p-ear2-01a
STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MAR-KIT SANITARY LANDFILL, KITTSON COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000-4410.1600, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Mar-Kit Sanitary Landfill project (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,, and Order. Existing Facility Project Description 1. The Mar-Kit Joint Powers Board (Board) owns and supervises the operations of the 90-acre Mar-Kit Sanitary Landfill near Hallock, Minnesota. The landfill footprint is located in the S½ of the NW¼ of Section 12, Township 161 North, Range 48 West, Thompson Township,. The Board also owns property to the south of the landfill footprint in the SW¼ of Section 12, Township 161 North, Range 48 West, with the exception of a homestead and driveway. 2. The landfill is operated as a regional collection facility. The landfill generally services Kittson and Marshall Counties. However, waste is also received from the Minnesota counties of Koochiching, Lake of the Woods, Pennington, Red Lake, and Roseau, the Red Lake Indian Reservation, and the northeast counties of North Dakota, including parts of Cavalier, Pembina, Ramsey, and Walsh Counties. 3. The landfill currently includes active and closed municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal areas, a demolition debris landfill, site access and service roads, an office building, a materials recycling facility (MRF), a balefill facility, and an equipment storage facility. The current disposal area, Area C, has been divided into cells to reflect the closure sequence of filling to maximize airspace as the landfill development has proceeded. Former disposal Area B was filled in sequence and final covered. Former disposal Area A was filled in a sequential pattern as cells were trenched into the existing ground. Areas A and B are not lined, as this was not required at the time they were filled. They have, however, been closed by capping with impermeable materials. Area C consists entirely of lined cells. 4. Incoming waste is largely all processed, meaning most recyclable materials have been removed for recycling prior to disposal. Nearby towns served by the landfill, such as Hallock, have recycling programs set up to serve them. The remaining areas wastes, not served by a local recycling program, are processed through the MRF prior to being baled for disposal in the landfill. The landfill handles TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332 Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers
approximately 60,000 to 80,000 cubic yards of MSW (40,000 to 50,000 tons) each year, along with 1,000 tons of demolition waste, less than 1,000 tons per year of various industrial wastes, and small amounts of asbestos waste (five tons in 2008). Appliances are also recycled by the landfill. The currently permitted MSW airspace capacity is 1,076,000 cubic yards. 5. The refuse is dumped on the tipping floor, then pushed onto one of two conveyor belts that deliver the waste to the baler. The baler compacts the waste and ejects it in bales that either are bound with wire ties or stuffed into woven polypropylene-resin bags (weight of 90 grams per square meter). These bags incorporate an open end design on one end and are sewn shut at the factory on the other. They incorporate an open weave design to allow water (and landfill leachate) to pass easily through them and are not intended to be water or gas-tight. The ejected bales are staged via front-end loaders as needed to minimize bales building up at the ejection site and decreasing the efficiency of the baler. Finally, the front-end loaders haul the bales to the working face four at a time, and the bales are stacked in the landfill via the loaders. 6. Baling of the waste reduces windblown litter (from blowing of paper and other light material). Additionally, it greatly improves waste compaction (approximately 1,200-1,500 pounds/cubic yard) allowing better use of air space within the landfill and improving overall stability of the landfill against subsidence and slope failures. 7. To date, the landfill has not been shown to be a significant source of groundwater contamination and is not known to have any pollutant migration outside the compliance boundary. The landfill has shown typically upward groundwater flow gradients at the two well nests located at the facility, with a predominantly horizontal flow direction. This serves to isolate any deeper aquifers from site impacts. Regional groundwater flow at the landfill is to the west-southwest, and is very slow because the soils in the area are very dense and tight. Many local residents use a rural water system rather than wells for this reason. 8. In 2008, the landfill completed a demonstration research project in conjunction with the MPCA that explored mixing waste latex paint with commercial spray-on cover materials like ConCover and Cellulose Insulation. Results showed that the mixture with waste latex paint was superior in durability compared to a normal mixture of these products with water or leachate, and lasted over three months with no deterioration. As a result, the MPCA determined that mixing commercial spray-on cover materials with waste latex paint is an acceptable alternative daily cover for the landfill. 