The rarest flower in Minnesota, the Minnesota dwarf trout lily, is classified as endangered at the federal and state level. A St. Olaf College environmental studies professor said it could soon be endangered locally due to a proposed mine on a site where the lily is present.
The professor, Kiara Jorgenson, is among a few hundred citizens who form the “Nerstrand MN Conservation Society” working to stop a proposed gravel mine and asphalt plant in northeastern Rice County from moving forward.
The Rice County Board of Commissioners is scheduled to vote on a conditional use permit for the gravel mine, which Jorgenson and others say could negatively impact the environment, property values, quality of life and water quality.
Board Chair Galen Malecha said the board “could ask to table” the permit application so staff can seek additional information about the possible environmental impacts.
The site is located on Prairie Creek, just north of Nerstrand Big Woods State Park and west of Prairie Creek Wildlife Management Area. It’s home to a pair of bald eagles that raise offspring every year in their nest, Jorgenson noted.
The site is owned by the Christopher T & Anne M Donkers Trust, but is leased by Milestone Materials, a division of Mathy Construction Company in Wisconsin. Milestone is the company seeking the permit for the mining operation.
“The products produced at this site would be used to make hot-mix asphalt, concrete, landscaping materials and other aggregate products important to the community,” reads the permit application. “The proximity of this high-quality aggregate resource to its use makes it an economically viable resource for the community and its residents.”
The area is considered “incidental wetlands,” meaning the wetlands weren’t natural to the area. According to Rice Soil and Water Conservation District Resource Specialist Jarett Spitzack, incidental wetlands are not regulated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
The manmade wetlands did not exist prior to the mid-20th century, after a prior mining operation on the site was shut down. This occurred sometime between 1951 and 1964, as verified using the University of Minnesota’s archive of historic aerial photographs.
Other concerns include the smell of the asphalt plant and the effects of the operations on groundwater, especially considering the efforts in restoring and preserving the area’s Oak Savanna and Big Woods biomes. The groundwater is highly sensitive to pollution, according to county documents.
Past permits
Rice County Administrative Coordinator Anna Aguilar noted that, while Milestone Materials acquired permits to mine the area in 2004, 2011 and 2016, the operation never actually moved forward.
“They’ve had those permits there just in case a project came up because of the material that’s there,” she said. “However, they haven’t actually used it to this point. When they came back in ‘21, they actually did have a proposed project out that way.”
The Rice County Planning Commission recommended denial of the permit in 2021, citing “inadequate information around the impact of infrastructure traffic, both north and south of the subject site, as well as a lack of understanding of impact to waterways for proposed mining, as well as future mining of the entire site,” Aguilar read from the meeting minutes.
Milestone Materials withdrew the application before the Board of Commissioners voted.
The company resubmitted the application in March. This time, a traffic study was included.
Concerned resident Erik Sahlin believes the study was flawed.
“Basically the question was really ‘Do we need to have a turn lane, you know, going in and out of the mine?’” Sahlin said. “And their conclusion to that was no, but it also makes clear in that memo that they’re expecting to have 400 gravel-truck trips per day. So 200 outbound, 200 inbound, going on to (Highway) 246.”
He said the study only used satellite imagery and failed to conduct a site visit, resulting in a misjudgment of the topography of the driveway. He said this would result in a blind intersection for all those gravel trucks coming in and out.
Sahlin was also concerned about the route these trucks take, and whether they’d go through Northfield, Dennison or Nerstrand. All three are school or residential zones, he noted.
The traffic study was essentially just looking at volumes, and whether the trucks would cause backups on the road. No environmental-impact study or traffic-safety analysis have been conducted, noted Sahlin and confirmed Aguilar.
Moving forward
The Planning Commission earlier this month recommended approval for the mining operation.
The Board of Commissioners might decide to grant or deny the application Tuesday morning at the 8:30 a.m. meeting.
Fourteen members of the public were at the Planning Commission meeting in opposition, according to Jorgenson.
“There was opposition at that meeting; it was just dismissed,” Sahlin said.
The fact that the public spoke at the meeting led to another issue for many of those opposed to the project.
Leaders of the Nerstrand MN Conservation Society have been urging the nearly 200 members of their Facebook group to attend the meeting and express their opposition to the proposal.
But on Thursday, Rice County Attorney Brian Mortenson sent an email to the commissioners saying that, since there was already a public hearing on the issue at the Planning Commission, county rules don’t permit additional comment at Tuesday’s meeting.
“Public comment on this agenda item is closed, therefore public statements relating to that issue should not be permitted during the open forum or the meeting, pursuant to the Board’s Rules of Public Participation,” Mortenson wrote.
The chair of the board said an exception could be made.
“Certainly one of us could make a motion,” Malecha said. “It would take two of us to get it on the table for votes, by all means. But I’m certainly not in favor of stifling citizens comments.”
Middle ground
Former Rice Soil and Water Conservation District supervisor Gary Wagenbach is among those interested in the debate.
He spoke with a geology professor at Carleton who told him there are ways to prevent pollution from entering the groundwater, but the permit application doesn’t include these measures. For example, he said that a layer of clay could keep oil and gas out of the groundwater, but the application says they intend to use trees, soil and vegetation as a buffer.
He said there are still questions that should be asked before the project is allowed to move forward.
“If there’s a spill, where does it go?” he asked. “And then how is the cleanup done? Are there any specifications for the cleanup? Does the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency have adequate guidelines? … The question about how to contain spillage if it does occur, as far as I know, that kind of question doesn’t have an answer yet.”
He also acknowledged these measures wouldn’t address the other concerns, like smell or traffic.
Most Popular
Comments / 0