Agenda - Council - 05/31/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I (Ex. ]~E), If tSe city or county were to require ~ similar liner ~ moni- toring ~ystem beneat~ ~ny ~-~rd~ua waste proc~ssirg facility on t]~is site, it would increase th~ cost of such a facility. Such special design features will not affect~ of course, contamination from spills which occur due to traffic accidents or other off-site events. Proximity to Natural Areas~ Parks and Historic Sites 55. Within the boundaries of the north central portion of the proposed site and adjacent to it to the north and east lies a lake-wetland complex. Thirteen depressions or '9~asins" in this cc~plex (lakes and types III, IV and V wetlands) are deep enough and large enough to be iP~luded in the DNR'e ventory of legally protected w~ters, (E~, UU). Type ~ and II wetlands likely to be asscc]ated with this oomplex have not been mappedl because they are not deep e~Dugh to be legally protected. They arel nc~etheless, very wet lands--typically seasonally flooded and/or waterlogged most of the growing s~ason--not particularly conducive to hazardous waste processing facility development. The aerial photograph (~x. ZZ) is misleading as to the extent of this complex because it does not show one of the wetlands within th~ bounda- ries of the proposed site (675 W}~ two of the wetlands that are partly in and partly out of the site (670 W ar~ 673 iW) ~ a lake and four'wetlands within one-quarter mile of the north boundary (112 P, 669 W, 728 Wi 668 W and 667 W). 56. ghe dangers of c(aTtamination of this cc~plex are discussed in a Metropolitan Council evaluation of the landfill site Just north of the proposed areal The water bodies near the site could be impacted by both surface water and groundwater contamination. It appears that both Sun- fish Lake and the wetland complex at t%~ so~tl~west corner of the site are hydraulically connected with the surficial ground- water. The risk of contamination of this aquifer was discussed above. Both water bodies could also be affected by surface water contamination. (Ex. fEE). 57. Minn. Stat. .~ 105.485 defines state "sborelands" as including all "land within 1000 feet fro~ the normal high watermark of a lake, pc~d or flowage". ~he statute requires cities like Ramsey to adopt shoreland zc~/ng ordinanoes delineating these areas and applying minimum protections for their preservation. As discussed in the Metropolitan Council landfill analysiS.· Ramsey's ccmprehensive plan states that the city intends to adopt a ehoreland management ordinance to implement the plan's environmental protection element. The ordinance would create a l(XX)-foot shoreland management district around lakes such as Sunfish Lake .... The ~ may also recc,,u,~nd that a shoreland district be created for wetlar~s that were once classified as lakes~ such as the wetland cc~plex southwest of the site. (Id.). 58. Nearly all of the northeasternmost one-third to one-half of the site is within '1000 feet of these lakes and ponds in this lake-wetland complex and potentially is or will be specially protected state shorelands. 59. Pollution Control Agency Rule 6 MCAR .~ 4.9004 B. specifically pro- hibits the location of any .w-gste processing facilities in state sboreland areas or in areas where the "geologyl hydrology~ Or soil is unsuitable for-the protection of the groundwater a~ the surface water".' The above-cited Waste Management Board statute requires the consideration of consistency of the site