9. Utilization of a leachate spray irrigation system at the site to treat the landfill leachate began in 1994 with the original 4-acre spray site (present day Area C). Phases 3A and 3B of MSW Disposal Area C were constructed in 2000, which resulted in two of the four spray areas of the original 4-acre spray site being abandoned. Approval was granted by the MPCA to begin spray irrigation in a new 10-acre area to the south of the landfill in 1998. During 2005, the 10-acre spray site was expanded 400 feet to the south, and now encompasses 20 acres. Leachate was applied only to this new 20-acre spray area in 2009, as the original site no longer exists. 10. Stormwater generated at the site is currently routed to on-site sedimentation ponds through a series of swales, downslope structures, perimeter ditches, and culverts. Any stormwater that encounters active areas of the landfill is collected and treated as leachate, and sent to the leachate ponds for pretreatment. Future stormwater controls will be implemented as the site develops to effectively control stormwater runoff at the site and discharge at a rate equal to pre-landfill (normal) conditions. 2
11. Mar-Kit has several controls in place to manage litter at the landfill. The facility operates a balefill (a facility that compresses waste into bales) and sorting facility that greatly reduces the amount of blowing debris, while minimizing landfill capacity consumption per incoming waste volume. Litter is also controlled by litter fences. Additional litter is picked up daily as required. The landfill uses a portable litter fence and other controls designed to minimize visible litter at the facility during active filling. Litter will be managed by following the facility s Litter Management Plan. 12. The landfill currently has a passive gas collection system in place that was installed in Area B prior to closure in 1994 and in Area C, Cells 1 and 2, prior to closure in 2004 and 2007, respectively. This collection system was installed to provide a controlled pathway for landfill-produced gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, to escape the cap through gas vents, and into the atmosphere to avoid the potential buildup of explosive gases within the landfill subsurface. The passive vents in Area C were equipped with solar flares in 2005 and 2008 to effectively reduce potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, odor, and toxic air emissions that result from decomposition of waste within the landfill. Permit Status 13. The landfill, in operation since 1972, was formerly permitted as the Anderson-Kittson Sanitary Landfill under MPCA Permit SW-92. The landfill was purchased in 1991 by the Landfill Board. In 1994, a second permit (SW-462) was issued for the demolition debris disposal area, which is a 12.5-acre area located in the northeastern portion of the site. The second permit has been merged with Permit SW-92, and now no longer exists. 14. The demolition debris disposal area is a 6-acre area used to landfill waste construction materials, such as wood, insulation, plywood, sheetrock, paper, masonry, plastic, glass, and metals. The area also is used to landfill demolition materials from older structures such as concrete, bituminous, and roofing materials. 15. In 1998, modifications to the permit were granted by the MPCA to allow leachate application to the new spray irrigation area to the south of Area B, merge the demolition cell permit with the MSW permit, increase fill height within Area C, and to allow the construction of Cell 3. In 2005, the permit was modified to allow for the expansion of the spray irrigation site to increase in size by 10 acres to 20 total acres. A permit modification was submitted and approved by the MPCA in 2008, which allowed the landfill to increase the sideslopes in Area C from 5:1 to 3:1. Currently, two of the five phases have been permanently final-covered in Area C. The other three phases have been partially filled and will be seeking final closure under the 2009 permit reapplication. Previous Environmental Review 16. An EAW was prepared on the proposed Area C in 1993. The process ended with a negative declaration, meaning an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required. Project Description 17. The Board is proposing to expand the existing landfill with a horizontal and vertical expansion to the east, redeveloping over the two older, unlined waste areas. Areas A and B would be fully excavated with the wastes relocated onto the modern, composite base liners in the partially filled cells in Area C, and the eastern area then redeveloped with new lined disposal cells. 3
