Proposed Polk County MSW Landfill Expansion and Proposed ...Landfill Expansion, Demolition Landfill...

p-ear2-96b

Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED POLK COUNTY MSW LANDFILL EXPANSION AND PROPOSED GRAVEL MINE POLK COUNTY, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

Pursuant to Minn. ch. 4410, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA”) staff prepared and distributed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) for the Proposed Polk County MSW Landfill Expansion, Demolition Landfill Expansion, and Proposed Gravel Mine (collectively “Project”). Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, the EAW, comments, and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Project Description 1. Polk County (“Proposer”) operates an existing regional solid waste management facility at its

Gentilly Solid Waste Landfill (“Facility”), eight (8) miles east of Crookston. The Proposer’s Facility is located on a contiguous 360-acre property owned by the Proposer (“County Property”).

2. The Proposer currently uses approximately 55 acres of the County Property for landfill disposal.

The Proposer plans to increase the mixed municipal solid waste (“MSW”) landfill disposal capacity at the Facility by developing 13 acres within the 360-acre County Property (“MSW Landfill Expansion”).

3. The Proposer plans to operate a new 115 acre sand and gravel mining operation (“Gravel Mine”) on

other portions of the same 360-acre County Property.

4. The Proposer currently uses approximately 12 acres of the County Property as a Demolition Landfill. The Proposer plans a vertical and horizontal expansion of the Demolition Landfill within the 360-acre County Property.

5. MSW Landfill Expansion The Proposer plans to expand the MSW landfill disposal area in phases over the next 60 years from the current 622,400 cubic yards of air space to 4,643,600 cubic yards of air space. The Proposer will expand the MSW landfill horizontally to the east of the current MSW disposal area of approximately 42 acres and will expand vertically over the current MSW disposal area by increasing the final

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Polk County Proposed MSW Landfill Expansion and Proposed Gravel Mine Conclusions of Law Polk County And Order

2

permitted elevation from 1,088 to 1,122 feet. The Proposer anticipates two (2) future MSW landfill expansions at the Facility, expansion two (2) in approximately 2030, and expansion three (3) in approximately 2055.

6. Demolition Landfill

The Proposer’s planned modification to the existing Demolition Landfill includes the design of an additional horizontal footprint over the closed MSW landfill footprint of approximately 2.93 acres and vertically expanding over the current and proposed footprint by increasing the final permitted elevation of the demolition disposal area from 1057.87 to 1077.

7. Gravel Mine Development by the Proposer of the Facility property for gravel mining will be gradual and intermittent as dictated by County needs. The Proposer estimates that Polk County will undertake approximately five (5)-miles of road construction annually. Actual mining and crushing activities will generate a stockpile sufficient to accommodate several years of projected construction projects. Thus, over the course of a decade, mining, crushing, and stockpiling activities will likely occur three (3) or four (4) times. Between these active mining periods, the only mining related work will be the intermittent loading of trucks for projects. The Proposers long-term gravel mining will conceptually progress to the north and west. The Proposer will complete wetland delineation and associated permitting including mitigation requirements before any expansion takes place. The Proposer will evaluate viable materials through soil borings analysis to establish the long-term phasing and site management.

8. The Proposer currently holds Solid Waste Permit SW-124 for the Facility. The Proposer is requesting

renewal of that permit in order to proceed with a 13-acre expansion and continue with routine solid waste disposal and demolition waste disposal activities.

Permitting History

9. MSW Landfill

The MPCA issued the existing unlined MSW landfill Solid Waste Permit SW-124 in 1974, which began to accept waste in 1975. The original 45-acre portion of the existing MSW landfill closed in the early 1990s. Polk County constructed a permitted lined MSW cell in 1992 to comply with new Minnesota and Federal landfill design requirements. Since 1992, the MPCA re-permitted the existing lined MSW landfill as required by MPCA solid waste rules. The Proposer augmented the Facility with construction of demolition disposal, ash disposal, and composting facilities.

10. Construction and operation of previous phases of the MSW Landfill did not exceed the mandatory threshold for the preparation of an EAW pursuant to Minn. R. 4401.4300 subp17. Previous permitting and modifications to the existing MSW landfill required hydrogeologic investigation and development of an MPCA approved environmental monitoring system.

11. Future Phasing and Construction

The MPCA permitting of solid waste facilities follows a ten (10)-year permit cycle; thus, periodic re-permitting by the MPCA will occur over the projected life of the MSW landfill. The Proposer will construct each phase within the year preceding its target open date for waste disposal. Thus, construction will occur on an approximate four (4) to six (6) year schedule and will be limited to


3

roughly four (4) acres for each phase of construction. Table 1 provides the MSW landfill design volumes. Figure 3 illustrates the existing and proposed MSW landfill disposal cells.

