Laserfiche WebLink
Aesthetics <br /> <br />The EIS addresses visual impacts and correctly points out that the <br />landfill at present is an "anomaly" and is uncharacteristic of this <br />region. The assessment, however, seems to conclude that since the <br />existing fill is already a major negative visual impact, a little more <br />won't hurt. <br /> <br />Fish and Wildlife <br /> <br />No discussion ~of impacts on fish or wildlife resulting from borrow <br />or remedial action activities was contained in the document. <br /> <br />Traffic <br /> <br />Traffic impacts due to the change in ~evel from a sharply curtailed <br />landfill activity to a landfill operation were not addressed. As was <br />pointed out earlier, the impact of restricted loads on the Mississippi <br />River crossing at Anoka and Champlin also was not taken into <br />consideration. <br /> <br />Summary <br /> <br />The EIS is based largely on supporting a project for which the justi- <br />fication for need is dated. A number of "crisis" situations that had <br />been portrayed as occuring in the CON process have been shown to be <br />incorrect. The rate increases imposed by WMMI and the restrictions on <br />the Hwy. 169 Mississippi bridge crossing have served to illustrate <br />over much of the past year just how "adverse" the impacts of closure <br />are. The EIS completely fails to address the expansion in this light. <br /> <br />As indicated in the City's original position statement commenting on <br />the EAW scoping decision, the City believes that a valid assessment <br />would consider the type, the magnitude, and duration of impacts. It <br />has also been the city,s position that the EIS evaluation baseline <br />should consider a closed landfill versus expansion, rather than <br />comparing an expansion with an operation that last existed at a <br />similar level in 1986. <br /> <br />Most importantly, the EIS addresses a time frame which assumes <br />completion of the landfill operations inclusive of final cover by <br />1991. If, in fact, the EIS is to be considered adequate, approval <br />should only be contingent on a time limited capacity combined with a <br />volume based capacity. As the City is aware, as MC is aware, and all <br />other parties are aware, simply approving a requested capacity <br />initiated by an applicant has absolutely no relationship to the <br />duration of any associated impacts since that capacity, historically, <br />has stretched well beyond any projected closings. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br /> <br />