Laserfiche WebLink
should be investigated and implemented. Avoidance and minimization recommendations were <br />included in the DNR letter in Appendix A. It will be necessary to request a formal letter from <br />the Mn/DOT Wildlife Biologist regarding the presence of federally listed endangered species as <br />the project development/NEPA process continues in the future. <br />Other Issues and Factors <br />Contaminated Sites <br />Information from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Permanent List of Priorities, the EPA <br />National Priorities List and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and <br />Liability Information System should be requested as the project development/NEPA process <br />continues in the future. <br />Coordination with Agencies <br />Alternatives developed for this corridor should be reviewed with local communities and state <br />agencies (Department of Natural Resources, Mn/DOT, State Historic Preservation Offices, <br />Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, etc.) to identify potential concerns and measures to avoid <br />and/or minimize impacts. Future environmental documentation should address these concerns <br />and identified impacts considered when a decision regarding a corridor alignment is made. <br />Alternatives developed during this corridor study should first seek to avoid impacts to cultural <br />and environmental resources identified above. If some impacts cannot be avoided, efforts should <br />be made to minimize impacts. Impacts resulting from the potential corridor location alternatives <br />should be compared to determine the alignment with the least impact that will address the need <br />for the project. This will require completing a formal environmental document. Potential <br />mitigation for minimized impacts would be developed during design of the potential corridor <br />improvements. <br />SRF Consulting Group, Inc. - 28 - February 2004 <br />