10/12/88 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

32. That WMMI has stated that the Ramsey site would be the first operating ski hill that Waste Management has developed and operated although Waste Management has developed other types of recreation facilities at other landfills including soccer, ball diamonds, trails and viewing vistas (9/8/88 public hearing). 33. That the preliminary plans indicate that the ski hill will be fenced restricting access to the remainder of the landfill site. 34. That Anoka County in its May 19, 1987 letter expressed no objections to the recreation develop concept but did indicate specific areas of concern related to environmental issues, plan review, site maintenance and turf establishment. 35. That MPCA in its June 4, 1987 letter indicated that they could not state whether a ski area would or would not be allowed at the site within a year of completion until such'time that a set of engineering plans for the project had been submitted. MPCA expressed environmental concerns relating to the integrity of the final cover, impact on response actions, and access/safety issues. 36. Metropolitan Council (MC) indicated by letter dated April 27, 1987 that they would offer advice on the proposed ski operation in the EIS and permit application for expansion, however, no formal approval for end use is required from the MC. Land._A1 Ex~ansion 37. That W~iM-~I has stated that a test plot has been installed to verify to MPCA through an approximate 18 month test period that the proposed final cover system will work (9/S/$8 public hearing). 38. That W?%M_.i stated that there are 80 monitoring wells placed around the si~e and a detection system is in place to detect contamina- tion of ground water. Current contamination problems are being addressed as part of the remedial action through the installation of a barrier well and ground water recovery system (9/8/88 public hearing). That ~?L~.! has stated that the installation of a gas recovery system will solve occasional odor problems (9/14/88 public hearing). That there is a discreoancy between the ~ ~ . __ne. top elevation of 1030' shown on the grading plans and ~.~C~_~i's stated top elevation of !020' (9/!4/88 public hearing). ~h-t .nm- has stamed that -k_ ~ ~- ~=":t~o~ of the landfill :s !02~' however, that the ~and=~ ":~ settle and %he exoansicn proposal will be revised Jo reflect a maximum elevation of 1020' (9/14/88 ..,~1~- hearing).