18. The current active MSW fill area is Area C, Cells 3 through 5 of the active landfill, located on the west half of the site. The unlined Area B lies immediately to the east of Area C, and the western portion of Area B will be the first of the unlined cells to be excavated and its waste relocated to Area C. The excavation will proceed to the east until the Area C cells are filled and covered. Once these cells are filled to final waste grades and covered with intermediate cover, preparatory to final covering, the Board proposes to move next into wholly disposing waste toward the east in new lined Cell 6, in the former Area B. The current permit renewal application seeks continued MPCA approval for filling and closure of Cells 3, 4, and 5, followed by the sequential construction and filling of Cell 6 and Cell 7 in the former Area B. The total volume of Cells 1-5 is 1,076,900 cubic yards. Cells 6 and 7, with 487,380 cubic yards of total volume, would make the permitted capacity 1,564,280 cubic yards. Procedural History 19. This EAW is mandatory pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300 subp. 17.B. 20. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp 17.B, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1500, the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on April 2, 2010. 21. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to media in Marshall, Kittson, Roseau, Beltrami, Pennington and Polk Counties as well as other interested parties, on April 5, 2010. The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on April 5, 2010, and the EAW was made available for review on the MPCA Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html. 22. The public comment period for the EAW began on April 5, 2010, and ended on May 5, 2010. During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received comment letters from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. There were no comment letters from citizens. A list of the comment letters received is included as Appendix A to these findings. 23. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comment letters received during the 30-day public comment period. The comment letters received and the responses to the comments are included as Appendix B to these findings. Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects 24. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700, the MPCA must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are: A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and 4
D. 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. The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria Are Set Forth Below Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 25. 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. 26. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Project include the following: Water quality impacts related to stormwater Groundwater impacts related to landfill leachate Air quality impacts related to the escape of landfill gas 27. Other issues raised in comment letters, including the types of impacts not listed in 25. One commenter raised the concern that dewatering might be necessary in the course of cell construction since the landfill disposal area extends below the water table and contaminated groundwater may exist in the immediate vicinity of the landfill. Any dewatering discharges should be directed to the leachate ponds. The same commenter raised a concern about nuisance gulls scavenging in the landfill, and notes that nonlethal means of mitigating this concern should be tried before lethal means. Another commenter raised general concerns about impacts to wetlands. 28. With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. Water quality impacts related to stormwater 29. Stormwater generated at the site is currently routed to on-site sedimentation ponds through a series of swales, downslope structures, perimeter ditches, and culverts. The system is designed to remove sediment from the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, and it ultimately discharges to road ditches in the vicinity that themselves discharge to the Middle Branch Two River. Any stormwater that encounters active areas of the landfill is collected and treated as leachate and sent to the leachate ponds for pretreatment. Future stormwater controls will be implemented as the site develops to effectively control stormwater runoff at the site and discharge at a rate equal to pre-landfill conditions, according to MPCA requirements for construction and sediment removal. It is not likely that significant impacts on the Middle Branch Two River would occur from this discharge. 5
30. 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 stormwater. The impacts on receiving waters 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. 31. 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 stormwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Groundwater Impacts 32. Landfills produce leachate that, if released, can contaminate groundwater. This proposed expansion is to occur in areas of the landfill that previously did not have an engineered liner or leachate collection capabilities. During the expansion, these waste materials will be fully excavated, and relocated to new cells incorporating a liner system consisting of both a compacted clay layer and a synthetic liner, in order to protect groundwater from potential contamination. Additionally, portions of the native soils below the existing waste will be removed to reach base grades, and used as cover soils above modern base liners. This has the benefit of reducing the quantity of existing impacted soils (from leachate) below the old unlined areas. Above the liner, a leachate collection system will be in place to remove any liquids that may collect at the bottom of the waste cells, and if left untreated, may escape and potentially contaminate groundwater. A leak detection system (lysimeter) is also operating under the liner in Cells 1 through 5 (Area C) to detect a potential breach of the liner system. If the landfill expansion is constructed and operated according to permit requirements, it is unlikely that groundwater would be subject to additional sources of contamination. 