Assembly approves special exemptions for sand company

Environmental groups oppose DNR decision allowing project

In a late-night move, the Wisconsin Assembly approved a measure giving environmental exemptions for a controversial $70 million sand processing development in western Wisconsin that is being challenged by environmental groups.

The exemptions, in the form of a last-minute amendment to a wetlands bill, were written to benefit Meteor Timber, an Atlanta-based company that is planning to build a sand-processing plant and rail spur near I-94 in Monroe County catering to the frac sand industry.

The land now features a rare hardwoods swamp, and in May the Department of Natural Resources approved the company’s plans to destroy 16.25 acres of wetlands in exchange for the company making other environmental improvements.

Meteor acknowledged it turned to the Legislature for help because it saw environmental groups as obstructionists.

That help arrived late Thursday during a marathon

legislative session.

Evan Feinauer, an attorney with Clean Wisconsin, said: “It’s clear that the DNR had been leaned on, muscled into a permit and now on the last day of the Assembly session (Meteor) is trying to get special legislation.”

That DNR decision regarding the wetlands is being challenged by two environmental organizations.

At an administrative proceeding that starts Monday in Tomah, the groups will present testimony from a retired wetlands specialist who worked on the case and says agency staff were pressured by higher-ups at the DNR into making a decision in favor of Meteor.

Pat Trochlell says in testimony filed in advance of the hearing that she did not believe the DNR should have issued a permit to allow the company to fill the wetlands, in part, because they were “among the highest quality” she had reviewed where the agency granted a permit.

“At a meeting on December 19, 2016, DNR staff made a preliminary determination that the … permit should be denied,” said Trochlell, who worked at the DNR for 37 years and 30 years as a wetlands ecologist.

“DNR staff were later instructed to help Meteor Timber develop a … plan that DNR could approve.”

DNR spokesman Jim Dick said the agency would not comment on Trochlell’s testimony because the case is in litigation.

Clean Wisconsin and Midwest Environmental Advocates argue that the DNR approved the wetlands loss for Meteor with inadequate information, and that the plan to create wetlands elsewhere won’t make up for the loss of more than 13 acres of a rare white pinered maple swamp.

State law generally calls for wetlands to be avoided because of their ecological value.

But they can be filled in some cases and new, comparable wetlands need to be created in their place.

If the project proceeds, it will be the largest destruction of wetlands involving a sand industry project in a decade, according to the DNR.

A representative of Meteor described the environmental groups as an “angry, uninformed vocal bully trying to put a stop to an environmentally conscious resource development.”

Nathan Conrad is executive director of Natural Resource Development Association, a pro-business advocacy group.

Conrad said that the loss of wetlands is more than made up for with the restoration of some 630 acres by the company, mostly as wetlands. He said the project will require 300 construction jobs. About 100 people will work at facility, which will process and ship sand to oil exploration companies.

On Thursday night, the Republicancontrolled Assembly approved the Meteor amendment along party lines as part of a vote on a wetlands bill.

The amendment by Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) did not circulate until hours before a vote.

The bill itself was not controversial and dealt with technical issues for building new wetlands.

The next step: A hearing before the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee on Wednesday.

The amendment would exempt Meteor from some of the requirements the DNR imposed on the project.

On the floor, Rep. Gary Hebl (D-Sun Prairie) said he had no objections with the bill itself, but objected to the amendment and its introduction at the last minute.

“If a wetland of this rare quality is allowed to be destroyed, it could spell disaster for other rare wetlands across the state,” Hebl told fellow lawmakers.

Tusler did not respond to requests for an interview. But he told lawmakers that Meteor’s project had many environmental attributes built in.

“(The amendment) has all of the opportunities to (help) get a business that we want and still protect the environment,” he said.