12. The long-range MSW Landfill Expansion plan is to have the landfill progress eastward from existingPhases 1-12 into the currently proposed Phases 13 through Phases 16 and future Phases 17 through24. Each of the proposed phases will have a footprint of approximately three (3) to four (4) acresand provide for approximately four (4) to six (6) years of operating capacity. Phase 13 will be openfor waste disposal in 2018. Based on projected waste volumes, the last Phase 24 will be open forwaste disposal in 2071.

13. Proposed Gravel MineThe proposed Gravel Mine is not a continuation of an earlier project.

14. Demolition LandfillIn accordance with an August 1996 Permit Modification application, the Proposer developed a newdemolition debris disposal area over the original closed MSW disposal area at the Facility. TheProposer’s previous demolition debris disposal area (DD001) near the landfill office closed and thefinal cover put in place in 1997.The existing demolition landfill did not require past environmentalreview since it did not exceed any mandatory environmental review threshold categories.

Environmental Review of the Project

15. An EAW is a brief document designed to set out the basic facts necessary for the Responsible Governmental Unit (“RGU”) to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is required for a proposed project or to initiate the scoping process for an EIS (Minn. R. pt. 4410.0200, subp. 24). The MPCA is the RGU for preparing the EAW for this Project.

16. The Project requires a mandatory EAW under three categories:a. The MSW Landfill Expansion pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 17.B. “Expansion by 25

percent or more of previous capacity of a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility for up to 100,000 cubic yards of waste fill per year,”

b. The Nonmetallic Mineral Mining pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 12. B.“Development of a facility for the extraction of sand gravel stone or other nonmetallic minerals, other than peat, which will excavate 40 or more acres of land to a mean depth of ten feet or more during its existence,” and

c. The Nonmetallic Mineral Mining pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 12. C.“Development of a facility for the extraction of sand, gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals, other than peat, which will excavate 20 or more acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in a non-sensitive shoreland area.”

17. The MPCA provided public notice of the Project as follows:a. The EQB published the notice of availability of the EAW for public comment in the

EQB Monitor on March 7, 2016, as required by Minn. R. 4410.1500.b. The EAW was available for review on the MPCA website at

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html.


4

c. The MPCA provided a news release to media in the west central region of Minnesota, andother interested parties on March 9, 2016.

18. During the 30-day comment period ending on April 6, 2016, the MPCA received comments from theMinnesota Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”), Minnesota Department of Health, and theMinnesota Historical Society. The MPCA received no citizen comments. A list and copies of thecomments received are included as Appendix A to these Findings.

19. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comments received during the 30-day public commentperiod. The MPCA’s Responses to Comments are included as Appendix A to these findings.

Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects

20. The MPCA shall base its decision on the need for an EIS on the information gathered during theEAW process and the comments received on the EAW (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 3). The MPCAmust order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects(Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 1). In deciding whether a project has the potential for significantenvironmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected tooccur from the Project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are:

A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.

B. Cumulative potential effects. The responsible governmental unit (RGU) shall consider thefollowing factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether thecontribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributionsto the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approvedmitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and theefforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.

C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing publicregulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and thatcan be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of theproject.

D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of otheravailable environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer,including other EISs.


5

The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria Are Set Forth Below

Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 21. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is the “type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(A). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

22. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Project include the following:

· Surface water impacts related to stormwater · Groundwater impacts related to leachate management · Impacts to wildlife habitat

23. With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from

the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. Surface Water Impacts Related to Stormwater 24. The Facility is located in the Red Lake River Watershed. The Gentilly River lies approximately one (1)

mile west of the County Property and Kripple Creek approximately 1.5 miles north. Both the Gentilly River and Kripple Creek are tributaries to the Red Lake River, with their confluence approximately three (3) miles west of the County Property.

25. The MPCA will issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) general

Construction Stormwater Permit for the MSW Landfill Expansion and the Gravel Mine to address temporary construction impacts.

26. The NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

(“SWPPP”) will regulate construction of the MSW Landfill Expansion, Demolition Landfill Expansion, and gravel mining operations. The SWPPP contains erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices (“BMPs”) designed specific to the site. BMPs will control stormwater, minimize erosion, and prevent impacts to adjacent surface water bodies.

27. The Proposer will direct stormwater runoff from gravel mining to the interior of the excavation.

Controls will be necessary around stockpiles and adjacent operational areas. 28. For the MSW Landfill Expansion, stormwater controls incorporate drainage swales and terraces

designed to provide flows not exceeding a maximum velocity of five (5) feet per second during peak condition. Designed downslope drainage structures will accept flow from the drainage swales and terraces, and carry the water down the slope without causing erosion.

29. The Proposer will line each downslope drainage structure with geotextile and use graded rock

riprap to prevent erosion. Alternatively, the Proposer may install a permanent erosion stabilization


6

mat with the appropriate resistance to shear stress and velocity. Each downslope structure discharges into a sedimentation pond or stilling basin.

