8 am: Public Forum
- One resident gave comment discouraging the county from giving money to education initiatives proposed to the county. Also spoke to concerns about elections and how well machines count ballots as well as concerns about pedophilia arising in any programs serving youth.
8:30 am: Board Meeting
- Property Tax & Elections: Denise Anderson
- Appointed Docken and Hoisington for for Rice County Canvassing Board for August Primary Election and November General Election
- A variety of temporary and ongoing on-sale liquor and tobacco licenses were approved
- Social Services: MEgan Thomas and Tom Gee
- Approved Southern Minnesota Guardianship Services Contract
- Purfeerst: Is this person in Rice County or will there be travel?
- A: They do not live in Rice County, but there is generally travel included. So mileage is included.
- Unanimous approval.
- Assessor’s Office: Joshua Schoen
- Approved 5-year Vanguard appraisals license renewal for $72,500
- Information Technology: ALlan Klug
- Approved Civic Clerk software and service annual invoice payment
- Environmental Services, Julie Runkel
- Approved several interim use permits for solar
- Purfeerst: How will the wetlands impact this project?
- Runkel: Solar on wetlands is permissible
- Underdahl: Will tree line be impacted?
- Runkel: I don’t think so
- Purfeerst: How will the wetlands impact this project?
- Approved Cannabis Public Use Ordinance
- Regulating use of cannabis on public county property, including fairgrounds and public parks
- Approved several interim use permits for solar
- Consent agenda approved.
9 am: Public Hearing
Milestone Materials Interim Use Permit for Gravel Mine
Andrew Peters of Milestone Materials, on behalf of landowner Christopher and Anne Donkers Trust, has applied for an Interim Use Permit for a sand and gravel mining operation with aggregate crushing. The property is described as: Part of the SW1/4 of the NW1/4, Section 26, Northfield Township, Rice County, Minnesota. PID# 08.26.2.50.001. The property is Zoned, A, Agricultural.
- The room was full, standing room only, approx 80 members of public in attendance
- Julie Runkel summary
- On May 14 the county board received the permit request from Milestone Materials. The county board postponed the decision for the public hearing today. The board also asked for environmental impacts.
- This project is not big enough to require an EAW, environmental assessment worksheet, but one can be elected, nonetheless. (This project is for 12-14 acres of mining.)
- The RGU, regulatory governmental unit, for this project is Rice County, so the Rice County board will need to decide whether to require an EAW.
- The county website has the agenda packet for this meeting available for download, including the presentation regarding the Milestone Materials application addressing a range of environmental impact considerations.
- The 26 conditions of this conditional use permit are as follows, also on Page 706 of 866 of the agenda packet linked above.
- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – Milestone (Donkers) – Interim Use Permit
- The permittee shall comply with all rules, regulations, requirements, or standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and other applicable federal, state or local agencies.
- The Interim Use Permit (IUP) is for a sand and gravel mining operation including gravel/aggregate material crushing.
- The applicant or operator shall furnish a six (6) year $100,000 bond for haul road repair and for site restoration. All bonds shall be reviewed and approved by the Rice County Attorney’s office prior to any work on site.
- This interim use permit shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from its issuance and must be renewed prior to that time or the site completely restored. Failure to renew the permit or to
restore the site shall result in the County exercising the bond and using the proceeds to restore and properly close the site. - The mineral extraction mining operation shall be restricted to the area and depth shown on the applicant’s approved site and mining plans. Any deviation from these boundaries will require application for a new interim use permit. No more than 10-acres of the proposed mining area shall be open to mining at any time.
- The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturdays. Preparation of equipment allowed starting at 6:00 am Monday through Saturdays.
- A 20-foot setback shall be maintained between the operation and all property lines. A 100- foot setback shall be maintained from any road right-of-way. A 300-ft setback shall be
maintained from the protected stream to the east of the proposed mining area. All setbacks shall be marked prior to mining and markings shall be maintained until the site is restored. No
storage of equipment or materials shall be allowed within the setback areas. - The above water earthen banks shall be sloped at a minimum 4:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) and the operator shall be required to keep the pit or excavation in such conditions as not to be
in danger of caving or sliding banks, to ensure stability. - Topsoil from the excavation site is to be stockpiled on the premises for use in restoration of the site. No topsoil is to be removed from the site.
- The applicant is to follow the approved reclamation plan. Reclamation shall be ongoing so
that previously mined land is reclaimed as new areas are opened to mineral extraction. The site is to be completely restored upon completion of permit. - The applicant is to be responsible for repair of county, state and township roads adjacent to the site due to damage hauling from the site. The roads are to be restored to their original condition after the gravel mining operation ceases.
