STAFF REPORT

Applicant: Minnerath Investments LLC

Application: Conditional use permit to allow a 39.9-acre aggregate mining operation

including the extraction, processing, and stockpiling of sand and gravel.

Location: E2 SE4 ex NW 1 ac. Section 20 (Hudson Township). Zoning Rural

Residential.

Figure 1. Aerial view of conditional use application subject property.

Background: The applicants are seeking to establish an aggregate mining operation on

39.9 acres of this approximately 80-ac parcel located in Hudson Township adjacent to the
City of Forada. The three-phase project proposes to extract, process, and stockpile sand
and gravel from above and below the watertable. The site is proposed to be restored for
residential development with open water features. A discretionary (voluntary)
environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) was completed for the proposed operation in
2017.
Description of property
The subject property is an approximately 80-acre (80.8 acres on GIS) parcel located in
Hudson Township. The parcel is bordered on the north by County State Aid Highway
(CSAH) 4, on the west by the City of Forada and County Road 87, and by agricultural and
idle/wildlife lands on the south and east. The property is within the Rural Residential
Zoning District of the County, which is intended to act as a buffer between intensive
agricultural uses and more residential uses. Historically, the property has been farmed with
intermittent enrollment in conservation programs. The property is bisected from the
southeast to the northwest by an underground petroleum pipeline operated by Magellan
Midstream Partners, L.P. The pipeline depth varies across the property but is typically less
than 5 ft under the ground surface. On the west, the property directly borders the City of
Forada, with a population of just under 200. The adjacent uses in the City include
residential, light commercial, idle land, municipal (firehall), and park land. The City does
not have a municipal water supply, so nearly all properties have private drinking water
wells. The City and most of the lake development are served by central sewer from the
Alexandria Lakes Area Sanitary District (ALASD). Just over ¼ mile further west is Maple
Lake, a general development lake of which the shoreline is mostly developed with
residential and recreational properties.
The parcel topography is nearly flat with as little as 10 ft of elevation change from west to
east. The well-drained sandy loam soils are underlain by significant deposits of sand and
gravel. The water table averages less than 10 ft below the ground surface, and there are
several wet-meadow and wetland areas present. The parcel sits on the western edge of a
larger glacial outwash sand and gravel aquifer system known as the Belgrade-Glenwood
sand plain that extends from south of Alexandria through Glenwood and over to Belgrade.
Summary of proposed mining
Mining of the site is expected to progress intermittently based on the demand for the
materials generated from the site. The applicant has proposed to operate the mine in three
phases with reclamation to occur between each of the phases. Prior to the first phase,
access to the site from CSAH 4 will be established on the north side of the property. An
approach will be constructed in such a manner as to not create a safety hazard when trucks
and equipment enter and exit the site, and the main interior road will be paved with
bituminous to the county road. The interior haul road is proposed to cross the petroleum
pipeline at a single location as shown on Figure 1 of the attached Site Operations Plan
Narrative. The applicant proposed to reinforce this crossing area and to isolate the pipeline
easement by constructing a berm over it with a fence to limit the potential for equipment
to cross. As Phase 1 commences (Figure 1), topsoil overburden will be removed from the
area to be mined and stockpiled in berms along the western edge of the property. Upon
construction, these topsoil berms will be stabilized with vegetation and will aid in visual
and auditory screening of the site; the topsoil will be readily available for reclamation
activities. Phases 1 and 2 will occur on the western side of the pipeline that divides the
property. It is anticipated that some of the mined material will require additional
processing prior to use. This processing could include screening, sorting, and crushing.
The applicant is proposing to limit processing in Phase 1 and 2 to screening on the west
side of the property (Figures 1 and 2) and will crush and stockpile on the east side. In
Phase 3 (Figure 3), the entire mining operation will be moved to the east side of the pipeline
on the property. Reclamation is proposed to occur on each phase prior to the start of the
next.
Final reclamation of the property is proposed to result in several open water features,
approximately 17 developed lots, extension of County Road 87 connecting to CSAH 4 east
of the City, and creation of a township road (Figure 4). The north-most end of the property
is not proposed to be mined. Specifics on the proposed operation including site
maintenance and security; erosion, dust, noise, and spill control and mitigation measures;
and water quality monitoring and mitigation are included in the attached Site Operations
Plan Narrative.
Past permitting and Environmental Review
In 2010, Minnerath Investments LLC and others submitted an application to operate an
aggregate mine on approximately 39 acres of this property. On September 3 of that year,
the County held a public meeting to view the project area. Prior to a scheduled public
hearing on the matter on September 14, the applicants withdrew their request. In 2017,
Minnerath Investments LLC and Central Specialties Inc. completed a discretionary
(voluntary) environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for a 39.9 acre aggregate mining
operation, similar to what had been proposed in 2010. The EAW process was facilitated
by Douglas County, and included many opportunities for public comment and input,
including a mandated 30-day public comment period. After considering all of the
information included in the EAW and received through public and agency comments, the
Douglas County Board made the determination that no further environmental review was
necessary for the project. The full EAW with all public comments and responses has been
provided to the Planning Advisory Commission and is included in the record of this
application for a conditional use permit. Copies of the County’s findings and the record of
decision on the EAW is attached to this report.

