Laserfiche WebLink
SITE P EIS DRAFT REVIEW <br />By: Merland Otto <br /> <br />Case ~ ]6 <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />city Council approved an agreement on March 28, 1989 which <br />commissioned Wenck Associates, Inc. to review the technical drafts <br />of the hydrogeologic chapter of the Site P EIS. <br /> <br />A final copy of this report accompanies the agenda. <br /> <br />Issues: <br /> <br />The review indicates that there are a number of inconsistencies in <br />the draft EIS. In themselves, the inconsistencies do not <br />significantly affect the interpretation of geologic conditions for <br />Site P. <br /> <br />The documents which were reviewed at this time do not address water <br />quality, therefore, water quality is not addressed under this <br />review. <br /> <br />Review of portions of the EIS documents is somewhat limited if they <br />reference other documents not provided with the draft. The County <br />should make these available with the chapters sent out for <br />comments. <br /> <br />On a separate note, MC has requested proposals for the review of <br />landfill siting documents on MC's behalf. These may or may not be <br />several contracts. If the City desires to pursue a strategy to <br />oppose Site P, it may be opportune to begin assembling a project <br />team so that conflicts cf interest can be avoided. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />That City Council accept the review cor~ents and transmit <br />them to Anoka County. <br /> <br />That the City Council forr~a!!y rec~aest that a minir.~um of <br />two cc~ies, be transmitted to them ~.-'~ future revie'~; al-n <br />%~'ith referenced documents and appendices. <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />ThaU us=.._ City_ ~.=_ ~ ..... ~ consider establishing a strategy <br />and~c..~ jec~ ~eam f -.c- future use ~g~=_ ....... ~ ~ite- P. <br /> <br /> <br />