Meeting Feb. 26 in a joint meeting, the Grey Cloud Town Board and Planning Commission worked with Holcim to iron out details of a 2025 mining permit, approved after much discussion by all parties.
Faced with a March 3 deadline to hammer something out lest what the mining company submitted be approved automatically, included in the takeaways from the joint meeting was the update of exhibit C in the agreement to strike exhibit D from “Existing Site Conditions and Proposed Conditions,” an addition that “the Nelson quarry must follow posted road weight limits,” another that “approved extended hours may be revoked by the town board at any time,” and the explicit denial of an update of Jasper Lane.
Covered prior to the working out of mine permit details was an update from County Commissioner Karla Bigham on the Larson Quarry expansion EAW.
“I’m going to be brief tonight but just wanted to update that at our last board meeting we did vote on a positive finding on the EAW for the Larson project for Holcim and what that means is that it will now proceed into an EIS. I’m assuming there will be some questions at the annual meeting and there will be staff here with me, but I just wanted to update folks because I know there have been some questions,” Bingham said.
The Larson Quarry EAW became available for review last year and proposed expanding the present quarry across County Highway 75, either with rerouting the highway or via access from a connection underneath the road. An EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) is the next step in the process and represents a closer look at the details.
“There’s a lot, lot, lot of comment,” Bigham said of the Larson Quarry EAW feedback.
Discussion moved next to the 2025 mining permit. Town resident and former board member Dan Ohmann asked the board to consider adding dewatering information to town board updates from Holcim.
“All I was going to add was consider adding dewatering with the PFAs issues we’ve had on Grey Cloud accelerating over the last years,” he said. “I feel it would be an appropriate time along with blasting and seismic testing to get metered readings of the water they’re dumping into the river.”
Going on to specify that he meant the gallons of water as the pit gets deeper, Ohmann felt that more information was important.
"We’re below the water level so I feel it would be good to have information on how many gallons they’re dumping,” he said. “Obviously we’re pulling the PFAs at a faster rate now that the pit's gotten deeper or larger at the base. More dewatering area. So I just feel it would be an appropriate step for the township to take to understand how many gallons of water and then do research and talk to the appropriate people and find what’s ok or not ok for that.”
The Minnesota DNR permits mining and determines how much dewatering can take place.
“That is something that is being done and submitted to the regulatory authority, which is the Department of Natural Resources,” Kirstin Pauly of Sunde Engineering said, present on behalf of Holcim.
“Did they give you a limit how much you can dewater?” Supervisor Phil Dupre asked, receiving an answer in the affirmative. The DNR permit has authority to amend the permit, which is submitted on an annual basis with monthly volumes. The annual permit is due every Feb. 15. Tom Schmit of Holcim said it would be possible to get dewatering data to the township.
“We can annually conglomerate that data and provide it to you in the annual report,” he said.
After more discussion, Town Attorney David Snyder suggested general language be added to the permit regarding such data.
“The need for information may be present now when it wasn’t there before,” Snyder said with regard to water use. “At the same time, it’s pretty difficult for us to all become experts in water or possibilities or processes of improving minimizing dewatering process tonight. My suggestion for the purposes of the permit is to add some general language that provides that the matter of water consumption and dewatering is a matter of interest to the town board and the town board reserves the right to impose additional reasonable conditions upon the permit holder based on information that it receives from the permit holder and others in connection with water use. In other words, the intentional provision in the permit will allow you to request additional information. It might be co-extensive with what they give the DNR, but it might be a little broader too.”
“We need a working document tonight with the time restraints we have,” Dupre said, gesturing to Town Clerk Pam Dupre. “So she can add that into that."
“She can go back on the tape and write in what you said,” Supervisor Richard Polta told Snyder.
“That works for me,” the Clerk said.
“Just so we’re clear on it,” Snyder said, laying out the details. “The matter of watering and dewatering is of interest to both the applicant and the town board. The town board reserves the right to request and to receive information quantifying or detailing water consumption and dewatering practices and may follow up with the applicant to receive that information as necessary to ensure reasonable water conservation consistent with the applicant’s need to mine and dewater,” he said. “That’s a catch all, that should cover.”
Ohmann chimed in next to explain more behind his rationale for the ask.
“I guess I just want to make clarify and make sure what I heard, and wasn’t in question,” he said. “Obviously we have a permit with the DNR, but the DNR doesn’t check our drinking water, they don’t do any of that stuff. That’s a whole other entity and capsulating this allows us to reach out and get some headway.”
Also chiming in was Planning Commission member Eric Folsom.