- All access drives within the site and to the paved road shall be treated with a dust control product or shall have water applied. Treatments or applications for dust control shall be applied and maintained in a condition to prevent airborne dust, originating from the pit access drive, from leaving the property during mining or hauling activities on the property.
- Solid waste shall not be placed in the gravel pit.
- The site is to be cleaned of all debris and equipment after closure of the pit.
- “Trucks Hauling” signs with red flags are to be posted in locations to be determined by the County Highway Engineer or MNDOT when hauling from the site and to be removed when hauling is not taking place.
- The site shall be secured at access points.
- Grading and restoration work may be permitted for previously mined areas within 300-ft of the protected stream only if such work has been approved by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MNDNR) and Rice County Environmental Services Department. - Construction of the proposed driveway access must include the improvements as permitted and approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). All Access Special Provisions of the MNDOT permit must also be followed.
- Coordination with MNDOT must occur to identify and complete any required roadway improvements prior to operations.
- Operations shall halt if karst features are encountered during mining until allowed to resume at the direction of DNR.
- Operations shall not include any dewatering activities.
- Aggregate materials, portable toilets, vehicles and equipment shall only be stockpiled or stored outside of the mapped floodplain areas of the property
- Best management practices shall be instituted for discharges and potential surface contaminants, such as dust suppressants and other materials.
- Any permits required under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act must be obtained from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service prior to operation in those area where a permit is required.
- The NPDES permit and stormwater pollution prevention plan approved by MPCA must be followed.
- The Air Emission permit and fugitive dust control plan approved by the MPCA must be followed.
- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – Milestone (Donkers) – Interim Use Permit
- On page 600, Runkel notes that they are not proposing using dewatering to remove the gravel
- The 26 conditions of this conditional use permit are as follows, also on Page 706 of 866 of the agenda packet linked above.
- Representatives from Milestone Materials were present at today’s meeting.
- Runkel reviewed Bolten Menk report on a range of environmental considerations. It stated
- Kart concerns: No karst features identified in 5 mile radius around proposed mining site, based on existing maps.
- Groundwater sensitivity: Prairie Du Chien aquifer
- No anticipated groundwater impacts, according to Bolten Menk
- Dwarf Trout Lily concerns: Bolton Menk not concerned due to known habitat being on the type of slope not present on this site
- Bald eagles: Runkel addressed concerns about bald eagle nests. The eagle nest is unlikely to be impacted, but a permit may be required from fish and wildlife service
- Malecha: Who is monitoring whether they need this permit?
- Q: The county monitors gravel pits in Rice County. County commissioners could include a requirement that Milestone Materials fulfill all required permits, and then if they don’t, permit can be rescinded.
- Malecha: Who is monitoring whether they need this permit?
- Dust concerns: Yes, there will be dust, but it can be abated.
- Transportation: Road improvements and driveway plans appear adequate, according to Bolton Menk. Access to state highway reduces burden on county and local roads.
- Bolton Menk summary is that the proposed project is necessary to meet the ongoing to demand for construction aggregate.
- Purfeerst: Regarding dust: Are they planning to use chloride?
- Hoisington: How is an environmental assessment different from the report Bolton Menk report?
- Runkel: They cover similar topics.
- Hoisington: So this report is from an unbiased third party?
- Runkel: Yes
- Underdahl: Bald eagle sensitivity – way to mitigate it. We could impose reasonable conditions. Nesting period is Feb 1- July 31, so could the applicant speak to how to mitigate the disturbance?
- Runkel: Potentially.
- Purfeerst: Can they shut it down on Saturdays?
- Runkel: The conditions of the permit allow to set operational dates and times
- Tristan Gardener, of Milestone Materials based in Wisconsin
- No major updates
- Dust control: Can use water if chloride is a concern
- Nesting: Could work with a setback
- Time Periods for crushing: Can be limited
- Public Hearing
- 28 members of public signed up to speak
- Overall opinions voiced
- For: lllllll (8)
- Against: llllllllllllllllll (17)
- Mixed/Want More Info: llll (4)
- Themes of public comments
- Wildlife
- Fish will appear in man-made pond, which is good for eagles
- Reclamation of the pit will be good for wildlife in the long term
- Eagles are everywhere now, they’re not as rare as it used to be and not as big of an issue as people make it out to be, to protect them.
- Property values
- The mine is below water, so it won’t be a liability
- Conservation/Big Woods Corridor
- We made commitment to protect this as part of Rice County Comprehensive Plan ++
- This is a long term plan. The Milestone Materials plan is a 5 year plan. Prioritize long-term plans.