Staff Recommendation: Because of the volume of information generated by the EAW

and potential information that may be offered during the hearing process, staff
recommends that any motion offered and adopted by the Commission include a
directive to staff and counsel to draft findings, and any conditions, consistent with the
decision made by the Planning Advisory Commission.

(The drafted findings and conditions, if any, will brought back to the Planning Advisory
Commission at its next meeting for their consideration and adoption, prior to
consideration of the application by the County Board of Commissioners.)

Applicable Statutes:
This application is subject to the criteria applicable to all conditional use permits listed at
the beginning of this staff report including the Performance Standards outlined in Section
V, Subdivision I of the Douglas County Zoning Ordinance.
I. Mining and Extraction

1. Purpose and Intent.

Modern lifestyles create a continuing demand for the various subsurface resources used
throughout this county. These resources are unevenly and sometimes sparsely
distributed, thus creating a continual shortage of some materials. In the past,
excavation of these resources has presented conflicts with adjacent land uses, caused
rapid soil erosion, and left unsightly scars upon the landscape.

By requiring restoration of the mined areas, it is the intent of this Ordinance to minimize
conflicts with adjacent land uses, prevent soil erosion of the mined areas, and reduce
the scarring of the landscape.

2. Jurisdiction.

The removal, crushing, washing, refining, stockpiling and/or processing of gravel or

rock in any area shall be governed by this section unless such removal is being
performed pursuant to a validly issued construction permit.

3. Permits.

a. A conditional use permit shall be required for all mining operations and
storage/recycling facilities except for temporary mining areas as defined by this
section.

b. A mining and extraction permit shall be required for temporary mining operations
which meet the specifications of Section V., I.

c. Owners of existing mining operations shall apply to the county for a conditional
use permit within one (1) year of adoption of this Ordinance or cease operation.
Operators may continue operations during permit applications and review process.
The failure of an owner to acquire a permit as required by this Ordinance in no way
absolves that owner of the reclamation responsibilities under this Ordinance.

d. Permitted mining operations shall be subject to an administrative review by the

Director of Land and Resource Management Department every five (5) years. This
review shall not require payment of a fee.

4. Information Required.

a. The following information shall be provided by the applicant requesting the permit:

(1.) Name and address of person or agency requesting the mining permit.

(2.) A copy of the recorded deed of the property.

 (3.) A map of the proposed operation showing the following:

(a.) Structures to be erected.

(b.) Location of sites to be mined, showing depth of the proposed excavation.

(c.) Description of stationary machinery to be used in the mining operation.

(d.) Approximate location of the storage and mined materials.

(e.) Location of access roads and local routes to truck routes.

(f.) All setbacks from roads and property lines.

(g.) Location of adjacent residences.

(h.) All lakes, streams, and wetlands on property.

(i.) Extent of vegetation in buffer area.

(j.) Location of explosives storage, if applicable.

(4.) A plan for dust, stormwater run-off, and noise control.

(5.) A full and adequate description of the proposed operations to include an

estimate of the duration of the mining operation, locations, and acreage of each
stage, and time schedule of completion.

(6.) Reclamation plan and cost estimate of the reclamation.

(7.) For all pits developed for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel, stone, or
other nonmetallic minerals, other than peat, which will excavate forty (40) or
more acres of land to a mean-depth of ten feet or more during its existence, an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet completed at the owner’s expense
pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, Subd. 12B.

(8.) Any other information requested by the Planning Advisory Commission or

County Board of Commissioners.