30. The Proposer designed the landfill to contain a 100-year, 24-hour, Type II storm event of 6.31

inches that is more stringent than the 25-year storm event required by rules. The Proposer included design features such as swales, downslope structures, perimeter ditches, and sedimentation ponds.

31. The Facility perimeter ditches collect and control runoff with the outlet from the County Property

located at the western edge of the current property and draining approximately one-half mile to the southwest via an unnamed waterway to the confluence with the Gentilly River. Sedimentation ponds will treat stormwater from the Facility before discharged offsite.

32. The MPCA expects the proposed stormwater controls will adequately address stormwater runoff

from the Project site. 33. The MPCA expects that quality of runoff from the landfill will not significantly change if managed in

accordance with the solid waste permit SW-124 and MPCA NPDES/State Disposal System (“SDS) Industrial Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MNR050000).

34. The MPCA finds that no lakes or county drainage ditches are located in the immediate vicinity, nor

are there any impaired waters within one (1) mile of the County Property. 35. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental

review record are adequate to address the potential impacts on surface water quality related to stormwater from the Project.

36. The MPCA has considered the impacts on surface water quality that are reasonably expected to

occur from the Project during the review process. The MPCA finds that appropriate mitigation measures are available and the Proposer will be required to prevent significant adverse impacts to surface water quality.

Groundwater Impacts Related to Leachate Management 37. The Facility generates wastewater in the form of leachate. Leachate comes from moisture already

within the waste mass, or from rainwater that percolates through the landfill cover and through the waste mass.

38. In unlined areas of the landfill, leachate can potentially percolate downwards and/or laterally away

from the refuse source in the unlined area of the landfill, transporting inorganic and organic contaminants that may result in a plume of landfill-affected groundwater.

39. The MPCA expects leachate generation at the MSW Landfill to remain approximately the same as

the quantity generated during current operations. The Proposer will keep the active working area at the MSW Landfill relatively constant with the proposed expansion leading to a similar quantity of leachate generation. The Proposer will simultaneously close cells when construction and operations at the MSW Landfill move east.


7

40. Based on past operating practices, design, and installation of the HDPE composite liner in the active landfill area, these measures should prevent any potential off-site migration of leachate. As a precaution, the leak detection lysimeters (installed as part of the proposed expansion) will detect any liner leakage.

41. The Proposer has operated the Facility with a MPCA permitted groundwater monitoring well

network since the 1990s. The Proposer has evaluated and modified the groundwater monitoring system, with MPCA approval, as necessary to accommodate each permitted expansion.

42. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to groundwater. The proposed Project area has a leachate collection system and is capped with impermeable materials upon closure. The existing monitoring network monitors for potential contamination of the groundwater beneath the site. The impacts on groundwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.

43. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant

environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to groundwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

Impacts to wildlife habitat 44. Wildlife resources near the County Property are those associated with the mix of prairie, brush, aspen

woodlots, and agriculture and include game species such as whitetail deer, sharp-tailed grouse, ruffed grouse, and waterfowl. The prairie habitats include a wide variety of resident and migratory non-game birds such as sand-hill crane, greater prairie chicken, shorebirds (sandpipers, godwits, plover, and rail), songbirds, raptors plus various mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and insects.

45. Fish resources are largely absent on and near the County Property because permanent bodies of water

are largely absent. The Gentilly River and Kripple Creek located approximately one (1) mile west and 1.5 miles north of the County Property respectively, with tributary drainages to these waterways nearer to the County Property.

46. Portions of the County Property are within the boundary of an area of Moderate Biodiversity

Significance as mapped by the Minnesota Biological Survey. The MDNR considers sites of moderate ranking to have one (1) or more of the following characteristics: 1) the occurrence of a rare species; 2) moderately disturbed native plant communities; and/or, 3) strong potential for recovery.

47. For the Gravel Mine portion of the County Property, the NHIS database query identified imperiled

or vulnerable native plant communities associated with Wet Brush-Prairie and wet and mesic prairie of the Agassiz Interbeach Prairie Complex as present. The query categorized the condition of these prairie habitats for ecological integrity (composition and abundance of native species) as being poor to good for the Gravel Mine area. Similarly, the MSW Landfill Expansion portion of the County Property also includes wet and mesic prairie of the Agassiz Interbeach Prairie Complex with fair to


8

poor condition ranking. The lower condition ranking for both proposed Project areas is because of historical grazing or overgrazing prior to county ownership of the property.

48. The Proposer anticipates the excavation and expansion of the landfill footprint and demolition

landfill area may potentially affect the native prairie remnants and associated rare species that may be present.

49. Active landfill construction and Gravel Mine excavation may interrupt breeding activities of birds or

animals such as the April 1 – May 15 booming period of the greater prairie chicken.

