The State prohibits filling in lake beds

Nov. 11, 2018--Last  Tuesday voters in Oneida County turned out at the polls in record  numbers to express their views. Of the county's eligible voters, 84  percent voted, compared to 75 percent in 2014, the last mid-term  election.  There were some local elections of interest, but the  Referendum Question on whether or not the county should lease publicly  owned lands in the Town of Lynne for mining was the main factor for the  dramatic uptick in voting. More than 62 percent said "No" to mining at the Lynne area. For full election results, visit the county's website page.

Through  a grassroots effort, concerned citizens from across Oneida County  worked tirelessly for three months leading up to the Nov. 6 election to  educate and motivate voters through Letters to the Editor, placing ads  in newspapers, and spots on radio and TV. The Lac du Flambeau Tribe did  its own educating. The Tribe sponsored a series of TV ads speaking to  the importance of the Willow Flowage region, which is part of the Ceded  Territory for northern Wisconsin tribes.

The  pro-mining forces, by comparison, mailed to every resident in Oneida  County a series of expensive, colorful, large-size cards that featured  cavorting deer, green woods and sparkling waters, to suggest that  sulfide mining is completely safe and pro-environment. The slick mailer  was paid for by WMC Issues Mobilization Council, Inc., an  anti-environment and anti-labor union Madison, Wis.-based group whose  donors are not subject to disclosure.

The  next step for concerned citizens who do not want to see a sulfide mine  at Lynne will be to closely monitor the Oneida County Board's actions in  coming months. In a Channel 12 interview on Nov. 7, Board chair Dave Hintz suggested that the matter of a mine would be dropped.

Those  who regularly attend the Planning and Development Committee meetings  understand how dedicated some of the Supervisors on that committee are  to bringing mining to Oneida County. Their mentor Sen. Tom Tiffany will  continue to prod them to find a way to promote mining on publicly-owned  forest lands. Tiffany authored Act 134, passed last year, a law that  considerably weakens environmental protections and forbids local  governments from passing more stringent laws than the State's for  protecting the environment from contamination. Under Tiffany's tutelage,  in June the Oneida County Board passed a Revised Mining Ordinance that  opened up all county lands, public and private, zoned A-1 Forestry and  General use, to mining as a permitted use, but the decision to lease the  mineral rights resides with the owner of the land. In the case of the  Oneida County Forest, that would be the residents of Oneida County.  Their representatives (the County Board) can decide to lease or not  lease those rights.

In August 2012, when the Lynne deposit site was last looked at for mining by the Board, Brian  Desmond, Corporation Counsel, stated, "if Resolution #59-2012 does not  pass, the direction of the County Board is that mining should no longer  proceed as a policy goal for Oneida County. There is no longer a need  for the Forestry, Land & Recreations Committee to continue with the  mining process. Oneida County Board will no longer endorse mining in  Oneida County. If Resolution # 59-2012 passes it would allow the process  of mining to continue." #59-2012 was defeated by 12-9. The issue of  mining lay dormant for five years, until the passage of Act 134, the law  that Gov. Scott Walker said would declare "Wisconsin is open for  mining." Gov. Walker was defeated in his third bid for governor.  Newly-elected Tony Evers is on record as committed to protecting the  environment.

The  Referendum Question was put on the ballot to provide the "social  license" that Sen. Tiffany stated was a necessary prerequisite for  bringing mining into the area. The issue now is whether the County Board  will honor the wishes of the 2/3s majority of Oneida County voters to  keep the Lynne area clean and the Willow Flowage, a DNR-designated  Outstanding Water Resource, healthy and free of sulfide contaminants.

Oct. 25, 2018–As  the referendum question on the Lynne Mine approaches, a group in Oneida  County has gained traction on outreach and education about how a mine  would harm the environment and tourism. Protect the Willow recently  hosted an informational tour of the potential mine site. More than 80  people attended and were able to experience this water-rich area  firsthand.