5. Performance Standards.

All mining operations, whether they are in operation at the time of this Ordinance
adoption or are proposed shall follow the standards set forth in this section.
a. Operators shall utilize all practical means to reduce the amount of dust caused by
the operation. In no case shall the amount of dust or other particulate matter exceed
the standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

b. All entrances and exits shall be constructed so as not to create a safety hazard.

c. It shall be the responsibility of the pit operator and/or fee title owner to control
activity within the pit area and to clean up any debris or other material left on site.

d. Excavation below the water table is permitted provided there is no adverse impact
upon the quality and quantity of nearby surface water or nearby wells.

e. All barriers installed at the operator’s discretion which control access to a gravel
pit such as gates, etc., shall be clearly visible to prevent safety hazards to
snowmobiles and other members of the public. The use of cable, chain or similar
types of barriers is prohibited.

f. To minimize problems with dust and noise and to shield mining operations from
public view, a screening barrier may be required between the mining site and
adjacent properties and/or between the mining or processing operation. The
screening barrier shall be constructed or planted in accordance with the
recommendations of the County Board and can include, but is not limited to, trees
or shrubs adequately shielding the operations.

g. Any operations within three hundred (300) feet of two (2) or more residential
structures may be required to install safety fencing around all or portions of the
mining operation.

h. Processing of minerals shall not be conducted closer than one hundred (100) feet
from the property line nor closer than one hundred (100) feet from any residential,
commercial, or industrial structures without the written consent of all owners and
residents of said structures.

i. All buildings, structures and plants used for the production of sand and gravel shall
be maintained in such a manner as is practical and according to acceptable industrial
practice as to assure that such buildings, structures, and plants shall not become
dangerously dilapidated.

j. Weeds and any other unsightly or noxious vegetation shall be cut or trimmed as
may be necessary to preserve a reasonably neat appearance.

k. No storage of concrete and/or bituminous shall be allowed unless it meets the

requirements of Section V., B.

l. The provisions of this Ordinance apply to any acreage mined after June 28, 1988.
6. Reclamation Plan.

Before any permit is issued, the applicant must submit a reclamation plan for approval
by the County.

For all mining operations, the reclamation plan shall contain a description of planned
after-use of affected areas and the nature and extent of reclamation. A detailed
reclamation map drawn at a scale of 1" = 100' or larger shall be provided designating
which parts of the land shall be reclaimed for forest, pasture, crop, home site,
recreational, industrial, or other uses including food shelter and ground cover for
wildlife. The reclamation plan and map shall contain:

a. The planned contours of the land when the mineral removal operations are
completed; based upon the best information available.

b. Proposed depth of topsoil, if applicable.

c. Location and nature of any structures to be erected in relation to the after-use plan.

d. Type of fill, if fill is proposed.

e. Type of planting or reforestation. Planting shall be in accordance with the desires

of the property owner. If no active planting or reforestation is proposed, the natural
vegetation shall be monitored and any noxious weeds sprouting shall be cut and/or
controlled.

f. A written statement containing an explanation of the character of the site to be

mined and/or the character of the surrounding territory and explanation of the
reclamation plan; and an explanation of the schedule of development which shall
include phase development. If a development schedule cannot feasibly be prepared,
it shall be so stated, and written reasons submitted.

g. In the event the operator finds the characteristics of the mining area to be different
than what was previously determined, changes may be made in the original
reclamation plan by mutual consent of the operator and the County Planning
Advisory Commission. Such change shall preserve as substantially as possible, the
original reclamation plan, and shall also provide for the previously unknown
variables.

h. To assure the reclamation plan approved by the Planning Advisory Commission

and County Board of Commissioners is being followed, Land and Resource
Management staff may make those field measurements deemed necessary.

i. The Board of County Commissioners may require either the applicant or the owner
or user of the property on which the mining operation is located to post a bond, in
 such form and sum as the Board shall determine, not to exceed fifty thousand
dollars ($50,000) with sufficient surety running to the County, to comply with all
the requirements of this Ordinance and to pay any expense the County may incur
by reason of doing anything required to be done by any applicant to whom a
Conditional Use Permit is issued.

7. Land Reclamation Standards.

Reclamation shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after the

mining operation has moved sufficiently into another part of the extraction site.

Reclamation activities shall progress on a phased basis, that is, prior to opening
additional mining area, an exhausted mining area of equal or larger area shall be
reclaimed.

a. The peaks and depressions of the area shall be graded and backfilled to a surface
which result in a gently rolling topography and substantial conformity to the land
area immediately surrounding, and which will minimize erosion due to rainfall.

b. All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the reclamation plan submitted
with the permit application.

c. Reclaimed areas shall be surfaced with a soil quality at least equal to the topsoil
which existed prior to the mining operation. Such required topsoil shall be planted
with legumes and grasses. Trees and shrubs may also be planted but not as a
substitute for legumes and grasses. Such planting shall adequately retard soil
erosion.

d. Excavations completed to a water producing depth need not be backfilled if the

banks are sloped to the waterline.

e. The finished grade shall be such that it will not adversely affect the surrounding
land or future development of the site upon which excavation operations have been
conducted. The finished plan shall restore the excavation site to a condition
whereby it can be utilized for the type of land use proposed to occupy the site after
excavation operations cease.

