Pipestone County board orders environmental assessment for proposed Jasper-area quarry after residents raise water and silica-dust concerns

The Pipestone County Board of Commissioners on May 26 voted to require a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet for a proposed 39.5‑acre quarry near Jasper after residents urged deeper study of groundwater and air‑quality risks.

The board’s action follows a planning commission recommendation to approve the conditional‑use permit with conditions — including limiting haul routes, dust controls, a 10‑year permit with a five‑year compliance certification and a $50,000 assurance — and came after hours of public comment from neighbors who said the proposal could affect private wells, surface water and town residents.

Robert Charlesson, who identified himself at the meeting, said he sold nearby property and that he was surprised to learn the land was proposed for mining. “My name is Robert Charlesson and I come with a couple problems,” he told the board, saying he feared quarry drainage could alter groundwater near his farm and that he had not expected the parcel to be used for a pit. Other residents warned about dust and long‑term health effects if the stone contains high percentages of crystalline silica.

One public commenter described silica risk in stark terms: “...sue portsite in all of its beauty and wonderful hardness contains a brutal 95% or more silica. Not less than 95%,” the commenter said, arguing that sand or crushed stone with very high silica content carries elevated silicosis and carcinogenic risks.

Board and staff discussion focused on what additional information an EAW could provide and whether state studies would be definitive. Staff noted that certain EAW items for silica‑sand projects require a geologic and hydrogeologic investigation assessing potential effects on groundwater and surface water; DNR staff consulted during the process warned that even detailed studies may not provide complete certainty about groundwater connections in complex bedrock settings.

A commissioner moved to require a discretionary EAW; the board voted to require the applicant to complete the worksheet, which the county will publish on the Minnesota EQB monitor for public review and comment. The applicant — or a consultant hired at the applicant’s expense, per county practice — will be responsible for completing the EAW. The transcript records that the motion carried; the record does not include a full roll‑call tally in the minutes distributed with the packet.

Next steps: the applicant must complete and submit the EAW, the county will post it for public comment and the county will review comments before taking any final action on the conditional‑use permit. Commissioners and residents noted that some technical studies (for example, DNR hydrogeologic work) can take many months to complete and may not fully resolve all groundwater questions.

The board’s requirement for an EAW does not grant or deny the permit; it starts a public, technical review intended to surface potential environmental effects for more informed decision‑making.