04-27-93 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rrasenr/e\oDili uI Date: April 23, 1993 To: Mayor and City Council of Lake Elmo From: Dick Johnson At Subject: Comments on Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) County State Aid Highway No. 10 Reconstruction The following comments are offered as my personal observations regarding the subject and are intended to be part of a letter from the City of Lake Elmo in response to the subject EAW. These comments offered are not inclusive of all my observations on the EAW document, but are limited to the most important environmental issues. Comments of Richard E. Johnson: Section 6. Description of proposed project. The EAW is incomplete. It states: "Construction methods used will be in accordance with the MDOT specifications." This is grossly inadequate. Of particular concern is the method used to dewat:er the area of soils removal. and construction. Is the whole watershed going to be dewatered? Is sheet piling going to be used to isolate areas? How will the adjacent wetland be protected? What is probably the most important construction issue is ignored in this document. I feel strongly that an EIS is required to adequately address this single issue and its impact on the environment if for no other reason. Nowhere does it state how wide a swath will be placed through Armstrong lake. Sec. 11a. Fish, Wildlife and Ecological Sensitive Resources The assurances of "minimal temporary disruption" and "limited disturbance to ---" are relative terms and have no technical or engineering significance. The question that goes begging here is "How is the disruption made minimal?" and "How is the disturbance limited?" Sec. 11b. Endangered Species. The box "No" is checked without any this statement. By what reference is By what credentials is 'the author of draw this conclusion? basis made for making this conclusion drawn? the EAW authorized to 1