f. After the applicant has completed the reclamation project, he shall notify the
County. Upon notification, the Land and Resource Management Director shall
inspect the site to determine if it is in accordance with the approved reclamation
plan. If the site is not in accordance with the reclamation plan, the County shall
notify the applicant of its deficiencies and the applicant shall correct the
deficiencies. If the site is in accordance with the plan, the County shall issue a letter
of acceptance of the site to the applicant.
Staff Findings: Staff provides the following comments and considerations in regard to
the findings of fact that may be made on the criteria considered by the Planning Advisory
Commission.
1. The Use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools,
streets, and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed
to serve the area: Staff notes that there are several public facilities that will
serve the proposed aggregate mine or to which it is adjacent. To the northeast,
the property directly borders CSAH 4, which the applicants are planning as the
primary access to and from the pit. Current traffic estimate for this road is
approximately 1100 vehicle trips per day west of Forada and 940 vehicle trips
per day traveling to the east from Forada. There is likely additional traffic on
this road during the summer months and especially during the weekends related
recreational lake properties. Other adjacent roads that could see an increase in
traffic from this operation include CSAH 23 (750 vehicle trips per day), County
Road 87 ( 385 vehicle trips per day), and State Hwy 29 (6800 vehicle trips per
day). Douglas County classifies CSAHs 4 and 23 as “Rural Minor Collectors”.
Roads with this classification are roadways that “collect and distribute traffic to
the major collector and arterial networks” of the system. Collector roads
provide a balance between mobility and property access. They generally serve
trips between 5 and 8 miles and have posted speeds of 30 to 55 mph. County
Road 87 is classified as a rural local road. These roads are those that provide
the highest level of direct access to properties and subsequently have lower
posted speed limits. The applicant is proposing to add as many as 10 truck trips
per hour when the pit is operating for a specific project. With the proposed
hours of operation, this would amount to approximately 130 truck trips per day
between the hours of 6:30 am to 7:30 pm on weekdays and Saturdays. This
number of trips would amount to a 10 to 20% increase in vehicle trips per day
on these nearby county roads. A potential increase in traffic of more than 20%
would be notable and could create additional noise and potential safety issues
where truck traffic is currently limited. Two-lane highways in Minnesota (and
Douglas County) have an engineered design capacity of over 15,000 vehicle
trips per day. Additionally, CSAHs 4 and 23, and County Road 87 are
constructed to a 10-ton per axle capacity during spring road conditions (when
the road is must susceptible to damage). Based on this information, Public
Works officials have stated that the County roads identified as potential travel
routes are designed for the proposed number of truck trips per day and the
weights of the trucks, so long as they are meeting weight restrictions when roads
are posted. The County Engineer (David Robley, 2017) stated that when
restrictions are off, trucks may carry a full legal load and the integrity of the
roads will not be compromised. For this reason, truck traffic from the aggregate
mining facility is not expected to degrade these roads.
The aggregate mine will also be adjacent to public parks and facilities (firehall)
within the City of Forada. Although the mining is not expected to occur in
 direct proximity to these properties, comments received through the EAW
process indicated that mining activities could place a burden on the use of these
facilities. An active mining operation generates substantial noise at the site
created by the running of equipment and trucks, dumping and banging payloads,
and back-up alarms on equipment. One of the most annoying and far-reaching
sounds will be the back-up alarms, which are required on all industrial
equipment by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Sound loudness is known to decrease with distance and may be further
dampened by topography and vegetation. Back-up alarms on construction
equipment typically produce a sound that is 95-115 dB at the source. Known
laws of physics have established that without any interference, sound level (dB)
decreases by 6 dB each time the distance from the source is doubled. If the
back-up alarm sound level was 110 dB at the equipment, then the sound level
at 310 feet would be 60.2 dB. The distance of these public facilities to potential
active mining areas varies from approximately 150 ft to over 800 ft. Therefore,
noise intensity will also vary from an estimated 70 dB down to 50dB or less.
At 300 ft or less, the sounds of equipment and trucks loading and dumping is
likely to be at a level that is annoying if the sounds persist for prolonged periods
of time. At greater distances, the sounds would be approximately 54 dB or less,
similar to common daytime background noises in an urban area. Sound
emanating from the mining operation may be further attenuated by the
construction of an earthen berm and planting of a tree/shrub buffers.
The generation of dust from the aggregate mine was also identified by
neighbors and city officials as a potential concern for users of public facilities
near the mine. The mining operation has the potential to generate dust. Because
much of the mining will occur below the water table, the physical process of
extracting aggregate is likely to generate little airborne dust. The primary
sources of dust from the site are expected to be from sorting, crushing, and
hauling aggregate. Dust generated from these activities can be mitigated
through the use of water. Dust generated by equipment and vehicle movement
can be mitigated by requiring actively mined areas and haul routes to be watered
regularly during periods of dry weather and high truck traffic to and from the
mine. However, if dust from mining and processing operations at the site
continue to be a concern for neighboring residents, the County could require
through conditions placed on an issued permit that sorting and crushing
activities would not be allowed at this site. Aggregate could be mined and
transported in bulk to other locations where processing could be conducted with
less of a burden on neighboring properties.