50. Both proposed projects will occur in a gradual phased manner over many years such that habitat loss will be gradual and incremental. The extent of gravel mining is limited to those portions of the site that have viable material.

51. The MPCA finds that the long-term landfill closure and restoration of gravel mining areas will

provide the opportunity to reclaim or enhance the County Property with surface water and wetland features seeding to re-establish native wet and mesic prairie plant communities that characterize the Glacial Lake Agassiz Inter-beach prairie habitats. Past restoration projects have resulted in reclamation of significant portions of the Glacial Ridge Wildlife Refuge.

52. The MPCA finds that neither the MSW Landfill Expansion, Demolition Landfill Expansion, nor gravel

mining will introduce or spread invasive species. On-going site maintenance will control noxious or invasive weeds and specified plantings with appropriate native plants during landfill cell closure, mining area reclamation will exclude invasive species.

53. The MPCA finds that a number of measures will be available to minimize potential adverse effects

of landfilling and gravel mining. The Proposer will perform intermittent work activities such as earth moving, mining, crushing, and stockpiling of gravel to avoid breeding and nesting seasons. Preliminary site preparation work, such as mowing prior to a nesting season discourages use of a parcel of property where earthwork will occur.

54. The MPCA finds that the continued implementation of established operational protocols also work

to minimize potential effects to wildlife and ecological resources in the County Property. The Proposer will follow the following protocols: · Maintain established daylight work hours · Limit ingress and egress to specified routes · Use and maintain established on-site traffic routes · Maintain site security to minimize the potential for unauthorized access and property use for

off-road ATVs, dirt bikes, or other activities · Limit open working areas (landfill cells or gravel mining areas) · Provide appropriate cover of buried waste to minimize the draw to varmints and predators such

as skunks, raccoons, and carrion eating birds, which could increase predation on nesting birds and mammals

· Complete site reclamation with native plant communities · Maintain stormwater management · Complete site maintenance activities without due delay


9

55. The MPCA finds that the continued implementation of established operational protocols also work to minimize potential effects to wildlife and ecological resources in the Project area.

56. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to wildlife and habitat. The impacts on wildlife and habitat that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.

57. The MPCA finds that the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant

environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to wildlife habitat that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

Cumulative Potential Effects 58. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential

for significant environmental effects is the “cumulative potential effects.” In making this determination, the MPCA must consider “whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp.7 (B). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

59. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or

anticipated future projects that may interact with this Project in such a way as to result in significant cumulative potential environmental effects.

60. The EAW addressed the following areas for cumulative potential effects for the proposed Project.

· Surface Water · Groundwater · Air Quality · Odors · Dust · Noise · Wildlife Habitat

Surface Waters 61. The County Property boundary located in the Red Lake River Watershed. The Gentilly River lies

approximately one (1) mile west of the County Property and Kripple Creek approximately 1.5 miles north. Both the Gentilly River and Kripple Creek are tributaries to the Red Lake River, with their confluence approximately three (3) miles west of the County Property. There are no lakes or county drainage ditches in the immediate vicinity, nor are there any impaired waters within one (1) mile of the County Property.


10

62. The Facility’s stormwater control system first collects stormwater runoff into a series of sedimentation ponds sized for complete retention of the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The County Property has a few dug ponds and shallow drainage ditch features. The Facility perimeter ditches collect and control runoff with the outlet from the County Property located at the western edge of the current property and draining approximately one-half mile to the southwest via an unnamed waterway to its confluence with the Gentilly River. Sedimentation ponds will treat stormwater from the Facility discharging offsite.

63. The MPCA is not aware of any other known or forecasted regulated point source discharges in the

sub-watershed around the existing Facility or MSW Landfill Expansion expected to contribute significantly to surface water cumulative effects.

Groundwater Quality 64. In unlined areas of the existing landfill, leachate can potentially percolate downwards and/or

laterally away from the refuse source in the unlined area of the landfill, transporting inorganic and organic contaminants that may result in a plume of landfill-affected groundwater.

65. The installation of the HDPE composite liner in the active landfill area should prevent any potential

off-site migration. As a precaution, the leak detection lysimeters (installed as part of the proposed expansion) will detect any liner leakage.

66. The Facility groundwater monitoring provides early detection of potential impacts resulting from

existing operations and the MSW Landfill Expansion. 67. There are no other projects known to exist near the Facility expected to contribute significantly to

area groundwater contamination. No cumulative effects on local groundwater are expected. Air Quality Impacts 68. The impacts to air quality associated with the Facility and MSW Landfill Expansion are generally

limited to greenhouse gas emissions, odors, fugitive dust, and noise. There are no other projects currently proposed in the area that would further affect air quality.

69. The Proposer performs annual calculations to confirm compliance with MPCA air quality

regulations. The latest calculations for the Polk County Facility indicate that it falls below the threshold that requires an air permit or active gas collection.