33. 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 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. 34. 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. Air Quality Impacts 35. Air quality impacts at landfills are largely caused by escaping landfill gas, a product of decomposition of the waste. 36. The landfill currently has 11 vertical passive gas vents in place that were installed on closed portions of the landfill (Area B; Cells 1 and 2). This passive gas extraction system was installed to prevent the buildup of subsurface landfill gases by allowing escape through the cap via the gas wells. As previously mentioned in Item 6 (above), the solar flares were installed in Area C to combust landfill gas, which reduces GHG emissions, odor, and toxic air emissions. During the combustion process, 6
methane is converted to carbon dioxide, which is 25 times less potent for global warming potential than methane. Landfills are minor sources of GHG gas worldwide and statewide, and emissions from the landfill are not expected to be significant. 37. 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 air quality. The impacts on air quality 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. 38. 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 air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Public Comments on Impacts Related to Dewatering, Nuisance Gulls, and Wetlands 39. Groundwater encountered during waste excavation will be pumped out and removed either directly to the leachate holding pond or to an adjacent open landfill cell and then on to the holding ponds. Onsite clay soils are very tight and water movement is very slow. Dewatering to the point of lowering the water table will not need to be done. 40. The operator reports that ring billed gulls are attracted to the landfill during the spring migration, but that hazing has been successful in keeping them away and discouraging the gulls from remaining over the summer. Although Franklin s Gulls have been known to scavenge at landfills elsewhere, the operator reports that Franklin s Gulls are not an issue at the landfill. The hazing activities have been effective since 1993, and the operator intends to continue to use nonlethal means to manage this potential nuisance. 41. The nearest wetland to the landfill is three miles to the north. No dredged or fill materials will be deposited into waters of the United States as part of this Project. A Section 404 permit is not required. 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 dewatering, nuisance gulls, and wetlands. The impacts 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 dewatering, nuisance gulls, and wetlands that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Cumulative Potential Effects 44. 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 7
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 s findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 45. The EAW addressed the following cumulative potential effects for the proposed Project Surface water quality Groundwater quality Greenhouse gas emissions Odor, dust and noise Surface Water Quality 46. The proposed Project is located within the Middle Branch Two River/Red River watershed. The Middle Branch Two River lies ½ mile south of the Project and is the receiving water for stormwater discharges from the landfill. Reaches of the Middle Branch Two River in the vicinity of the landfill are listed by the MPCA as impaired for turbidity, coliforms, and/or the fish Index of Biological Integrity, which is an impairment measure based on the characteristics of the fish community that is present. The MPCA has not yet initiated TMDL projects aimed at correcting the impairments. 47. The landfill s stormwater control system first collects stormwater runoff into a series of sedimentation ponds that are sized for complete retention of the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The ponds would discharge to a ditch along the east side of Township Road 253, or the man-made drainage ditch to the south of Area B, both of which eventually drain to the river. Stormwater reaching the ditches will have been treated in the sedimentation ponds before discharge, and, therefore, would be expected to have little impact on downstream waters. There are no other known regulated point source discharges in the subwatershed around the facility. 48. Given the protections that will be in place at the landfill, the available evidence does not indicate that the proposed Project would be a significant contributor to the water quality condition of these waters or the impaired uses. Therefore, significant cumulative effects on surface waters in the area of the Project are not expected to occur as a result of the Project. Groundwater Quality 49. In unlined areas of the landfill, leachate can potentially percolate downwards and/or laterally away from the refuse source, transporting inorganic and organic contaminants that may result in a plume of landfill affected groundwater. However, the installation of the composite liner in the active landfill area has prevented leachate from escaping laterally through the silty sand and till layers beneath the site. Liners are required to be installed as part of the proposed expansion eastward as well. Another possible mechanism, although much less likely, is leachate leaking through the composite-lined leachate pond. Here again, the composite liner should prevent any potential off-site migration, and if there is any leakage, it would be detected by leak detection lysimeters. Moreover, native soils beneath the landfill are resistant to flow, and groundwater movement generally is slow. Cumulative effects on groundwater have not been identified in the Project area. 8