- Bolton Menk makes no reference to the Big Woods Corridor in its analysis, and we need that to be part of the consideration.
- Big Woods state park is there for a reason→ this is an important wildlife corridor and the prairie and woods are rare in what is now agricultural land and the state of Minnesota decided it was important to protect ++++
- Maintain clean drinking water, land is precious, invaluable. We need to prioritize these. ++
- Concerns about negative impacts on water supply
- Not concerned about impact on water supply
- Resident lives here because of this corridor and wouldn’t without it, and their money would go elsewhere. People bring money to the county because recreation in these natural areas should be considered. That’s a source of tax dollars.
- The cost of this project is bigger than the price alone.
- We made commitment to protect this as part of Rice County Comprehensive Plan ++
- County Commissioners responsibility
- Commissioners themselves need to answer the tough questions, not just the applicant or Bolton Menk. ++
- It might be an allowable use for the land, but it’s the wrong place for it.
- Trust your experts and staff, rather than opinions
- Be reasonable and create conditions that allow the project to move forward
- We’re constituents and we shouldn’t be dismissed by the county. Don’t just placate us with Milestone Materials’ narrative, which reflects their self interest. ++
- Do your due diligence, as commissioners. What is the phasing plan? Right now you just have a phase 1 in front of you. What’s coming after that, that may be grandfathered in? Concerns about the next phase. ++
- Rice Co staff are not qualified to assess the wildlife impacts.
- Commissioners should prioritize safety
- Northfield Township, represented by Purfeerst, wants to leave this decision in the Rice County Commissioners’ hands.
- Frustrated that Docken said he couldn’t talk with a constituent about the proposed project over the phone, but rather only at this public hearing.
- Commissioners do not yet have enough information to make an informed decision.
- Existing pit
- Leaving existing pit alone as proposed is a safety issue due to no fence and steep slope on sides
- Old pit site has been handled well, is nice for fishing
- This is being handled like it’s an active pit, but it hasn’t been active for 25 years.
- Need for gravel
- We need gravel for infrastructure projects, and residents will pay more if it has to be brought in from elsewhere ++++
- We don’t know how much gravel is here. We don’t know that there is a deficit here in the county. We should assess that, before saying we know.
- It’s a dollar a ton more to use gravel from another existing pit. $10k/yr more. That’s not that much.
- Consumer responsibility: We should deal with our need for gravel locally, rather than foisting that on other communities, and we should consume less gravel aggregate if we don’t like having gravel pits.
- We need gravel for safe roads → maintenance.
- There isn’t as much gravel in this county as people think.
- Concern about comment that “if there is gravel, eventually it will be mined” from last meeting – rubber stamping, and that’s irresponsible
- Reclamation of site
- Concerns are overblown.
- How is the site ever going to be restored to its original quality?
- Traffic
- Truck traffic should not be a concern: There are not going to be 400 trucks/day coming and going, as people have said. +++
- Proposal says the traffic level will be the same as before. How is that possible?
- Concerns about truck traffic +++
- Five year permit is a lot of safety threats
- If we have to truck in gravel from elsewhere, that is more traffic. Either way there is truck traffic.
- Dust
- Require plan to keep all dust contained
- Road wear on 246
- Require plan for funding maintenance
- Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
- Do it +++++
- Find out if there is karst 40 feet below the surface before approving the project.
- There is evidence of karst
- The situation has not be investigated — you need to be on the ground, not using existing maps, which are incomplete ++
- Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
- Not all wells were considered ++
- Resident spoke who owns adjacent land, which will need to be crossed for access to the pit. How will that impact her water, ag land, etc? Concerns that no one is concerned about her land, vs a company’s profits.
- An EAW much more involved than a Bolten Menk report ++
- It should be peer reviewed
- Geology expert perspectives: Retired professor consulted other professors from Carleton and UMN all say there should be an EAW
- Site has not been evaluated for Native American objects, as would be required by EAW
- Flooding
- Have we considered the flooding on the roads near the proposed pit? — that could be even worse ++
- Climate change, times have changed, more flooding now. Pit made sense 50 years ago, perhaps, but not now.
- God-given resources
- God gave us gravel, so we should use it
- Who will profit?
- Milestone Materials will profit. And they’re good at getting this approved.
- Rice County will not profit.
- Residents will not benefit. We’re not going to get a great deal on this, because they’ll sell it to us for the highest price we’ll tolerate.
