Environmentalist groups get win in Monroe County wetlands case

Posted

Environmentalists scored a victory in a nearly four-year-long dispute over a Georgia-based frac-sand mining company’s efforts to fill in forested wetlands in the town of Grant.

A panel of judges from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Clean Wisconsin and the Ho-Chunk Nation, which had contested a permit issued to Meteor Timber to fill in 16.25 acres of wetlands to accommodate a sand drying plant and railroad spur along Interstate 94. 

The loss of wetlands due to the proposed project would be the single biggest wetlands loss for the state in the last decade. Along with the sand mine, the project was valued at $65 million and would have encompassed about 132 acres of a 752-acre site that stretched into Jackson County.

In May 2017, the DNR issued the permit to Meteor Timber, the largest landowner in Wisconsin. Clean Wisconsin and the Ho-Chunk Nation contested the decision to issue the permit, arguing at a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) that the permit did not comply with statutes governing wetland-fill permits.

The ALJ ruled in favor of the petitioners and reversed the DNR’s decision to issue the permit. Meteor then filed a motion in Monroe County Circuit Court to review the ALJ’s decision and to present additional evidence pertaining to a different wetland restoration project. 

Under Meteor’s proposed project plan, the cranberry operations would cease, four impoundments would be eliminated and 2,000 feet of stream and 58 acres of wetland would be restored.

Judge Todd Ziegler denied both motions and Meteor took the case to the court of appeals, which delivered its ruling on Dec. 16. In affirming Ziegler’s decision, the  appeals court ruled that the DNR had insufficient information to consider the environmental impact of filling in the wetlands when it issued the permit to Meteor. It also ruled the company’s required mitigation plan to offset the loss of wetlands was inadequate.

Meteor Timber can still appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here