2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or

screening from adjacent agricultural or residentially zoned or used land so
that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no
deterrence to development of vacant land: The proposed aggregate mining
operation will be located in close proximity to residentially zoned and used land
to the west in the City of Forada. Residences are as close as 310 ft from areas
proposed to be actively mined. In addition, there is undeveloped property
within the City that is within 250 ft of areas that will be mined. Comments
received through the EAW process express concerns that mining activities, and
the subsequent issues of noise, dust, and potential groundwater impacts will
deter future development and lead to a decline in values of adjacent properties.
Impacts on property value by neighboring land uses is a common concern by
landowners when a new land use is proposed. To estimate the value of land,
appraisers and assessors rely on a variety of factors including lot size or acreage,
improvements such as structures and their condition, water frontage, current
uses (e.g., residential, commercial) and other features that add value. There are
also factors that do not add or even detract from the value including wetlands
or wasteland, environmental hazards, and incompatible uses on neighboring
properties. The most important factor in calibrating market value is comparable
sales. The Douglas County Assessor’s Office evaluated (in 2017) the recent
sales (since 2005) of properties in the County and several more in the City of
Alexandria that were located within three miles of an aggregate mine. The
properties were located across the county in urban and rural locations, some
adjacent to lakes, some with large tracts, and others in planned developments.
The Assessor looked at the historic assessed market value of the properties,
which was established using the methods described above (comparative sales,
value added factors, etc.), then compared that value to a recent sale. In nearly
all cases, the Assessor found that the recent sales were equal to or higher than
that assessed value. For two cases the assessed value was greater than the recent
sale, but the decline was less than 10 percent. Through the EAW process, the
County also examined studies of property values near aggregate mining
operations. In the two studies examined, the researchers found that properties
within three miles of the gravel mine experienced a decline in value. The
decline was greatest for properties within 0.30 mi (25+% decrease) and became
less with distance. The researchers noted that the value of properties near these
gravel mining operations will increase in the future, as all properties generally
do, but there will remain a gap in value between properties near gravel pits and
those that are not. The County noted that scale of the gravel mining operations
in the studies was significantly larger than what is being proposed in the current
application. Given the review of the cited studies and the analysis of properties
within Douglas County, the County determined at that time that the impact of
the proposed gravel mine on the assessed value of the neighboring properties
would be negligible on all but perhaps the closest residential properties. Even
on the residential properties within a few hundred feet of the operation, a
depreciated value would not be detectable without comparable sales. A more
probable impact from the siting of the gravel pit would be diminished
marketability of a property adjacent to the pit, as was identified by one of the
commenter’s who is a real estate appraiser. It is notable that there are few other
locations in Douglas County where a gravel mining operation is located within
as close a proximity to residential properties as what is proposed with this
application. Comments received through the EAW process also cited concerns
that the location and longevity of the industrial-type operation may be a
significant impediment to the economic growth and a deterrent to development
 of vacant properties within the City of Forada. In the EAW document, the RGU
identified the future growth of Forada as one of the issues of establishing an
aggregate mine in the proposed location for an indeterminate amount of time.
As noted above, if properties near the aggregate mine are potentially less
marketable, it is possible that sale and development of those vacant parcels will
be limited while the mine continues to operate. To limit constraints on the
future development of the City of Forada, the County could place conditions on
an issued permit that would limit the length of time mining could be conducted
on the property and establish an ultimate deadline for complete restoration of
the property.

3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an
adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties: An aggregate mining
operation has an appearance that is significantly different from the current land
use on the subject property, as well as adjacent land uses on surrounding
properties. Due to the lack of topographic and vegetative barriers, initial stages
of the operation will be highly visible to surrounding properties. In addition,
how the operation is managed, including where and how equipment is parked
or stored, materials stockpiled, and temporary stabilization of materials, can
also affect the appearance. If berms are constructed and vegetation installed
and matures, and as the mining continues below the adjacent grade, some
aspects of the mining operation will be less visible to neighboring properties.
The applicant proposes management of the mining operation to limit equipment
being parked or stored within the mine, create visual barriers, and move
portions of the operation further from populated areas. Operation and
reclamation of the aggregate mine also must meet the standards of the Douglas
County Zoning Ordinance and any specific conditions placed on a permit issued
for the aggregate mine.

