12/14/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The EIS addresses visual impa;tt.;s~ and correctly point.s out that: landfill. at: present: is an Hanomaly" and is uncharact.er ist.ic of region. ';he assessment, .however, seems to conclude that since the existing fill is already a major negative visual impact, a little more won't hurt. discussion of impacts on fish or wildlife resulting from borrow remedial action activities was contained in the document. Traffic impacts due.tb 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 conside:-ation. . TheEIS is based largely on supporting a project for which .. the. justi- fica.tionfor 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 byWMMI and the restrictions on theHwy. 169 Mississippi bridge crossing have served to illustrate over much of the past year just how Hadverse" the impacts of closure are. The E::S completely fails to address the expansion in this light. As indicated in the City's original. position statement commenting on theEAW sco-:::incr decision, the Citv believes that a valid assessment wo-..:ld consider""the type, the magnitude, and duration of impacts. I.t 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 that: last existed at a sindlar level in 1986. Most importantly, the EIS addresses a time frame which assumes completion of the landfill operations inclusive of final cover by 1991. !f, in fact, the EIS is to be considered adequa.te,. approval Should only be contingent on a time limit.ed capacitycoICJ::>inedl"ith eo. volume based capacity. As the City is aware, as Mcis aware, and all other parties are aware, simply approving a requested capacity initiated by an applicant has absolutely no relationship to the duration of any associated impacts since that capacity, historically, has stretched well beyond any projected closings. $4