Welcome to Oneida County Clean Waters Action
Exploring the issues that affect our rivers and lakes
New Sulfide Mining Threat For Oneida County
Will Oneida County become Wisconsin's mining district?
By Eric Rempala
April 7, 2022- A new start-up mining company has renewed the threat of changing Oneida County into Wisconsin's Mining District. Green Light Metals (GLM) has begun the process of establishing multiple sulfide mines in North Central Wisconsin. GLM's initial attempts will occur at the Bend Deposit in Taylor County and the Reef Deposit in Marathon County, with plans for development of two Oneida County properties named Lobo and Black. GLM's recent power point presentation (see link provided below) illustrates clearly how Oneida County with its multiple deposits would become a part of a mining district, potentially changing the county's landscape going forward. Reviewing the presentation clearly shows the location of two properties in the town of Schoepke and multiple other deposits.
We at OCCWA have spent the last two years attempting to educate the towns as to the threat that Metallic Sulfide Mining poses by having them adopt a resolution to repeal Act 134 and reinstate the Prove It First Law. Nine towns plus the city of Rhinelander have adopted our resolution or some form thereof.
It is clear that the county that we know with clean water, tourism, and vacation property would be severely impacted by acid mine drainage, blasting, and heavy equipment road use. We encourage residents and property owners to oppose this type of development and make your position known to your town, county, and state representatives.
https://www.greenlightmetals.com/_files/ugd/298d0d_4e7316d0915340578b2895381f76521e.pdf
Below is a link to WPR coverage of the potential mines.
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2022/03/21/drilling-for-gold-in-wisconsin/
Also below is coverage of Minnesota's attempt to prevent Metallic Sulfide Mining by instating a Prove It First Law of their own. Understanding that Minnesota is a mining friendly state but want no part of this type of mining in water rich areas.
https://www.friends-bwca.org/sulfide-mining/
Change Knowles Nelson Stewardship?
Oneida County politicians seek changes
By Eric Rempala
March 18, 2022- A recent attempt to change the Knowles Nelson Stewardship has caught our attention here at OCCWA. Assembly Bill 852 presented by Calvin Callahan and Senate Bill 802 presented by Mary Felzkowski on January 18th proposed changes that would make it easier to sell land acquired with Knowles Nelson funding. The Bills were quickly contested by multiple conservation groups and private citizen comments and drawn back for reconsideration. If not for this immediate push back these Bills may have proceeded to vote.
What is Knowles Nelson? A direct quote from their webpage " The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program is one of Wisconsin’s proudest achievements. Since 1989, Wisconsinites have come together to care for our state’s land and water as well as build the trails, campgrounds, and boat launches that allow us to get out and enjoy Wisconsin. Knowles-Nelson is a rare bipartisan success story. It is an invaluable program that will continue to thrive only with a strong community of supporters who ensure that Wisconsin’s legislators continue to prioritize protected land, clean water, and access to outdoor recreation for every Wisconsin resident."
We in Oneida County have benefitted greatly from the Knowles Nelson program. Since inception Oneida County has had 88 projects supported with a dollar amount of just under $42 million. Projects consisting of land maintenance, trail construction, and upkeep, to land acquisition. Notable areas include Willow Flowage Scenic Waters Area, American Legion State Forest, Northern Highland State Forest, and Bearskin State Trail. Here is a link to a Knowles Nelson project map. https://knowlesnelson.org
Even the most recently proposed Pelican River State Forest is set to receive funding from the Knowles Nelson Stewardship. https://www.conservationfund.org/impact/press-releases/2589-largest-unprotected-forest-in-wisconsin-secured So one wonders what exactly these two recently proposed Bills by two of our county's state reps is truly trying to accomplish and does it reflect the will of their constituents? We will continue to monitor the situation and help to keep you apprised going forward, though not much is expected now until next year.
Below is a link to an article on the attempted Bill proposals
.https://www.wortfm.org/new-bills-would-allow-cities-to-sell-parks-from-knowles-nelson-stewardship/
A REFERENDUM ON LOCAL CONTROL?
