Laserfiche WebLink
simplicity of the scoring system created some duplicate scores. To address duplicate scores, a secondary <br />sort was performed based on site generation capacity (highest capacity to lowest capacity). <br />3.5 Results <br />Results of our analysis are presented as a table in Appendix C. CLP sites are listed from the most likely <br />suitable for development to the least. The top five bond -restricted sites are highlighted in blue and the <br />top five non -bond restricted sites are highlighted in green in Appendix C. Table 3-1 summarizes the <br />results for the top five bond -restricted and top five non -bond -restricted sites, and indicates the figure <br />showing each site. <br />Table 3-1 Top 5 Ranked Bond Restricted and Non -Bond Restricted CLP Sites <br />10"" <br />OF CLP Site <br />W �MPFMMM <br />hEM city <br />�. <br />[21 <br />:. R- -. ILigure4A <br />Countyl <br />Flying Cloud Landfill [4] <br />Eden Prairie <br />Hennepin <br />1 <br />Yes <br />Figure 2 <br />Western Lake Superior Sanitary <br />District Landfill [4] <br />Duluth <br />St. Louis <br />2 <br />Yes <br />Figure 3 <br />Anoka -Ramsey Landfill <br />Ramsey <br />Anoka <br />4 <br />Yes <br />Figure 4 <br />Redwood County Landfill <br />Redwood Falls <br />Redwood <br />5 <br />Yes <br />Figure 5 <br />Winona County Landfill <br />Winona <br />Winona <br />6 <br />Yes <br />Figure 6 <br />Olmsted County Landfill <br />Oronoco <br />Olmsted <br />3 <br />No <br />Figure 7 <br />Freeway Landfill �3� <br />Burnsville <br />Dakota <br />8 <br />No <br />Figure 8 <br />Hibbing Landfill <br />Hibbing <br />St. Louis <br />15 <br />No <br />Figure 9 <br />Kummer Landfill <br />Bemidji <br />Beltrami <br />21 <br />No <br />Figure 10 <br />Maple Landfill <br />Pequot Lakes <br />Cass <br />22 <br />No <br />Figure 11 <br />[1] The scope of this study required identification of the top five GOB restricted and top five non -GOB restricted sites in the CLP. <br />The majority of the top twenty ranked sites were GOB restricted which necessitated using sites farther down the ranking to find <br />five non -GOB restricted sites. This ranking does not suggest that sites further down the ranking are in some way unsuitable for <br />solar development. <br />[2] In this analysis bond restriction is treated as a binary criterion (yes or no). The reality is more complex. GOB restrictions are <br />specific to a defined area of land or parcel. Some of these landfill sites are divided into multiple parcels of land and in some <br />cases only part of the site carries a GOB restriction. GOB restrictions are described in more detail in Section 4.2. <br />[3] Freeway Landfill does not currently include GOB -restricted parcels. In recent years there have been discussions about using <br />bond money to make improvements to the site. <br />[4] The cap for this landfill is identified as less than 10 years old. Cap construction documentation and geotechnical information <br />should be reviewed to understand potential subsidence risks. <br />15 <br />