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

Home

-204- To: Patrick Trudgeon, Chief Planner, City of Ramsey Comments on Town Center AUAR Ttmnk you for the opportunity to comment on the AUAR document. My comments are confined to the sections concerning effects of this project on water resources, primarily on groundwater. This should trigger a more comprehensive review of water issues. f realize that this document is for the Town Center development project and focuses on that geographical area. It's my understanding (though I am not certain of the sc9Pe) 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 effect beyond this city. My greatest concern is that there has not been enough attention pa'id to the cumulative effects of the development that is happening in the northern metro area, for which I'm using the extended Metropolitan Statistical Area definition rather than the seven-county Metropolitan Council definition. This also more realistically covers the range of the Franconia-Ironton-Galesville (FIG) aqui£er that is the drinking water source for this area, since the prolific Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer is absent. I am not a teclmica[ professional. I'm expressing a concern as a citizen that this kind of review by done by those who are so qualified, and who are removed Dom any involvement in this project, and that this review occur before the momentum 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 familiar with the tension that results fi'om the current two-step process, first a general examination of envirorm~ental 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 irt a question of~'how can we ameliorate tlm 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 modi£y __ 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 that is not involved in any project anywhere and thus can exarnine the issue front the broadest context and without any bias. This to me is the Mirmesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters. I'm not teclmically competent to address the specific issues raised, e.g. relationship between the FIG and the surficial aquifer, but I'm eager to see agency responses to these issttes. Erika Sitz 652'1 154th Lit NW 753-421-88_.~ esitz~Roldenaate.nct I I I I I I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I