Supervisors voting records on mining challenged
By Karl Fate
Mar. 4, 2022- Are the water resources of our County important enough that we should vote for their protection? Is local control important enough that we should expect our elected officials to vote in favor of it?
When we cast our votes on April 5th, we should keep these issues in mind. We can examine the voting record for some candidates while they were on the Board, and we can ask the position of candidates that have no voting record.
A new metallic mining ordinance went to public hearing on June 6th, 2018, and was put before the County Board on June 19th, 2018. The new ordinance removes several important protections and is detrimental to local control, allowing metallic sulfide mining and any related infrastructure, as a matter of right, in multiple zoning districts across much of the County. This change precludes a mining company from having to petition to rezone large areas of our County before constructing a sulfide mine, removing an important local control. These changes were widely condemned at the public hearing and before the County Board, but these concerns mostly fell on deaf ears.
Supervisors who voted for this ordinance were, Robb Jensen, Greg Pence, Billy Fried, Lance Krolczyk, Tom Kelly, Jack Sorensen, Dave Hintz, Greg Oettinger, Mike Timmons, Mitchell Ives, Ted Cushing, Bill Liebert, Russ Fisher, Scott Holewinski and Bob Almekinder. Only supervisors Jim Winkler, Alan VanRaalte, Steven Schreier, Bob Mott, and Bob Metropulos, voted against this wildly unpopular mining ordinance. Sonny Paszak was absent for the vote.
This is a voting record on the critical issues of water and local control. Please take this record into consideration when you cast your vote on April 5th.
The following supervisors voted for this ordinance that removed these protections and are challenged on the April 5th ballot: Robb Jensen, Mitchell Ives, Ted Cushing, Bill Liebert, and Scott Holewinski.
Candidates for April 5th 2022 link below:
Local Control
Explanation of how towns lost input
By Eric Rempala
Mar. 4, 2022- So what are we at OCCWA referring to when we mention local control?
Simply put, it is the ability of the towns in Oneida county to have a say in what is allowed in their town. This ability has been severely impacted by the passage of the Oneida County Mining Ordinance in June 2018. In particular the change in zoning that was a part of the ordinance.
Originally mining was only permitted in areas zoned Manufacturing & Industrial. The ordinance added zones 1A Forestry and General Use to where mining would now be permitted. Manufacturing and Industrial only makes up a small fraction of the land in Oneida County, whereas 1A Forestry and General Use makes up the bulk. By adding these two zones to permit mining the County Board added thousands of acres where mining would now be permitted simply by filling out an application to mine. You may access a map of your town zoning at http://oneida.ncwrpc.info/ZoningMap/
This change in zoning removed a great protection to the towns. That protection being the town's ability to give input into or deny a rezone for land that is being targeted for a mine. The towns carry substantial input in rezoning land but have little to no input when land is being used for what it is zoned for.
Mind you, changing this zoning back to the original Manufacturing & Industrial only, would not prevent mining. If a town so desired a mine, they could simply petition the county to rezone the land.
Please note that these zoning changes are only viewable in the mining ordinance. Actual Oneida County zoning has yet to reflect these changes. It has been explained to me that until zoning is changed the mining ordinance takes precedent.
I hope this explanation will help you better understand what we mean by "Local Control".
This type of control could also apply to other permitting such as CAFO's. It is an important tool for the towns to be able to protect their water.
Included below is an Oct 2021 Northwoods Star Journal article by Karl Fate which delves into more of the history of how we arrived where we are now.
https://starjournalnow.com/2021/10/27/reader-oneida-county-should-stop-promoting-mining/
Manure Storage Update 1/21
MSO committee makes progress
By Eric Rempala
"At the January 21, 2022 CUW Special Manure Storage Ordinance (MSO) Committee meeting, a motion was made by Roach, seconded by Winkler to postpone the Manure Storage Ordinance until such time as operations exceeding 200 animal units comes into Oneida County with an animal unit equaling 1000 lbs. of live animal weight. Roll call vote: Winkler-aye, Mott-aye, Thome-aye, Engel-aye, Roach-aye, Ives- aye. Motion carried."
https://www.oclw.org/manure-storage.html
The above information is a direct statement from the Oneida County Land and Water Conservation. Included is a link to OCLW with a video of the meeting from which the statement originated from. Special thanks to the OCLW staff for their assistance.
