12/06/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Aesthetics The EIS addresses visual impacts and correctly points out that the landfill at present is an "anomaly', and is uncharacteristic of this region. The assessment, however, seems to conclude ~hat since the existing fill is already a major negative visual impact, a little more won't hurt. Fish and Wildlife No discussion of impacts on fish or wildlife resulting from borrow or remedial action activities was contained in the document. Traffic Traffic impacts due to the change in Ievel from a sharply curtailed landfill activity to a landfill operation were not addressed. As was pointed out earlier, the impact of restricted loads on the Mississippi River crossing at Anoka and Champlin also was not taken into consideration. Summary The EIS is based largely on supporting a project for which the justi- fication for need is dated. A number of "crisis" situations that had been portrayed as occuring in the CON process have been shown to be ~ incorrect. The rate increases imposed by WM~.I and the r ~ ' ~' · es~rlC~lOnS on the Hwy. 169 Mississippi bridge crossing have served to illustrate over much of the past year just how "adverse,, the impacts of closure are. The EIS comD!ete!y fails to address the expansion in this light. As indicated in the City's original position statement commenting on the EAW scoping decision, the City believes that a valid assessment would consider the type, the magnitude, and duration of impacts. It has also been the City's position that the EIS evaluation baseline should consider a closed landfill versus expansion, rather than comparing an expansion with an operation tha% last existed at a similar level in 1986. Most importantly, tke EIS addresses a time frame which assumes completion of the landfill operations inclusive of final cover by 1991. If, in fact, the EIS is to be considered ade.c~/ate, approval should only be contingent on a time limited capacity combined with a volume based capacity. As the City is aware, as MC is aware, and all othe~ parties are aware, simmly a~D~ovin~ a re_cu~sted capacity initiated by an applicant ha~ abs~tel ~no - Y reia~ionship to the duration of any associated impacts since that '- ' · · - capacity, hlstorlcal!y, has stretched well beyond any projected ctosings~ 8