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 50. Landfills are a minor source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and statewide. In addition, the landfill does not exceed the threshold above which the installation of an active gas collection system would be required to control gas emissions. Landfill gas is currently vented to the atmosphere via a passive venting system in Area B, and partially combusted in solar flares in the closed cells in Area C. The landfill intends to install solar flares in all phases of the landfill upon final closure. This will have the effect of reducing GHG emissions. Odor 51. Odors at a landfill are primarily a function of the disposal area that is open at any one time. The Project is a continuation of landfilling activities that have been ongoing for some time, so there is no reason to expect a significant increase in odorous emissions from the landfill. The waste excavations of Areas B and A will be conducted in phases to minimize the amount of trash exposed to the open atmosphere, and they will be done in the winter months. Also, odors are minimized by the daily use of cover soils and approved alternate daily cover materials (i.e., waste latex paint), as well as through efficient use of the solar flares. If odors become a nuisance, other controls will be utilized to minimize them. Feedlots create odorous emissions as well, but the nearest one found in MPCA files is five miles to the northwest of the landfill. Since the winds that carry odors also eventually dissipate them, it is not likely that there would be significant cumulative odorous effects associated with the Project. Dust 52. To date, dust emissions have not been a significant issue at the landfill, and this is not expected to change. Other than agricultural fields, on-site soil stock piles, and Township Highway 253 west of the facility, there are no other known sources of measurable dust in the vicinity. No significant cumulative effects are expected. Noise 53. To date, noise has not been a significant issue at the landfill, and this is not expected to change during normal operations. During construction of additional cells or waste excavation, it is expected that noise will likely increase due to added construction equipment. The residence to the north also operates construction-type equipment on a day-to-day basis and this has not been an issue. There are no other significant sources of noise in the vicinity. No cumulative effects are expected 54. 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. 55. Based on information on the Project obtained from EAW data submittals, permit application processes, and a site visit by MPCA staff, and presented in the EAW, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative potential effects from this Project. 9
The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 56. 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," Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 57. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project: Unit of Government MPCA MPCA MPCA Permit or Approval Required Re-issuance of solid waste permit NPDES/SDS Stormwater Permit for Discharge during Construction Activities NPDES/SDS Stormwater Permit for Industrial Activities Annual Facilities Permit 58. Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Land Disposal Facility Permit. Typical mixed municipal waste includes garbage collected in aggregate from residential routes. The Project proposer is responsible for submitting engineering plans and for managing the facility in accordance to the final permit requirements which would regulate design parameters, construction, operation, leachate management, monitoring, closure, post-closure, and emergency/contingency action plans, among other things. 59. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Stormwater Permit. A General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater Permit is required when a project disturbs one or more acres. It provides for the use of best management practices such as silt fences, bale checks, and prompt revegetation to prevent eroded sediment from leaving the construction site. The proposer must have a sediment and erosion control plan that will provide more detail as to the specific measures to be implemented and will also address: phased construction; vehicle tracking of sediment; inspection of erosion control measures implemented; and timeframes in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The general permit also require adequate stormwater treatment capacity be provided to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the Project is constructed. 60. NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Permit and Spill Response Plan. The NPDES/State Disposal System (SDS) Industrial Stormwater Permit requires that specific conditions be adhered to for construction and operation of the facility, and for overall compliance with water quality requirements. The facility will need to prepare a Spill Response Plan and/or revise its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 61. Annual Facilities Permit. This is a license to operate issued by the County, which contains no terms and conditions and requires only payment of an annual fee. does not require a conditional use permit at the landfill. 62. 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. 10