70. Landfill gas is vented to the atmosphere through passive vents installed at the landfill disposal

areas. This avoids the accumulation of potentially explosive concentrations of gas within the landfill waste refuse. Currently, the landfill is not large enough to produce measureable quantities of landfill gas that would require the Proposer to install an active gas collection system. Based on the above, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative air impacts.

Odors, Dust, and Noise 71. The rural location greatly minimizes odor impacts associated with the Facility and proposed MSW

Landfill Expansion. The nearest receptors are located a half-mile or more to the west and northwest from the property. The Proposer mitigates odors by the use of daily, intermittent, and final cover as appropriate for individual areas of the landfill. In addition, the Proposer uses solar flares on passive


11

gas vents to minimize odors. Routine site inspections by the Proposer and the MPCA also help to identify and mitigate potential leachate seeps that can contribute to odors.

72. The Proposer does not expect traffic to generate dust traveling to and from the County Property

because the adjacent roadways, as well as the entrance to the Facility are all paved. However, routine landfill operations, landfill cell construction events, and gravel mining will generate dust. Adverse impacts during construction and operation of both landfill and gravel mining activities are mitigated by limiting open excavations, soil stockpiling in active construction areas only, restoring excavations in a timely manner, and seeding areas to establish vegetation.

73. Dust control by the Proposer on roadways internal to the County Property will also mitigate dust.

Overall, the Proposer expects potential dust impacts to be minimal and isolated to the immediate area County Property.

74. The rural location, lack of nearby receptors, hours of operation (7:00 am to 4:00 pm) and extensive

buffer afforded by the County Property are such that noise related impacts are and will continue to be negligible. Surrounding current land uses include agricultural land and gravel mining to the east and west, with the nearest residence approximately over one-third mile from the County Property. Thus, the landfill operations and Gravel Mine will not generate adverse noise impacts nor does the MPCA expect significant cumulative noise impacts when considering other off-site noise sources.

75. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or

anticipated future projects that may interact with the Project resulting in significant cumulative potential environmental effects.

Wildlife Habitat 76. There are some cumulative effects resulting from the removal of native plant communities from the

area associated with both the MSW Landfill Expansion and Gravel Mine. However, long-term management of the properties by the Proposer includes reclamation and restoration with native plant communities. Past reclamation and restoration projects at the Glacial Ridge Wildlife Refuge have been successful and expected to be at the Facility.

77. Both the MSW Landfill Expansion and Gravel Mine may affect the native prairie remnants and associated rare species that are present during excavation and expansion of the landfill footprint. Active landfill construction and gravel mine excavation will potentially interrupt breeding activities of birds or animals such as the April 1 – May 15 booming period of the greater prairie chicken. Both proposed Projects expand in a gradual phased manner over many years as discussed in Item 6, such that habitat loss is gradual and incremental. The proposer will limit the extent of gravel mining to those portions of the site that have viable material.

78. In the long-term, landfill closure and restoration of gravel mining areas will provide the opportunity

to reclaim or enhance the County Property with surface water and wetland features, as well as the opportunity for seeding to re-establish native wet and mesic prairie plant communities that characterize the Glacial Lake Agassiz Inter-brush prairie habitats. Past restoration, projects have resulted in reclamation of significant portions of the Glacial Ridge Wildlife Refuge.


12

79. Neither the MSW Landfill Expansion nor Gravel Mine will introduce or spread invasive species. On-going site maintenance will control noxious or invasive weeds and specified plantings with appropriate native plants during landfill cell closure; mining area reclamation will exclude invasive species.

80. The Proposer will take measures to minimize potential adverse wildlife habitat effects of landfilling

and gravel mining. The Proposer will conduct intermittent work activities such as earth moving, mining, crushing, and stockpiling of gravel to avoid breeding and nesting seasons. Preliminary site preparation work, such as mowing prior to a nesting season, will also discourage use of a parcel of property where earthwork will occur.

81. The Proposer will follow the following protocols:

· Maintain established daylight work hours · Limit ingress and egress to specified routes · Use and maintain established on-site traffic routes · Maintain site security to minimize the potential for unauthorized access and property use for

off-road ATVs, dirt bikes, or other activities · Limit open working areas (landfill cells or gravel mining areas) · Provide appropriate cover of buried waste to minimize the draw to varmints and predators such

as skunks, raccoons, and carrion eating birds, which could increase predation on nesting birds and mammals

· Complete site reclamation with native plant communities · Maintain stormwater management · Complete site maintenance activities without due delay

Cumulative Effects Summary

82. Based on information from the solid waste permit application process, NPDES/SDS General

Industrial Stormwater Permit application, and surface water quality in the Project area presented in the EAW, and consideration of potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative effects from this Project.

