TOWN OF HOWARD – Laurie Schmitt asked a couple of questions about the proposal for Canadian Sand and Proppant to operate a sand mine in the town of Howard. She made no accusation, no statement of outright opposition, but summed up her concern with a single short statement.

“My entire life my dream was to farm,” she said. “I hope this doesn’t destroy that.”

Concern about what impact the mine might have on their dreams, their roads, their property values — their lives, brought about 200 people to the Howard Planning Commission meeting Monday night.

Canadian Sand and Proppant, a new Wisconsin company with ties to an Alberta, Canada company, is prepared to invest $30 million into a sand processing facility in Chippewa Falls. Last month, the company announced plans for the facility, which would process sand for use in the oil and natural gas industry.

The processing plant, employing 20-35 people, would be located in an industrial park in the city. The raw materials would be extracted in northern and western Chippewa County, providing 16 more jobs.

The company approached county and town officials seeking mining permits, and the first meeting in Howard brought citizens out in force.

The first part of the meeting consisted of Mel Bollom, who worked with the company on site selection, and Charlie Walker, president of the Chippewa County Economic Development Corporation, describing the project.

They apologized that company representatives were not present, as they had previous commitments and were expecting such a public meeting to be held weeks later.

Among the points they emphasized were:

n The main processing plant would be in Chippewa Falls, not on-site as in projects existing, and recently rejected, in Dunn County.

n The Howard project would be mining with a dump truck and a backhoe. There are currently 85 sand and gravel mining operations in Chippewa County, ranging in size from 20 to 40 acres.

“This is no different than the other 85 gravel pits,” said Bollom, “Except it’s smaller — 10 acres at a time.”

n There would be no washers, crushers, conveyor belts or stockpiles as in other operations, he added.

Walker said there would be an initial $30 million construction economic impact with the Chippewa project, and direct and indirect economic impact of the fully operational plant would be an estimated $14 million a year.

Trucking issue

Numerous questions were raised, many of them dealing with truck traffic, estimated at 90 trucks a day.

Commission member Allan Schlaugat asked if there would be incentive for the companies to keep up that level, and if the trucks would be covered.

Bollom said there would be no incentive to maintain that level, and in fact if a second mining site were approved in the county, it would reduce the number of trucks to the site. Trucks would be covered if the town required it, he said.

“What will the company do to maintain the roads?” Schlaugat asked. “The roads can’t handle these trucks.”

Bollom and Walker, along with County Administrator Bill Reynolds, explained the company would pay some annual cash for minor maintenance, and the county would require bonding to pay for major repairs. That is, the small fund would fix potholes and annually any damage to the roads would be paid for out of the bond.

“The county taxpayers are not going to pay for this. It’s not going to happen,” said Reynolds. “The county is not going to allow this to be under-bonded.”

But residents were skeptical of claims.

Anita Manny questioned why the company would lower truck traffic by mining a second site, since it would be more economical to operate out of one site.

“We live on County S. Would they be going down T to S? So we’re not talking about one road, we’re talking about several roads,” said Karen Berthiaume.

She expressed skepticism that the company would pay enough to keep all the roads it used in shape.

Commission and town board member Dennis Dvoracek was also skeptical, noting that road rehabilitation costs $100,000 to $150,000 a mile.

Questions were raised about a company claim that it would not operate trucks during school bus times, which some claimed was pretty much all day, considering the early releases, handicapped and 4-year-old programs and other uncertainties.

Bollom said the company intends to work with the bus company to learn when students are picked up and dropped off in the mine area.

Bollom spoke of entrance and exit roads from the site being designed to avoid trucks driving past homes in the area.

But the area is quite large, others countered, taking up multiple county and town roads, affecting both traffic past homes and school bus routes in a wide area.

“How are we supposed to move a combine down the road with seven trucks an hour?” Jeff Bennesch asked.

Other concerns

There was some discussion of diseases caused by silica — a chemical name for sand. Bollom said extremely fine sand used in activities like sandblasting was linked to disease years ago, but not the activities described at common sand mining operations.

But his explanations did not satisfy all.

“How do you prove to us that the children playing outside are going to be safe?” Ann Mitchell asked.

There were some discussions about groundwater, but Bollom said the operation would neither extract nor use water at the site, except perhaps for some road dust control.

Commission and town board member Frank Goodman asked about reclamation plans, which are still being formulated. If the company planned to take 1.2 million cubic yards from the site, where would they get the fill, he asked.

Bollom said the hills behind the site do not have sand, but plenty of fill material. Ultimately, the reclamation would flatten out that area of land and create more farmland, Bollom said.

Wendy Loew asked why the company was not filing an environmental impact statement if it was so concerned about the environment. They are not typical for common sand and gravel mining, Bollom said.

Bennesch expressed concerns about a lowering of his property values. Walker acknowledged the legitimacy of that, though he noted that in the long run such operations tended to raise property values. Walker admitted, however, that that may be due to the presence of the mineral being extracted making the property more valuable.

Bottom line

The first member of the public to speak was Kasey Schindler, who lives across the road from the site. Besides the money for the landowner, she said, “What is the benefit to us as a township?”

Schindler also asked, “How can we trust you? You are a brand new company.”

Much later in the meeting, Andrew Gansberg, a resident of Dunn County and a neighbor of a sand mining operation there, said the town should not trust the company, but should not oppose it either. He lives near a sand mine and the processing plant.

Still, what the company — a separate one from Canadian Sand and Proppant — said it would do and what happened were often different things, Gansberg said.

He urged the town to hold the company to its word with permit restrictions.

For the residents, he said being a neighbor to a sand mine “is not absolutely terrible, but it’s not great, either.”