4. The use in the opinion of the County Board of Commissioners is reasonably

related to the overall needs of the County and to the existing land use: The
area where the mining operation is proposed is known to hold some of the
highest quality sand and gravel deposits in the County. Aggregate is essential
to the construction and maintenance of the public road infrastructure within the
county and well as other commercial and residential development. Comments
were received in the EAW process that the number of gravel mines in the
vicinity of the proposed mine was excessive and unnecessary. Although the
number of aggregate mines may appear to be in excess of what may be
necessary, the Belgrade-Glenwood outwash is a significant sand and gravel
resource in the county and excavation companies each seek to have their own
access to that resource. As a general rule, the County does not use permitting
as a way to limit businesses or trade, thereby maintaining healthy business
competition. However, the County can and has used its regulatory authority to
limit the number and/or location of businesses when it finds that number or
proximity of a type of business to other conflicting land uses may have
cumulative impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of the county’s residents.
5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the
purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the
proposed use: The aggregate mining operation is proposed to be located within
the Rural Residential Zoning District. The intended purpose of this district is
to:
To allow select residential development in areas where vacant or farmed land
has become subject to increased amounts of single family residential
development. This district is intended to be reserved for future higher density
rural residential development when support services and infrastructure can be
provided. Development in this district shall maintain a low density rural
environment until such time as the need for additional rural residential
development and rezoning to Residential (R).

Aggregate mining is listed as a conditionally permitted use within this district.

As proposed, the use does not conflict with the intended purpose of the zoning
district, as it will limit development density on the subject parcel until future
higher density development can be planned and supported by adequate
infrastructure.
6. The use is in conformance with the Land Use [Comprehensive] Plan of the
County. The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the future use of the
proposed mine area adjacent to the City of Forada as “residential”. In the EAW
document, the County identified that the establishment of an aggregate mine in
the proposed location for an indeterminate amount of time may be a significant
impediment to the future growth of Forada. Expansion of the City appears to
be constrained by Maple Lake to the south and east, and County State-aid
Highway 4 to the north. The City and the recreational lakeshore properties
around Maple Lake were recently connected (2009) to the regional sanitary
district (Alexandria Lakes Area Sanitary District), which helped to protect the
surface and ground water quality in and around the City, but also increased the
potential for additional commercial and higher-density residential development.
For these and other reasons, it appears that the subject property is ideally
positioned to accommodate future growth from the City of Forada. City of
Forada adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 2019. The plan includes goals and
policies that encourage the sustaining of existing housing as well as expanding
areas within and outside of the City to allow for a mix of new housing options.
To this end, the City’s Comprehensive Plan states that “[t]here is no anticipation
of future industrial use and the zoning ordinance does not identify any industrial
district.” The intentional absence of an Industrial Zoning District suggests that
such uses are deemed incompatible with existing and desired future uses in the
City. If the duration of mining is indeterminate or the reclamation does not
leave the land suitable for development, mining would be contrary to other
goals in the County’s Comprehensive Plan for future use of the property. A
2016 review of active aggregate pits in the County found that most had been in
operation before being permitted in the mid-1990s to early 2000s. Reclamation
 had been completed on some of the pits, but none were completely restored and
put to another beneficial use. This suggests that if permitted, aggregate mining
could be primary use of this property for 15 to 25 years or more, depending on
the frequency of use and rate of depletion of the resource. While the property
is actively mined or remains in an un-reclaimed state, it would continue to limit
future use of the property, and therefore growth of the City of Forada. If the
current standards for mining and the application of conditions through the
permitting process are found to not adequately address limitations that a
permitted mining operation may have on the future development of Forada, then
the County may determine that mining for aggregate is not a use that is
compatible with the County Comprehensive Plan and future uses in and around
the City of Forada.
7. The use will not create a traffic hazard or congestion: The additional truck-
traffic, as noted in the Site Operations Plan and EAW, may increase the
potential for traffic and/or vehicle accidents. An increase in traffic of more than
20% would be notable and could create additional noise and potential safety
issues where truck traffic is currently limited. There is already likely additional
traffic on the surrounding roads during the summer months and especially
during the weekends related to recreational lake properties. However, trucks
entering and exiting the gravel pit will be moving at much slower speeds than
passing traffic and therefore may pose less of a hazard to other vehicles entering
the highway and pedestrians who may be in the right-of-way. The County could
propose conditions in an effort to mitigate or limit the potential hazards such as
increase signage or warnings, limiting hour of operation, designating travel
routes, or lowering speed limits in congested areas.