83. The MPCA finds that the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant

environmental effects related to cumulative potential effects that are reasonably expected to occur.

The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 84. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project." Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(C). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

85. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project:


13

Unit of Government Type of Application MPCA Individual Solid Waste Permit

MPCA General Construction Stormwater NPDES Permit

MPCA General Industrial NPDES Stormwater Permit for the Facility

Polk County Conditional Use Permit City of Crookston Wastewater Treatment Agreement West Polk Soil & Water Conservation District; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Wetland Jurisdictional Determination (Landfill Expansion)

West Polk Soil & Water Conservation District; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Wetland Replacement/Compensatory Permitting (Landfill expansion)


Wetland Jurisdictional Determination (Gravel Mine)


Wetland Replacement/Compensatory Permitting (Gravel Mine)

Solid Waste Permit. The Proposer is responsible for submitting engineering design plans and construction specifications in the Solid Waste Permit application. The Proposer will also use ash-testing results to determine liner requirements. The Proposer will manage the Facility and MSW Landfill Expansion in accordance with the final Solid Waste Permit requirements. Permit requirements will include: design/construction standards, operation/maintenance, leachate management, monitoring, closure, post-closure, and emergency response/contingency action plans.

MPCA NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit. The Proposer will obtain a NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit for the Project. Any project that disturbs one (1) or more acres requires a General NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Permit. This permit requires the use of best management practices (“BMPs”) such as silt fences, bale checks, and prompt re-vegetation to prevent eroded sediment from leaving the construction site. The City must also have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) that provides more detail on BMPs implemented and address: phased construction; vehicle tracking of sediment; inspection of erosion prevention and sediment control measures implemented under SWPPP; and timeframes to implement BMPs. The NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit requires the Permittee to provide adequate stormwater controls to assure there are no water quality impacts from runoff after construction.

NPDES/SDS General Industrial Stormwater Permit. The MPCA requires the Proposer to comply with specific conditions for construction and operation of the Facility, and assure overall compliance with water quality requirements. The Facility needs to prepare a Spill Response Plan and/or revise its SWPPP.

County Conditional Use Permit. The Proposer must obtain all building and conditional use permits required by local units of government to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The Proposer must comply with local zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses.


14

City of Crookston, Wastewater Industrial Pretreatment Agreement The Project is subject to the wastewater pretreatment requirements of the city. MPCA staff also reviews pretreatment agreements. Watershed District, Construction Permit The watershed’s permit regulates grading, surface paving and runoff. The permit assures that the Project is constructed or installed in accordance with the watershed district’s rules. Board of Water and Soil Resources, Stormwater Plan Review The Board of Water and Soil Resources’ stormwater plan review ensures that the Project Proposer has an adequate stormwater management plan. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 General Permit/Letter of Permission This general permit provides language describing procedures and permissions regarding excavation in wetlands and placement of excavated materials into the waters of the United States or their associated wetlands.

86. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental

effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.

The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 87. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is “the extent to which environmental effects can

be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the Project Proposer, including other EISs,” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(D). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

88. MPCA staff reviewed the following documents as part of the environmental impact analysis for the

proposed Project. · data presented in the EAW · permit application(s)

89. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the

Project Proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff.

90. The environmental effects of the Project have been addressed by the design and permit

development processes, and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects

91. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies by public agencies or the

Project Proposer, and staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Polk County Proposed MSW

Landfill Expansion

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, letter received April 6, 2016 2. Minnesota Historical Society, letter received March 25, 2016 3. Minnesota Department of Health, letter received April 6, 2016

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”), letter received

April 6, 2016. Comment 1-1: “Page 7 – First paragraph states, “Proposer can spray leachate collected only from the ash disposal cells to control dust via a spray system”. MDNR recommends this leachate be tested periodically for contaminants.” Response: The MPCA Solid Waste Permit requires that leachate is tested. The city of Crookston requires leachate testing prior to delivery to the Crookston Wastewater Treatment Facility. Comment 1-2: “Page 10 – The EAW does not define how far into the groundwater table the excavation will occur and does not include a phased mining plan showing depth to groundwater. Bullets state, “Material excavation will most likely extend below water table.” If dewatering will occur during excavation that exceeds 10,000 gallons per day or one (1) million gallons per year, a dewatering permit from MDNR will be needed.” Response: The Proposer understands that a dewatering permit is required if dewatering occurs and the volumes exceed 10,000 gallons/day or one (1) million gallons/year. However, the County currently anticipates no dewatering. The County will excavate material to the depth of viable material and the amount of material that the County needs. Comment 1-3: “Page 11 – Bullet simply states “site restoration”. What does this mean? How will it be accomplished? MDNR recommends a restoration/mitigation plan be prepared and reviewed by MDNR prior to implementation.” Response: It is the Proposer’s intent to work with the MDNR on any issue of mutual interest, in requesting guidance, assistance, review, and/or comment. The Proposer responded, “Such a request with regard to restoration planning will be made when it is deemed appropriate by the County to do so.” The Proposer will consider native plant communities during the restoration process. Comment 1-4: “Page 15 – wetlands – A U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit may be needed for fill of wetlands (not listed in permits).”

