Agenda - Council - 05/27/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Thank you [br the opportunity to comment on the AUAR document. My comments are confined to the sections concerning effects of this project on water resources, primarily 01'1 groundwater. This should trigger a more comprehensive review of water issues. [ realize that this document is for the Town Center development project and focuses on that geographical area. It's l'ny understanding (though I am not certain of the scope) that it also takes into account other development, and thus effects on water, in Ramsey. But the nature of this kind of document is that it isn't the vehicle for a comprehensive approach that examines a broad enough scope to answer questions about its effe.ct beyond this city. My greatest concern is that there has not been enough attention paid to the cum ulative effects of the developlnent that is happening in the northern metro area, for which I'm using tile extended Metropolitan Statistical Area definition rather than the seven-county Metropolitan Council definition. This also more realistically covers the range of the Frauconia-lronton-Galesville (FIG) aquifer that is the drinldng water source ['bt' this area, since the prolific Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer is absent. I am not a technical pro£essional. I'm expressing a concern as a citizen that this kind of review by done by !hose who are so qualified, and who are removed from any involvement in this project, and that this review occur before the momentmn for such a massive undertaking makes it impossible to do a thorough and competent professional job. I'm not picking on the Town Center project per se, but because of its scope it's a red flag to me to say we must look at a broader picture now rather than later. I'm f'Mmi [iai' with the tension that results from the current two-step process, first a general examination of euvironmental effects in the review document and then the "we'll address the details in the permitting process later" second step. My experience is that this always results ill a question of"how can we ameliorate the effects of__?" rather than "is this a wise thing to do, or more precisely to do on such a scope and scale, and how can we modify __ to prevent or minimize negative effects?" I don't think that's a wise way to look at a specific proposal, but I'm even more certain that the piecemeal approach is not the best way to look at the broad picture. A comprehensive review should be done by an entity tlnat is not involved in any project anywhere and thus can examine the issue fi'om the broadest context and without any bias. This to me is the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters. I'm not technically competent to address the specific issues raised, e.g. relationship betweeu the FIG and the surficial aquifer, but I'm eager to see agency responses to these issues. Response: Tile City appreciates the input fi'om Ms. Sitz as a concerned citizen. The State A UAR process was developed by the State Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to address the need for a more thorough cumulative assessment on large-scale projects. The extensive analyses in Item 13 and Appendix F were done to specifically address the impact of this site on the Franconia-Ironton-Galesville (FIG) aquifer. Extending this analysis beyoncl the immediate Ramsey vicinity to the Metropolitan Area is well beyond lhe scope ol" this AUAR. However, the City is willing to undertake whatever studies will 34-21 -169-