Additional findings for consideration:

Groundwater impact concerns: Concerns were raised by neighboring

property owners through the EAW process that aggregate mining below the
watertable on the proposed site has the potential to impact groundwater in the
area. Based on the best available knowledge on the local geology, the greatest
potential for impact would be limited to wells in the north and east of Forada
that are completed (screened) within the surficial aquifer (30 to 35 ft below
surface in sand or gravel). Wells that are located within the aquifer area but are
screened at greater depths below multiple confining layers of clay are
considerably less susceptible to pollution from surface sources or from mining
activities, such as those proposed. Records from the County Well Index include
several wells that are known to be screened in the aquifer and being used for
domestic use. The aquifer where the aggregate mining is proposed is identified
in the MN Department of Natural Resources Region Hydrologic Survey Part 6
as having a very high pollution sensitivity due to the lack of a confining clay
layer that would isolate the aquifer or thick soil cover that would provide some
filtering of surface water runoff and slow infiltration of spilled pollutants.
Through the EAW that was completed for this project in 2017, the County
found that the proposed aggregate mining operation enhances the potential for
pollution to enter the surficial aquifer beyond the ambient potential that exists
otherwise. The primary source of pollution would likely be from spills of fuels,
oils and grease, solvents, and chloride or other chemicals used in dust control.
Because of the composition of the aquifer material, any spill would be rapidly
infiltrated into the aquifer and is likely to be quickly transported. Since
groundwater gradients within the aquifer are not well known and could vary
considerably based on location or seasonal conditions, the direction of pollutant
transport would be unclear or variable. The long-term use of calcium chloride
or other chemicals for dust control could also infiltrate into the aquifer and
cause changes in water chemistry. The County noted that mining activities
adjacent to a fuel pipeline on the property, may increase (even if very slightly)
the potential for leakage or rupture of the pipeline.
Many of the activities that have the potential to pollute the groundwater may be
controlled or mitigated through the permitting process. The County may
require through permit conditions the limitation or elimination of certain
activities, the implementation of monitoring and/or mitigation plans and
actions, and the remediation or replacement of contaminated systems. The
County also recognizes that not issuing a permit for mining aggregate in this
location would also function to mitigate potential impacts to groundwater
quality that would be attributed to the mining activities and subsequent
reclamation.

Impacts from the mining operation on water quantity and supply would likely
be insignificant or unnoticed because of the size and composition of the aquifer.
The absence of layers of silt and clay allow groundwater to move vertically and
horizontally more freely within the aquifer. Without confining layers, there are
fewer preferential flow paths within the aquifer, preventing significant
gradients from forming and allowing for rapid infiltration and recharge of
groundwater. For these reasons, the aquifer would act more like a sand-filled
bathtub, such that as sand and gravel is removed water would fill the void and
maintain current gradients and flow paths. Removing the aquifer matrix (sand
and gravel) will not impact the water quantity, whereas pumping the water and
leaving the matrix in place would impact water levels and potentially supply.
Since the operation is not proposing the pump water, water levels, gradients,
and flow paths would be maintained and adjacent wetlands, springs, and wells
would not be impacted.

Adverse impacts on enjoyment and use of property: Comments were

received through the EAW process that included concerns over factors related
to the aggregate mine limiting the peaceful enjoyment of properties in the area
and discouraging tourism and recreation. The abundant natural resources,
including the many lakes, and the rural character are known to be key reasons
why people choose to live and recreate in Douglas County. During summer
months in Minnesota, outdoor activities on residential properties and the use of
lakes and public places increases exponentially. Mining and associated
activities occurring in close proximity to residential and recreational properties
 and amenities within the City of Forada may have impacts on the perceived
enjoyment of their time outdoors. Issues potentially impacting would be similar
to those identified in the EAW and comments including noise, dust, and traffic.
Conflict arising from these issues would likely be exacerbated during summer
months and especially weekends as thousands of additional seasonal residents
and visitors come to the County and construction and mining activities are at a
peak. Through the permitting process, the County may be able to mitigate some
of these impacts from issues related to the mining.