“I reached out to the PCA with the whole PFAs issue,” he said. “And the response that I got back on the permit is that it is under review and that they’re going to be discussing some of these issues. So the response back is that the plume—although it might be migrating, we’re not exactly sure if it’s coming this way or not. So I requested MPCA to do some further research on that when the next permit comes around. I’m hopeful we can put this one to rest, whether it requires filtration before they dump all this water in the river and it causes problems down south as Hastings is now experiencing, I would possibly like to enter that into consideration as account somehow.”
Folsom was answered in turn by Megan Rogers, representing Holcim.
“We have reached out to the MPCA and we recognize the MPCA is a regulatory body in this space. And we look forward to partnering with what that agency requires as we continue the study of the plume that’s working its way from the Cottage Grove plant.”
Kirstin Pauly of Sunde Engineering then spoke.
“I just wanted to add … that in the Environmental Impact Statement that the county has (ordered) that the process started,” she said. “One of the things will be to work with the MPCA on the PFAs issue. So in terms of tonight’s permit, it may be that it’s more appropriate that you allow the actual studies to be performed and the communication with the PCA to engage in the EIS process for looking at really what that PFAS is. Because I think there was you know a suggestion that filling the quarry up would decrease the amount of dewatering needed. I think that’s a preliminary conclusion because it completely depends on the type of backfill and so flies in the face of the planned reclamation of the quarry. So I think that there’s a lot of study that needs to be done with respect to this issue, the groundwater is flowing towards the Mississippi regardless of whether there’s dewatering. So I think it’s premature to draw some of these conclusions on what the quarry is causing until we’ve actually had a chance to study it in the Environmental Impact Statement process.”
Pauly further noted that the EAW comments for the Larson Quarry included Grey Cloud Channel receiving water from an upstream treatment plant that was a source of PFAs, after a bridge was put in to improve water flow.
“One of the things to recognize is that the mine itself is not a source of PFAs,” she said. “This is an issue that is not caused by Holcim and the PFAs is there, it’s in the groundwater, it’s in the drinking water wells right now and it’s flowing, the groundwater’s flowing, towards the Mississippi River and its coming out of the wastewater treatment plant and it’s everywhere.”
“I was concerned about the chloroform bacteria coming out of Pig’s Eye, because they don’t chlorinate in the winter,” Polta said.
Wastewater treatment plants have been tied to spread of PFAs contamination in peer reviewed scientific studies, as treatment fails to remove PFAs before discharge. Water underground follows a pressure gradient and seeks the path of least resistance as it moves across rock strata.
Plan Commissioner Folsom answered Pauly.
“Without the studies that are being recommended I think we should further consider. I would make a comment then that we hold this permit to operating and let’s not go ahead and approve things outside operating because apparently, we need further study,” he said. Town resident Ted Reese had a question on year-round dewatering.
“You said the reason we have to dewater year round is just a natural consequence of the pit getting bigger, and then you said if we make the pit smaller it doesn’t necessarily mean less dewatering. I just want to understand. It seems kind of conflicting. And then if you could comment. You talked in a previous meeting about your collaborative work with the Indian tribe. We’d just like to hear more about that collaboration because we made contact with them and they had no idea what you were talking about.”
Pauly answered Reese for Holcim.
“I think in the response to the EAW comments there’s information on what the collaboration and contact with the Prairie Island Indian Community has been,” she said. “So those answers are in the response to EAW comment. And I don’t have those with me tonight. And then the question with regard to dewatering, I mean hydrogeology is kind of complex, right, so if the amount of pumping that’s required is based on the gradients, it’s based on the hydraulic conductivity of what it's flowing through. And if you’ve got a series of media that’s different, you’ve got bedrock, you’ve got backfill, those all play a part of what the ultimate pumping is. You can’t just draw the conclusion that something's going to change things one way or another. You’ve got to go at it and run things through the model and see what it’s going to be…I would just caution you not to draw conclusions before the studies have been performed when you’re making those decisions..”
Backfill with high hydraulic conductivity could affect dewatering impact.
Grey Cloud Plan Commission Chair Eduardo Valencia spoke next.
“I think there’s a whole common-sense element though,” he said. “The whole more pumping, less pumping that it's kind of difficult for us to follow—what do you call it—the media," Valencia said, referring to fill size. "Perhaps it can be less pumping."
From whether to include dewatering language in the mining permit, the joint meeting turned to the relocation sought by Holcim of Jasper Lane. Holcim held that an access and utility easement signed Nov. 2, 2006 and recorded as Document Number 363777 on April 5, 2007 gave it unilateral rights to relocate the driveway, otherwise its north access. Holding Washington County as the responsible government unit (RGU) and saying it had been issued a driveway access permit by it that served as a building permit, Holcim sought to construct a new access road with vegetation removal, with construction of the access road anticipated to begin in March. Stated to be within township standards on vegetation management, a permit was not required to clear trees when a building permit had already been issued. Holcim would provide a bond and other financial guaranty if required to ensure compliance with the approved permit and performance standards provided stated by ordinance.