2

Response: The Proposer understands that filling wetlands requires a The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) Section 404 permit. The Proposer does not have specific plans for the gravel operation yet to know the Project will need a 404 permit. The Soil and Water Conservation District and USACE will determine the need for a 404 permit. Comment 1-5: “Page 15 permits – If there is a potential need for dewatering that exceeds 10,000 gallons per day or one (1) million gallons per year, a permit would be needed from the MDNR for gravel operation.” Response: The Proposer has no current plans to dewater at the site. Comment 1-6: “Page 21 – last paragraph states that the stormwater runoff and drainage of the site runs off the property via an unnmaned water way into the Gentilly River. Is this water runoff monitored for contaminants? And has there been any contamination? If so what is being used to mitigate the contamination? Is a 401 water quality permit needed? MDNR recommends that any water runoff be monitored from contaminants prior to entering the Gentilly River.” Response: The Proposer is aware that landfill design, permitting, and operation must follow Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) guidelines for managing stormwater with engineered controls and applicable storage requirements. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (“NPDES/SDS”) Industrial Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MNR050000) as issued by the MPCA April 5, 2015, and valid to April 5, 2020, also covers the landfill. MPCA permits require water quality for testing leachate, surfacewater, and groundwater. The Proposer will apply for coverage under MPCA’s NPDES General Permit MNG490000 for the proposed gravel operation. Comment 1-7: “Page 26 – Water appropriations – if dewatering exceeds 10,000 gallons per day or one (1) million gallons per year will be conducted for mining operations a dewatering permit from MDNR will be needed. “ Response: The Proposer has no plans to dewater at the site at this time. Comment 1-8: “Page 28b. – will there be any additional affects to the unnamed waterway and Gentilly River? Will additional runoff from the expanded site create flooding or water quality issues? MDNR recommends identifying the additional amount of runoff from the expansion and the effects of the amount on fish and aquatic species.” Response: MPCA guidelines for managing stormwater require engineered controls and applicable storage requirements for landfill design, permitting, and operation. These controls must account for site runoff allowing no increase of discharge from the site. The NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MNR050000) issued by the MPCA April 5, 2015, and valid to April 5, 2020, covers the landfill. Similar coverage under NPDES General Permit MNG490000 is applicable to gravel mining operations and monitoring in accordance with that permit. Comment 1-9: “Page 30, Section 13 second full paragraph - Many of these areas are designated as MDNR Native plant communities of Agassiz interbeach prairie complex, wet brush prairie, and NW Wet-Mesic aspen woodlands. They contain rare species such as Plains reedgrass and blanket flower. These are also classified as moderate MBS sites. The Wetland Conservation Act (“WCA”) may be applicable, and the wet-brush prairie and wet prairies within the prairies complexes may qualify as “rate natural communities” under this Act. Minnesota Rules, part 8420.0515, subpart 3 states that a wetland

3

replacement plan for activities that modify a rare natural community must be denied of the local government unit determines that the proposed activities will permanently adversely affect the natural community. MDNR recommends surveys be completed prior to implementation. If rare natural communities are affected, a minigation plan should be prepared and reviewed by DNR.” Response: The Proposer has completed a habitat assessment for the project site. The assessment identified that the site is mostly disturbed grassland prairie that currently has a low abundance of native species. The habitat assessment is available upon request by contacting Polk County Landfill at 218-281-6445. The Proposer anticipates the excavation and expansion of the landfill footprint and demolition landfill area may potentially affect the native prairie remnants and associated rare species that may be present. Landfill closure and restoration of gravel mining areas will provide the opportunity to reclaim or enhance the County property with surface water and wetland features seeding to re-establish native wet and mesic prairie plant communities that characterize the Glacial Lake Agassiz Inter-brush prairie habitats. Comment 1-10: “Page 30 Section 13, fourth paragraph – There are several fish species in these watercourses and can be areas of spawning in the spring for some of the larger fish species coming from the Red and Red Lake Rivers. This area is also near two prairie chicken leks, (see attachment), and noise and direct disturbance to leks and roosting may negatively affect the prairie chicken breeding. MDNR recommends effects to spawning of fish and to breeding be qualified and disclosed.” Response: The Proposer is aware that landfill design, permitting, and operation must follow MPCA guidelines for managing stormwater with engineered controls and applicable storage requirements. Please see responses to Comments 1-6, 1-8, and 1-9 above. These programs and permits address potential impacts to surface waters such that there would be no affect to fish. The Proposer completed a habitat assessment for the project site. The Facility has operated from 1975 to present. It employs the same types of equipment and operational practices from 1975 to present. The Project will emit the same type and level of noise and disturbance going forward as historically produced. Comment 1-11: “Page 32, 2nd full paragraph. “Natural Heritage review recommends conducting a ground survey….” The NHIS letter states:”…it is recommended that a qualified surveyor (see enclosed list) assess the current condition of any native prairie remnants that will be impacted by the proposed project and, if warranted, conduct a botanical survey for state-listed species. The purpose of tis assessment/survey would be to inform the environmental review process and to reduce the likelihood of an inadvertent take of sate-protected species. MDNR recommends that this language be included in the permit. Also, ALL recommendations from the NHIS letter (see attached) should be included.” Response: The Proposer completed a habitat assessment for the project site. The assessment identified that the site is mostly disturbed grassland prairie that currently has a low abundance of native species. The habitat assessment is available upon request by contacting Polk County Landfill at 218-281-6445. The Project Proposer and MPCA permit staff received the commenters request to include language in the MPCA NPDES Solid Waste Permit.