Staff Comments: Based on the review of the application, Staff offers the following
comments:
1. The 2017 Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), including all comments
received, replies by the RGU, and the Record of Decision by Douglas County was
provided to the members of the Planning Advisory Commission and is included in
the record of this matter by reference here. Copies of the EAW and the Record of
Decision are available from the Douglas County Land & Resource Management
Department.
2. In 2019, the City of Forada adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The plan
was provided to the Planning Advisory Commission and is included in the record
of this matter by reference here.
3. Properties within the City of Forada and to the south of the subject property are
within the Alexandria Lakes Area Sanitary District and may have public sewer
service.
4. Section V.I of the zoning ordinance list standards for land reclamation including
that restoration plans “shall restore the excavation site to condition whereby it can
be utilized for the type of land use proposed [for that area once] excavation
operations cease.”
 Figure 1

'II
,.
I'II ' ::c
ml

t
r-
m
=
i
m
w
~ -

..... ORAVM, KRK AGGREGATE SAND AND GRAVEL MINE

C'IJ ~ DATE: 03-2.021
Figure 1
!il ~ ~ SCSLE,AS SHOWN CENTRAL SPECIALTIES, INC COIISlll11116EltG/ltHIINGAND l'lfJRH/flK,U SEIYICES
!!I 2'5 PROJ., GE1110
PHASE ONE PLAN ~~!<l!T.~MSi!
5 G9 22ND A 1£NUE EAS T Alt:KAM:Vi'IA, MfNNESOTA 56308
PffCIVcc (JZO) 76J- 571J4 • FAX, (J'20) 76J- 5786
t\) APPRO;ED, TAK HUDSON TWP, DOUGLAS co, MN EMAIL; landttximaramif6Qfflfnr:.00"11
 Figure 2

"> ORAVM, KRK AGGREGATE SAND AND GRAVEL MINE Figure 2

C'IJ ~ DATE: 03-2.021

!il ~ ~ SCSLE,AS SHOWN CENTRAL SPECIALTIES, INC COIISlll11116EltG/ltHIINGAND l'lfJRH/flK,U SEIYICES

!!I 2'5 PROJ., GE1110
PHASE TWO PLAN ~~!<l!T.~MSi!
5 G9 22ND A 1£NUE EAS T Alt:KAM:Vi'IA, MfNNESOTA 56308
PffCIVcc (JZO) 76J- 571J4 • FAX, (J'20) 76J- 5786
"> APPRO;EO, TAK HUDSON TWP, DOUGLAS co, MN EMAIL; landttximaramif6Qfflfnr:.00"11
 Figure 3

PROPERTY LINE

GRAVEL
MINE AREA
AREA
PROCESS

PROPERTY LINE
PHASE 3 AREA
PROPOSED 6 FT HIGH BERM
COUNTY ROAD 87

:,,11,. ... ,,,.

_.,,,,_

AREA
.J(I,
. ,,,,
,,:!" ,,....... _.. .......

STOCKPILE
PHASES 1 & 2 COMPLETE

~
ACC

~-
ES
EX

r."
I S

<)~
T

~c,,
ING

rr7/4'-,. (}~"
i½''°- ,.
S RO
GAS

A D
MAI
N

P A
A REA
RKIN
G
CITY OF FORADA

TOTAL PROPERTY 79 ACRES

COUNTY ROAD 4
W. LAKE
UNION RD.

AGGREGATE SAND AND GRAVEL MINE Figure 3

,. T II D
CENTRAL SPECIALTIES, INC PHASE THREE PLAN O R R Anu•t SEIYICES
0 NOFESS/.,_
I N C 'GINEE/1/NGAND BOTA 56308
PHASE 3

CONSULTING EM r ALEXANDRIA, "'o'.~~63-5786

VENUE £AS • FAX: (32 '/
HUDSON TWP, DOUGLAS CO, MN 509 22ND (320) 753-5784(1fandteominc.com
~
PHONE EMAIL: londfeom
 Figure 4

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
COUNTY ROAD 87

GRAVEL MINE AREA

TOTAL MINE AREA 39.9 ACRES
FUTURE RESIDENTAL LOTS

0
GRAVEL MINE AREA

EXI S
TING

'J>ao
:s>s , :::---.._
l~~-
GAS
M

0------
AI N

FU
TU
RE
TOTAL PROPERTY 79 ACRES

RO
AD
FU
TU
RE
RO
AD
CITY OF FORADA

FUTURE RESIDENTAL LOTS

FUTURE RESIDENTAL LOTS

COUNTY ROAD 4
W. LAKE
UNION RD.

04-2017
~ DATE:
AGGREGATE SAND AND GRAVEL MINE Figure 4
► f.----~
>-sc_A_LE_,A_s_s_Ho_WN_,
b CENTRAL SPECIALTIES, INC FINAL RECLAIMATION PLAN !-:,~fl.1/T.~~MSp
CONSULTIN6 EN6/NEEIIIN6 ANO PIIOFESSIONAL SEIIYICES
FINAL

25 f-PR_D_J.:_ _
GE_1a_s_,s 509 22ND A VENUE EAST ALEXANDRIA, MINNESOTA 56308
PHONE· (320) 763-5784 • FAX: (320) 763-5786
APPROVED: HUDSON TWP, DOUGLAS CO, MN EMAIL: londfeom(llandteominc. com