"This goes against our driveway ordinances," Supervisor Dupre said. "So I am asking that we restrict the whole paragraph."
A corresponding map caused some confusion later in the night as it stated "existing driveway easement" rather than "proposed." The easement, while existing, applied to the proposed relocation as well.
Rogers answered Dupre for Holcim.
"First of all it's an access road that's specifically recorded against this property," she said. The land was outside the township's jurisdiction, as outside the mining area and thus in Washington County's jurisdiction for the road. "The proposed change is allowed not only under your code but also the Washington County ordinance and of course the recorded documents that have been available to property owners since 2006 ," Rogers said.
"We have to disagree with that finding, based on our land clearing ordinance," Dupre said, backed up in turn by town board member Jake Jones.
"Our land clearing ordinance is misrepresented in this paragraph," he said. "It says 'for land clearing activities associated with building provided a permit is issued or there is a minimal amount of clearing. Our threshold stated in our ordinances is 20,000 square feet. Your driveway clearance is near 70,000 square feet."
Rogers answering Jones in turn.
"Except...but there is an exception to the 20,000 square foot limit, specifically for when a
permit has already been issued," she said.
With more back and forth, the disagreement stood.
"We're making a record of our claims with regard to the township's claims and interpretation," Rogers said for Holcim. "We respectfully reserve all claims with regard to this interpretation."
Town Clerk Pam Dupre had a question for Rogers on the access road.
“You stated that this is not part of the mining operation. Why is it in the application then?"
"It's specifically outside the limit of the mining operation," Rogers said. "However, because we are here tonight, we respectfully included it as part of the submission. We do not believe we need supplemental approvals for it to be included in the permit language. However, if you do include it, I see there are some additional conditions of approval that are added in the annual permit. Again, this is just simply notice to the township of our underlying rights."
Valencia spoke up next from the Plan Commission side.
"Just for the public the purpose of us meeting is to discuss these issues," he said. "So we haven't had the discussion ahead of time. So I just wanted to kind of give my two cents on the item that the (town) chair brought up. I wholeheartedly agree with the interpretation that the mine and I apologize if this is not making sense, but the mine is kind of making the point that this is an entitlement to them, that this is something they can do outside of the mining permit. So I'm not entirely sure why it's here, which is what Pam said. My—at least Eduardo's perspective—we haven't discussed it, but Eduardo's perspective would be this does not seem like it belongs in a mining permit. It's about removing a driveway, it's actually about changing a driveway; that part of their argument is to say if they have land, and you have a driveway, you need a permit for the building that you're going to put in place and a process by which that gets approved which is what was heard before about if you clear so many trees. You already have a driveway and you already have a building, that's different than establishing a driveway and while you may have a process by which you let the county know, I believe from a planning commission perspective that we've got a process by which we would validate that the clearing of the trees is within the construct of our ordinances and any other ordinance that would apply. I would agree Mr. Chair that I would not like to adjust to the additional conditions or additional limits within the permit. My vote on this as Eduardo, we have not had an argument on it is that this should not be included in the process for both request and approval. That's one point."
Valencia went on.
"My second point is, I'm not an attorney but I read this. Sometimes you call it a driveway and then you make reference to a roadway, and you say that you say that it's public and you say that you need a permit, but the permit is issued by the relocation request itself. It just seems very confusing and not clear. The logic seems flawed in my opinion. My vote would be to remove this or explicitly deny the driveway move as part of the permit itself, not try to control it any further."
Ohmann spoke up next from the audience, stating that the town board had reached out to Washington County for clarification on the county driveway permit, something they as the town board had not been involved with.
"And the county specifically stated that the driveway easement is only good for their easement portion or their portion of the road." As soon as it reached outside this it was town jurisdiction and ordinances that applied.
"That's the way I've read it over the years too," Polta said. Dupre then asked town attorney Snyder if he had an opinion to give.
"I would need more facts," Snyder said, declining to give an opinion beyond upholding the distinction on county vs. township jurisdiction. The township could make a decision for the purposes of the permit that night but more information was needed for Snyder to give an opinion further.
With more discussion following, the 2025 mining permit was later approved with changes suggested by the town attorney and those adopted along the way and record, the update of exhibit C and an explicit denial to the update of Jasper Lane.
The annual meeting for Grey Cloud Township will take place at 7 p.m. Tuesday, March 11. A town board meeting will take place the following day at 7 p.m. Wednesday, March 12. There will be a public hearing at town board regarding an ordinance for road weight limits, with a local board of appeal and equalization meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 10 at 6 p.m. Meetings for Grey Cloud are held at the Grey Cloud Town Hall at 9910 Grey Cloud Island Drive South, in Grey Cloud Township.