- Let’s not support a big business like Milestone Materials, because they’re not as concerned with us as they are their bottom line. And they’re based in Wisconsin. Let’s instead support small businesses and local businesses.
- Public Engagement
- The county notified 12-20 households around the proposed site, but it will impact a lot more people than that, as evidenced by those in the room today
- Meeting the law or code is not good enough
- Milestone Materials meeting the minimum requirements is not good enough. Just meeting requirements can still allow for harm.
- Wildlife
- Public Hearing Closed at 10:52 pm
- Commissioners to decide on whether to reject petition for EAW
- The proposed resolution from staff would deny the need for EAW
- A vote “no” would allow for the potential decision to call for an EAW
- A vote “yes” deny the need for an EAW
- BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) received a complete petition on May 22, 2024, requesting that a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared for the Milestone Materials aggregate mining project in Section 26 of Northfield Township. On May 24, 2024, the EQB determined that Rice County is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW and forwarded the citizen petition to Rice County Environmental Services. In accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410, the County Board has 15 days to consider the petition to either deny the request or order an environmental assessment worksheet for the project. The County Board may extend the decision for an additional 15 days. The letter from the EQB, the citizen petition and an email from the EQB that contains a link to the supporting documents are included in this packet. The recommendation of staff, legal and Bolton & Menk is that the proposed Milestone Materials gravel pit does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts, thereby, declaring a negative need for an EAW. A Resolution and Findings of Fact are included. Please note the Bolton & Menk analysis was included under Item F of the Board agenda packet.
- Julie Runkel provided a review of findings of fact, available in the meeting agenda packet on pages 699 to 702. Conclusions from the document are copied below:
- CONCLUSIONS Based on the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons or otherwise known to the RGU for the Milestone Materials gravel pit, evaluation of the criteria set forth in the EQB rules for determining whether a project requires an EAW, and all other documents that are part of this review, Rice County concludes the following:
- 1. The petition and permit processes related to the Milestone Materials sand and gravel operations have generated information which is adequate to determine if the proposed project has the potential for significant environmental effects.
- 2. The information generated identifies environmental issues that can be mitigated, the contribution from the project is not significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect, and the efforts of the proposer minimize contributions from the project.
- 3. Minor environmental effects associated with the project will be further controlled by the County and other regulatory authorities; specifically, the Rice County Soil and Water Conservation District, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Transportation, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Environmental Protection Agency to a sufficient extent so as not to become significant in the future.
- 4. Minor environmental effects associated with the project will be further controlled by the County and other regulatory authority to a sufficient extent so as not to become significant when combined with other similar projects in the County.
- 5. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, the Milestone Materials gravel pit does not have the potential for significant environmental effects.
- CONCLUSIONS Based on the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons or otherwise known to the RGU for the Milestone Materials gravel pit, evaluation of the criteria set forth in the EQB rules for determining whether a project requires an EAW, and all other documents that are part of this review, Rice County concludes the following:
- Hoisting moved and Docken seconded putting the resolution to approve the finding of fact on the table for discussion and vote.
- Docken: Be cautious: If you require an EAW, are you going to require all gravel pits in Rice County to have one? Not saying that some environmental review isn’t wise, but he’s not in favor of requiring an ESW
- Purfeerst: Agrees with Docken. THere are so many regulations covering this project, that he can’t imagine it getting out of hand. Trusts the staff. Bolton and Menk put together a good report. He was concerned about groundwater impacts, but that’s been addressed for him.
- Hoisington: Apology for not responding to every constituent who reached out to him about this. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t on this. He will vote in favor of mining operation, if it comes to a vote. His questions: confused about phases of the project.
- Julie Runkel: South is phase 1a and 2. They plan to start in phase 1 and will work their way to the other side of the property
- Hoisington: No timeline?
- Runkel: It’s a five year permit. If they want to extend beyond that, they’d have to come back in 5 years.
- Malecha: But don’t they have to come to us for a permit to do gravel crushing?
- Runkel: No, that’s what this is for.
- Hoisington: Unsafe slopes: has that been addressed in this conditional use permit?
- Runkel: Would have to look at those conditions more closely to determine. Have not looked at the slopes of the pond.
- Underdahl: He asked for the extension to gather more information. Have been presented with more information via an independent report. Also got information from the public. Could one go to the nth degree to get information? Yes, but we have to look at reasonableness in terms of what we’re asking for. We were looking for a smoking gun, if there were a specific issue we needed to look for, and people have various concerns that are important to them, but we have to reply on the Bolton Menk report. The EAW would be done by an external firm like Bolton Menk. So he doesn’t see a justification for an EAW.