Though disappointed that there was not a motion to forward the proposed Manure Storage Ordinance to the County Board, the decision to postpone was a good one. Postponement was a compromise by the committee as Supervisors Thome and Mott were in favor of the ordinance and Supervisors Winkler, Engel, Roach' and Ives were in favor of table/kill. The decision to postpone keeps the proposed ordinance active and on the books for possible reconsideration at such time as operations exceeding 200 animal units comes into Oneida County. This along with an extension on the CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) moratorium until September 2022 gives hope that Oneida County will be able to protect itself from such largescale farming operations.
The MSO committee did an excellent job cobbling together an ordinance which gives the county the ability to protect itself from such large CAFO operations without adding any additional restrictions to our current farms. It's important to note that the ability to oversee CAFO operations is the main objective of the ordinance. Also, the committee including the ability to revisit the ordinance yearly is a novel approach to updating the ordinance as actual application impacts are considered.
If this type of environmental legislation along with mining and PFAS issues are important to you, then you should consider asking for your County Supervisor candidate's positions on these issues for the upcoming April elections. It is squarely upon the residents and property owners of Oneida County to hold their Supervisors accountable when it comes to protecting our waters. Below are links for current Supervisors and Supervisor candidates for April 5 2022 election.
Current Oneida County Supervisor link https://www.co.oneida.wi.us/government/cb/
Current Oneida County Supervisor Candidates for April 5 Election
How to create a sulfide mining district, and fail
By Karl Fate
Oct. 20, 2021--In 2009, an obscure “mining interest” called Tamerlane approached Oneida County, seeking to acquire the rights to a known mineral deposit on County Forest lands on the western side of the county, called the Lynne Deposit. The Lynne Deposit was formed well over a billion years ago and then eroded and twisted for many million years more, before being buried beneath a vast column of water and layers of sand and gravel when the glaciers receded over 10,000 years ago, forming the foundation for our lakes, streams, and wetlands.
Our county government reacted to Tamerlane’s request by rubber-stamping a failed, old policy Resolution that was used a decade previously to open the County Forest to metallic mining. A Mining Oversight/Local Impact Committee was formed to consider developing a leasing plan, and although, over the course of three years the Committee spent considerable time, energy and resources, it was never especially interested in the existing information base, nor the considerable public concerns and opposition that it heard meeting after meeting.
Fortunately, the full County Board was listening, and in February 2012 the leasing plan was stopped. The Committee's recommendation was turned back two more times that summer, the last being the defeat known as the “Shidell Resolution,” which ended metallic mining as a policy goal of the County government.
Despite no longer pursuing “mining as a policy goal,” the county was back promoting a mine at Lynne within a month of the defeat of the “Shidell Resolution.” This time it was the Planning and Development Committee proposing to allow metallic mining in areas zoned “1-A Forestry.” The County Forest at Lynne is zoned “1-A Forestry” and the Town of Lynne was opposed to rezoning the area to “Manufacturing and Industrial,” a change necessary to have a mine there. Planning & Development wanted to allow metallic mining in “1-A Forestry” to circumvent the need for a rezone, thus stripping the town of a critical protection.
It was at this 9/11/2012 P&D Committee meeting where the idea of weaponizing the zoning districts in retaliation against a town that opposed a mine was first developed. Although the committee would eventually drop the proposal because of public opposition, it had another chance to go after local control within five years, thanks to Tom Tiffany, then the region's District 12 state senator.
The Mining Moratorium Law was always popular, but Tom Tiffany was able to successfully repeal it in late 2017. Once the law was repealed, it was widely, but inaccurately, construed as opening Northern Wisconsin to massive sulfide mining as a matter of right, and it was clear that there was a coordinated effort to establish sulfide mining anew in the Northwoods. There were promotional mine tours, a promotional “Mining 101” seminar, and then the counties were pressured into developing a compliant mining ordinance, which removed several key protections.
