Morrison County planning commission backs three‑year laydown yard for Northland Reliability Project with conditions

The Morrison County Planning Commission voted unanimously on June 9 to recommend approval of an interim use permit that would allow Great River Energy and Minnesota Power’s Northland Reliability Project to establish a contractor laydown (storage) yard on a roughly 46‑acre portion of a 102.64‑acre parcel in Pierce Township.

The commission’s recommendation includes several conditions intended to limit environmental and traffic impacts, including coordination with the county public works director on driveway entrances and signage, a road‑use agreement, county‑engineer approval of the project’s stormwater plan, limits on topsoil stockpile depth and a required reclamation plan to be submitted and followed. The recommendation will be transmitted to the Morrison County Board of Commissioners for action at its June 23 meeting.

Why it matters: The site is prime egg‑producing farmland adjacent to an existing registered Tier‑1 chicken feedlot; commissioners pressed the applicant on how the operation would protect topsoil, manage stormwater and limit roadway wear and dust during peak delivery periods. Those concerns yielded the conditions the commission attached to its recommendation.

What the applicant said: Cody Dirks of Great River Energy told the commission the laydown yard lease is three years and said reclamation would begin before that lease ends. “The lay down yard lease is 3 years, and we would expect to be, starting the reclamation process well before that 3 year mark can be completed by that 3 year mark,” Dirks said, describing a plan to strip approximately 12 inches of topsoil, stockpile and later replace and decompact soils during reclamation.

Design and stormwater approach: Lucas Jurick of Minnesota Power said designers planned to limit disturbance to about 5 acres at a time so that each area could be stabilized under Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) guidance and avoid a large sediment pond, and added that contractors intend to use silt fence, bio‑logs and other best management practices. “It’s designed in such a way to not disrupt the natural flow, but it will slow down…we’ll have BMPs set up,” Jurick said.

Traffic, access and equipment: Commissioners and staff discussed three existing access entrances on the parcel, with the county engineer reported to have accepted upgrades to existing driveways but not new access points. The applicant estimated deliveries would vary by schedule—slower at start, with peak days of 20–30 trucks during intense material deliveries and an average of 10–15 trucks during routine work—and proposed a road‑use agreement to document roadway condition before, during and after construction.

Topsoil and reclamation conditions: Commissioners emphasized safeguarding topsoil. The commission adopted a condition that topsoil be stockpiled no more than 4 feet deep and be seeded with deep‑rooted plants while stored; the commission also required submittal and adherence to a reclamation/restoration plan and specified decompaction (deep ripping) prior to replacing topsoil.

Other operational details: The applicant said temporary job trailers (two to three modules) would be used with porta‑potties rather than running water and that fuel and hydraulic oil would be stored with secondary containment. The commission discussed dust control (a 5 mph speed within the yard was suggested) and requested permanent truck‑warning/signage as part of public works coordination.

Vote and next steps: After closing the public hearing (no members of the public testified), the commission answered the five required findings in the affirmative with conditions and voted to recommend approval. The motion to recommend approval was made and seconded and passed unanimously. The recommendation will be considered by the Morrison County Board of Commissioners at its June 23 meeting.

Quoted speakers are identified by name or role as recorded in the hearing. The commission did not take final action to grant the permit; it recommended approval to the County Board. If the board votes to approve, any condition requiring further engineering or permits (for example, driveway upgrades or stormwater measures) will be handled through the county permit process.

What remains unresolved: Commissioners requested further coordination with the county engineer on whether a county ditch has capacity to handle increased runoff and asked that the stormwater plan be reviewed and approved by the county engineer prior to the board action. The precise engineering calculations and any additional mitigation required by the county engineer were not specified in the hearing record.

Ending: The commission sent its recommendation to the county board and approved minutes before adjourning the meeting.