Sherburne County board approves scoping decision for proposed Haven Township sand-and-gravel mine, orders additional studies

The Sherburne County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 4 approved the scoping decision document for a proposed sand-and-gravel mine in Haven Township and set the topics the draft environmental impact statement will study, including expanded water-resource analysis and a new executive-summary of health impacts.

The scoping process will guide what the applicant and consultant must study in the draft EIS and was the subject of extensive testimony from county planning staff, the county attorney and outside consultants. Allison Harwood, the county's consultant from WSB, explained the scoping process to the board: “The purpose of the scoping process is to determine what will actually be studied in the draft environmental impact statement.” The board accepted a package of changes and recommendations made by the Planning Commission and added direction on several topic areas.

Why it matters: The scoping decision determines the geographic and technical reach of the EIS for a project that could operate for decades and affect local groundwater, surface water and nearby land uses. The board's choices will shape which technical studies the applicant must fund and the issues the public will be able to comment on in later review stages.

Key board directions and study requirements - Land use: The board moved the land-use category from the scoping EAW’s earlier rating to require expanded analysis (category D as recorded in the final scoping decision). The board directed that comprehensive plans, orderly annexations and regional planning documents including the Mississippi watershed planning materials be reviewed as part of land‑use analysis. - Water resources: The board designated water resources as a category D and added a baseline water-quality and quantity study. Commissioners explicitly asked that the draft EIS address both groundwater and surface-water contamination and quality as well as quantity. - Contamination/hazardous materials: The Planning Commission had recommended raising this topic because of proposed on-site recycling of concrete and asphalt; after discussion the board required further information but adopted a compromise that calls for collecting existing technical guidance and agency input rather than commissioning a new standalone contaminant study (category C with specific MPCA literature review requested). - Ecology, visual, air, noise and transportation: The board directed category-D level study for fish and wildlife, historic properties (cultural resources), visual impacts, air quality, noise and transportation, meaning additional field surveys, baseline data and modelling will be required in the draft EIS for those topics. - Cumulative effects and health: The Planning Commission asked for a health impact statement; county consultants and the applicant’s consultant said a separate HIA would largely duplicate standard EIS topic work. The board resolved to include an executive-style “health impacts” summary (added as an item in the scoping document, recorded as item 22) that compiles health‑relevant information from the other technical chapters so the board and public can find it in one place. The board retained the cumulative effects topic as category C with commitments to identify any reasonably likely nearby projects during draft EIS development.

Applicant and consultant positions Kirsten Pauley, the applicant’s geologist/engineer, told the board the applicant generally supports the scoping framework but urged clarity on how recycled asphalt and concrete would be treated, noting that state agencies often categorize reclaimed pavement material as “beneficial reuse.” She also told the board the project would remove unconsolidated sand and gravel and not mine into underlying bedrock aquifers; the board and consultants said hydrogeologic baseline data in the draft EIS will confirm subsurface conditions.

Next steps and timeline County staff told the board they expect development of the draft EIS to proceed over several months with stakeholder meetings and technical studies; the revised draft is currently estimated to be prepared later in 2025 (staff cited a target of receiving revised materials by August on the current timetable). After the draft EIS is released there will be additional public comment periods and a later decision on permitting and interim‑use permits if the applicant proceeds.

Quotes and context from the record “All of the relevant topics that would be covered under a health impact statement are covered under an environmental impact statement through the various categories,” Allison Harwood, the county consultant, told commissioners when the HIA question was debated. Applicant consultant Kirsten Pauley noted that “recycled concrete and asphalt material is actually categorized by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as a beneficial reuse of concrete and asphalt.”

What the board decided The board voted to approve the scoping decision document as amended, including the category changes described above and the addition of the executive health‑impacts summary. The action was unanimous on the recorded roll call.

What remains open The scoping decision specifies the studies to be performed but not the EIS conclusions. The draft EIS, the technical study reports (for example baseline groundwater monitoring), and the county's later permitting decisions remain future steps in the process.