In Oneida County, vast areas were opened to metallic sulfide mining by precluding a mining company from having to petition to rezone those areas. This was done by allowing metallic mining as a “Permitted Use” in areas zoned “1-A Forestry” and “General Use.” It was already allowed in areas zoned “Manufacturing and Industrial.” This means that in addition to the permitted use specified, “services essential to the permitted use, and its accessory uses shall be permitted in that district as a matter of right.”
When you couple this with the fact that the new ordinance removed prohibitions on smelting, refining, solution mining, and dumping mine wastes in the county, generated from outside of the county, the new mining ordinance was a blueprint for turning the region into a mining district. Under this scenario, the Lynne mine would have likely been used as a central processing center, eventually receiving ore, and generating waste on site from other mines, including from outside of the county.
Once Oneida County removed these protections with the new mining ordinance, there was only one more step to open the door for a mine at Lynne. The supervisors pushing the mine at Lynne have always wanted a referendum question on the issue. They finally got it, and it did not go their way when their referendum question failed substantially during the November 2018 election. Without “social license” for a mine at Lynne, the centerpiece for a mining district in our county collapsed.
Since the failure of the Noranda experiment in the 1990s, our county government has, on three occasions, spent considerable time, effort and resources promoting one mining scheme or another in our county, always with considerable public opposition, and always to no avail.
It’s time for our county government to take a sober, objective look at this issue, and ponder its priorities. It makes no sense for our county government to continue squandering its fiscal resources to remove protections from itself, while pushing something that people do not want, and which threatens the integrity of our high quality natural resource base.
Towns hear presentation on sulfide mining
Calling on Oneida County Towns to approve the above Resolution to repeal WI 2017 Act 134
Report by Eric Rempala
Lincoln County, Wisconsin
Sept. 30, 2020--For the past few weeks Karl Fate of Oneida County and I have been making in-person presentations to the town boards in Oneida County, asking them to review and formally endorse the Oneida County Clean Waters Action 2020 Resolution (see above). Here's how our efforts are doing so far:
Town of Newbold: Karl and I had an excellent presentation with the Town of Newbold on Sept 24. The town board was very receptive. It didn't take much time to present as their board members seemed to have a pretty good grasp of mining issues and their consequences . Mr. Kroll, town chairman, said that he would prepare a town specific resolution to be considered on Oct 8.
Town of Pelican: The board was receptive to our information and did have some working knowledge of the mining issue. We provided updated information on what was going on in Schoepke. They told us they would make copies of the resolution and discuss it. Another visit or email contact may be required.
Town Of Little Rice: County Board Supervisor Allen VanRaalte was present on another matter and we discussed the Resolution and objectives. Karl and I gave our pitch and were treated well by the board. However, there was no discussion between us and the board; they took our information, thanked us and moved on, which was disappointing. With a 75 percent No vote on the Town of Lynne referendum, their neighboring town, we had expected more interest. Another visit or email contact may be required.
Town of Lynne: This third presentation was a big win. Tom Jerow attended also. The Town of Lynne was very receptive to our Resolution. In fact, they had already voted and approved it in a previous meeting and had simply failed to notify us. There was productive conversation between us, the board and the town people in attendance. Updates were given and information exchanged. We were all on the same page, and many warm thanks were exchanged among us.
Town of Nokomis: An encouraging level of interest in our presentation was shown by the board and the discussion went well. Alan VanRaalte was there for another issue and spoke in support of our resolution. The board confirmed that they will vote on our Resolution at the next meeting and they expect it to be passed.
Town of Schoepke: At their board meeting, along with a cover letter and copy of our resolution, I gave a brief description of our intent, and they appeared receptive. I presented them a cover letter and copy of our Resolution, asking it to be added to their agenda for the next meeting. Their rules do not allow discussion until the item is posted to their agenda.
Going forward: We have been added to the agenda in the Town of Cassian for October, and have sent emails asking to present the Resolution to Hazelhurst and Crescent. Minocqua and Three Lakes are on the near horizon, as is Rhinelander and Woodboro. We also will be presenting the Resolution this month to OCLRA -- Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association.
If you would like to attend or offer any assistance with our upcoming meetings with Town boards, please contact me at eroutdoors@hotmail.com.
Goal: to avoid this happening in our lake-rich region.