort to avoid or minimize the <br /> contribution from the project through design or mitigation,the RGU should take that effort into <br /> consideration in determining the significance of the contribution from the project to the cumulative <br /> potential effect. For example,has the proposer made only a token effort,or have state-of-the-art <br /> measures been incorporated into the analysis?Has the proposer been responsive to suggestions for <br /> mitigation from the RGU or from public comments? How do the efforts compare to those of similar <br /> projects? <br /> Category Specific Guidance: <br /> Non-Metallic Mineral Mining(Subp 12):If appropriate, discuss how the mine may be expanded in the future, or how the <br /> mine relates to past mining in the vicinity with respect to cumulative environmental impacts. <br /> Highway projects(Subp 22):Describe the relationship of the present project to the existing highway network and to <br /> anticipated future roadways.NOTE:Review of highway networks—that is, how the whole is divided up for review purposes— <br /> is constrained by Minn.Rules 4410.1000, subp 4, which should be consulted prior to preparing the EA W. Chapter 2 of the <br /> Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules also provides guidance on defining "the whole project." <br /> Marinas(Subp 25):Include other marina development up and down the river from the site. <br /> Environmental Quality Board EAW Guidelines—October 2013 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.