4

Comment 1-12: “Page 32, Section d – A takings permit would be needed for any plants listed under either Minnesota’s ESA or Federal ESA (again see NHIS letter include that language in permit). MDNR recommends that a mitigation plan and noxious weed abatement plan be prepared and reviewed by MDNR prior to any implementation.” Response: It is the Proposers intent to work with the MDNR on any issue of mutual interest, in requesting guidance, assistance, review, and/or comment. The Proposer responded, “Such a request with regard to restoration planning will be made when it is deemed appropriate by the County to do so.” Comment 1-13: “Page 33 bulleted items – These bullets should also include mitigation for the loss of wetlands, preparation of a reclamation plan for the loss of prairie habitat, and mitigation/avoidance for the prairie chicken leks. MDNR recommends preparation of a mitigation plan to be reviewed by the MDNR.” Response: It is the Proposers intent to work with the MDNR on any issue of mutual interest, in requesting guidance, assistance, review, and/or comment. The Proposer responded, “Such a request with regard to restoration planning will be made when it is deemed appropriate by the County to do so.” Comment 1-14: “Page 38 – Groundwater Quality – According to this section, groundwater is potentially already being compromised (second paragraph). MDNR recommends the analysis and follow up work to ascertain the source be completed and mitigated before any additional construction or expansion take place.” Response: Comment noted. The Project’s groundwater quality- monitoring program is operating in compliance with the solid waste permit requirements. 2. Comments by Minnesota Historical Society, letter received March 25, 2016 Comment: The commenter stated, “based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the National of State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project.” Response: No response necessary 3. Comments by Minnesota Department of Health, letter received April 6, 2016 Comment 3-1: “Mine Reclamation - Inadequate mine reclamation may result in undesirable outcomes, often not immediately observed, such as the focused infiltration of surface contaminants to groundwater, altered water quality in nearby springs and streams, accelerated soil erosion, and the creation of physical hazards, such as sinkholes. Where mining activities remove critical protective geologic materials above an aquifer, post-reclamation land uses have the potential to degrade groundwater quality. The EAW notes that upon completion of mining activities, the site will be reclaimed with native plant communities. Although developed for silica sand mine projects, the Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB) Tools to Assist Local Governments in Planning and Regulating Silica Sand Projects includes applicable tools that could be implemented on the project site to minimize impacts to groundwater quality from reclamation land uses (section D3). Additionally, although the site is not located within a wellhead

5

protection area, MDH’s Wellhead Protection Issues Related to Mining Activities also provides tools that could be implemented to minimize impacts to drinking water.” Response: Comments noted and passed along to the Project Proposer Comment 3-2: “Well Construction - The EAW states that monitoring wells MW-5 and MW-204 will eventually be sealed and that there will be an installation of a new MW-205 nest of two wells. While text in the EAW states that “a licensed well contractor will complete all well work, according to the MDH Well Code,” the permits and approvals table, in Section 8, should include the notification form required to be submitted to the MDH Well Management program prior to sealing of old wells and construction of the new wells.” “New wells that are constructed in Minnesota must be constructed according to the requirements

of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103I, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725. Any wells constructed for dewatering or water quality monitoring will be subject to these requirements. Well construction cannot begin before written acknowledgement from the MDH Well Management program of receipt of the notification form and that the related fees have been received from the driller or project proposer. Abandoned wells will need to be properly sealed. Additional information is available on the MDH website at Well Construction and Well Sealing. For additional information, contact MDH staff at (651) 201-4600 or [email protected].”

Response: Comments noted and passed along to the Project Proposer

mailto:[email protected]

1

2

3

Date post:	26-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Proposed Polk County MSW Landfill Expansion and Proposed ...Landfill Expansion, Demolition Landfill...

Documents