- Malecha: Will be the only one to vote for an EAW. Noting that there are professors who have been doing geology work for 35 to 45 years, and he puts a lot of credence in their expertise. On a project like this, we need to take a deeper look.
- Vote re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet petition
- All those in favor of the resolution to deny the EAW
- Underdahl, Docken, Hoisington, Purfeerst: Y
- Malecha: N
- Major outcome: The resolution passes, meaning the citizen petition for an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) is denied.
- All those in favor of the resolution to deny the EAW
- Vote re: conditional use permit allowing mine to proceed as planned, with the 26 conditions laid out in the conditional use permit
- Hoisington moved and Docken seconded bringing the permit resolution up for discussion and a vote.
- Malecha: Are they required to put up barriers around it?
- Tristan Gardener, of Milestone Materials: Yes, there will be a berm installed.
- Malecha: Would you go 400 feet away from the creek?
- Tristan Gardener, of Milestone Materials: We could. The current setback of 330’ is adequate.
- Malecha: Could you make it work so that there be no Saturday hours?
- Tristan Gardener, of Milestone Materials: We could. If we do have Saturday hours, it’s because a project requires it. We don’t prefer to do Saturday operations.
- Malecha: Can you go to a 7 am start time instead of 6 am for hours of operation?
- Tristan Gardener, of Milestone Materials: Yes. 6 am warm up, 7 am starting the machinery.
- Purfeerst: Don’t they
- Docken: Saturday is your day that you can work a half day if you’re behind on a project due to rain or something like that.
- Docken: We don’t ask other gravel pits to do be 400’ setback. Why do you want that, Chair?
- Malecha: To provide as much protection to the creek as possible.
- Discussion of setbacks, berms.
- Runkel notes that 400’ setback impacts plans for wetland.
- Underdahl: You’re going to construct the berm with your spoils. If there was a flood event, could we keep prairie creek from flooding into pit by making the berm higher? A foot higher than whatever the current flood level is.
- We don’t know what the level is.
- But yes, could build berm higher
- Malecha: There is a cost to the people, so I want to protect as much as I can.
- Hoisington: By building the berm are we protecting the creek or the job site?
- Underdahl: Both
- Runkel and Underdahl go back and forth about what it takes to protect Prairie Creek in case of severe flooding.
- Company can do berm
- Malecha: Why was it never restored properly?
- Runkel: I can’t answer that
- Underdahl: Comment about restoration of prior gravel pit slopes — might be better off to leave vegetation as it is.
- Tristan Gardener, of Milestone Materials: It’s in our plan to continuously restore as we work.
- Runkel & staff: If you’re changing the berm and incidental wet land, that will impact the flood plane and require more extensive study.
- Underdahl: To what standard is the berm required to be built?
- Rundkle: What’s all been evaluated as part of the plan.
- Hoisington: The berm is going to be established at current grade and then you’re going to mine?
- Tristan Gardener, of Milestone Materials: Yes.
- Malecha: It doesn’t sound like a very protective berm to me. How are we going to protect the creek? We can go more restrictive than the state?
- Runkel: Yes and now, because you can’t change the flood plane.
- Malecha: So you can’t change the berm?
- Runkel: It depends on lots of factors. You will have more water retention with a mine.
- Malecha: This is why we need a EAW.
- Runkel: We have a flood plane administrator on staff who is reviewing this project.
- Hoisington: Thank you Runkel for explaining the map.
- Malecha: How about the Saturday thing?
- Purfeerst: Agree
- Underdahl: Agree
- Hoisington: Agree, but know that when the train is running, it’s hard to stop.
- Tristan Gardener, of Milestone Materials: Could we have a request based Saturday option?
- Malecha: Procedure?
- Runkel: Could give a number of Saturdays or 7 am to noon instead of 3.
- Docken: We should not restrict it. But will defer to group
- Purfeerst: Would be okay with going to three Satrudays during the summer. Saturdays are necessary once during the summer.
- Underdahl: Compromise at 4.
- Revision to up to 4 Saturdays allowed.
- Underdahl: Berm question
- Tristan Gardener, of Milestone Materials: Net export not necessarily the case. Would restore top soil on banks.
- Hoisington: Thank participation in public hearing. Hopes we’ll all be friends at the end of the day but not all happy. Hope we gave ample opportunity for people to express themselves. Would hope this is a transparent setting. This is what good county governments should be.
- Vote for the conditional use resolution
- Yes: Underdahl, Docken, Hoisington, Purfeerst
- No: Malecha
- Major Outcome: The gravel mine conditional use permit is approved.