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 63. 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. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff and/or the Board as part of the environmental impact analysis for the proposed Project. Proposed Sanitary Landfill (Permit Application), Minnesota, Donohue and Assoc., 1972. The EAW completed data portion submitted to MPCA by the applicant Hydrogeologic Evaluation Phase II Detailed Site Investigation Report and Phase III Water Monitoring System Workplan, MAR-KIT Sanitary Landfill,, Minnesota, Donohue and Assoc., 1991. Permit Application and Design Report MAR-KIT Sanitary Landfill,, Minnesota, Donohue and Assoc., 1991 Construction Documentation Report, Mar-Kit Landfill,, Minnesota, Donohue and Assoc., 1993. Permit Reapplication MPCA Permit No. SW-92, MAR-KIT Sanitary Landfill, Wenck Assoc., 1998. Construction Documentation Report (Closure of Cell 1A and 1B), Mar-Kit Landfill, Kittson County, Minnesota, Wenck Assoc., 2004. Construction Documentation Report (Construction of Cell 4A and 4B), Mar-Kit Landfill,, Minnesota, Wenck Assoc., 2004. Construction Documentation Report (Closure of Cell 2A and 2B), Mar-Kit Landfill, Kittson County, Minnesota, Wenck Assoc., 2007. Construction Documentation Report (Construction of Cell 5A and 5B), Mar-Kit Landfill,, Minnesota, Wenck Assoc., 2007. Operations and Maintenance Plan MPCA Permit No. SW-92, Mar-Kit Sanitary Landfill, Wenck Assoc., 2008. Phase II/III Hydrogeologic Investigation Evaluation Report, Mar-Kit Sanitary Landfill, Wenck Assoc., 2009. Permit Renewal Design Report MPCA Permit No. SW-92, Mar-Kit Sanitary Landfill, Wenck Assoc., 2009. Permit Application Completeness and Technical Adequacy Review Comments, Mar-Kit Sanitary Landfill, Wenck Assoc., Feb. 8, 2010. 64. 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. 65. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the Project design and permit development processes, or by regional and local plans. 11
APPENDIX B Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Mar-Kit Sanitary Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Ronald Wieland, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Letter received May 4, 2010. 2. Tamara E. Cameron, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Letter received April 30, 2010. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Ronald Wieland, DNR. Letter received May 4, 2010. Comment 1-1: The EAW indicates that the disposal cells would lie below the water table, and that contaminated groundwater may exist in the immediate vicinity. This may mean dewatering will be required, and if it is, the pumped water should be directed to the leachate ponds. This would require proper phasing of construction activities so that proper safeguards would be in place at all times. Response: Dewatering to the point of lowering the water table will not need to be done. On-site clay soils are very tight and water movement is very slow. However, groundwater encountered during waste excavation will be pumped out and removed either directly to the leachate holding pond or to an adjacent open landfill cell and then on to the holding ponds. Comment 1-2: Commenter is concerned about the possibility that gulls may become a nuisance by scavenging in the landfill, and notes that there is historical evidence of this occurring. The Franklin s Gull, a species of special concern, has been known to occur in the area. The DNR is the permitting authority for destruction of nuisance wildlife, and would require that a variety of nonlethal means for curing the problem be tried before seeking approval to destroy nuisance gulls. Response: The operator reports that ring billed gulls are attracted to the landfill during the spring migration, but that hazing has been successful in keeping them away and discouraging the gulls from remaining over the summer. Although Franklin s Gulls have been known to feed at landfills elsewhere, the operator also reports that Franklin s Gulls are not an issue at the Mar-Kit Landfill. The hazing activities have been effective since 1993, and the operator intends to continue to use nonlethal means to manage this potential nuisance. 2. Comments by Tamara E. Cameron, USACE. Letter received April 30, 2010. Comment 2-1: The USACE administers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and notes that if the project would involve the deposition of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, a Section 404 Permit may be required. Response: The nearest wetland to the landfill is three miles to the north. No dredged or fill materials will be deposited into waters of the United States as part of this project. A Section 404 permit is not required.
1
2