“The site practically speaks for itself,” said Peter  Zambon, Rhinelander resident and member of Protect the Willow. “As those  who attended the tour know, just a few steps off the access road and  there is standing water everywhere. This isn’t a safe place for a  sulfide mine. This type of mine has always caused pollution.”

Protect the Willow recently released a 2-minute educational video about  how sulfide mining could impact Oneida County. To date, the video has  been viewed more than 17,000 times on Facebook and has been shared more  than 500 times. “This video is the clearest explanation I have seen  about what sulfide mining could mean for Oneida County,” said Kathy  Keogh Noel, resident of Sugar Camp.

The group’s organizing  efforts are geared to protecting the Willow River and Flowage from the  risks of sulfide mining. As the referendum approaches on Nov. 6, it has  shared this message through newspaper, radio and television ads, and  door-to-door canvassing. More than 500 “Protect the Willow” yard signs  have been distributed to homeowners and businesses.

“People from  all backgrounds and political stripes want to show their love for Oneida  County’s natural resources,” said Zambon. “We had a huge demand for the  yard signs and it has been encouraging to see them pop up in new places  as the referendum approaches. We know the vote could be neck and neck,  so we’re giving everything we’ve got to get the word out.”

By Dave Noel, Sugar Camp, WI

Oct. 25, 2018—Now  that sulfide mining is allowed in Wisconsin, the Oneida County  Supervisors are considering leasing county-owned forest property near  the Town of Lynne for a zinc mine. Oneida County residents have an  opportunity to vote against consideration of this mine in the upcoming  election.

Do you know what sulfide mining is? 

It is the  practice of extracting metals such as copper, gold, silver and zinc from  a sulfide-rich ore body. It typically involves explosives and heavy  mining equipment to expose the metal ore in an open pit. There are major  environmental issues that are of concern, primarily the run-off from  the tailings. The tailings are the rubble created when the rock  containing the metal is crushed in order to release the ore. In this  type of metallic mining, the tailings contain sulfides. When exposed to  water and air sulfides become sulfuric acid – battery acid. The acid and  other heavy metal debris leach into the surrounding environment. It is  devastating to aquatic organisms and degrading to water quality.

At the proposed Lynne site the ore deposit is located immediately below a  wetland and an aquifer that drain into the Willow River, just a half a  mile away. The Willow River watershed includes the vibrant Willow  Flowage, which flows into the Tomahawk River, Lake Nokomis, and  eventually the Wisconsin River. The mining lobby suggests that there are  ways to protect the watershed during a mining operation, but the fact  is that this has never been achieved when mining in a wetland. 

The  processing of the ore may pose an even bigger problem than its removal  at Lynne. The proposed mine contains primarily zinc ore, which is not  particularly valuable, certainly not as valuable as gold or even copper.  What this means is that the processing will most likely have to be done  on-site to keep costs low and profits high. In order to process the  ore, the zinc-bearing sulfide rock is crushed into a fine flour-like  substance which is then separated in large vats of strong chemicals. Of  greatest concern is the waste material, the tailings. If the tailings  are not permanently stored and protected from the atmosphere and rain,  sulfuric acid drainage occurs. Mounds of fine tailings, about 5 million  tons at Lynne, would be nearly impossible to protect from the elements.  Sometimes, tailings are returned to the pit after the ore is removed. In  this case the proximity to the Willow watershed eliminates the option  of storing the waste in the pit.

The geographic realities of the Lynne deposit would make proper management of the tailings very difficult and very expensive.

Mining the proposed site would destroy several thousand acres of wetland and  forests, risk acid runoff from waste rock in the open pit, and create an  unmanageable amount of potentially contaminating tailings for a yield  of a small amount of precious metals. Acid mine drainage poisons water forever. Attempted remediation is never completely successful and is  almost always a burden to taxpayers.

Oneida County voters are  beginning to receive slick flyers from the mining lobby. The Flambeau  mine is held up as an example of “clean” mining, but unlike the Lynne  mining site, it is not located on a wetland; while the remediated  Flambeau site looks nice, the runoff still does not meet Wisconsin surface groundwater quality standards; the mine, only 32 acres, avoided the issues around processing and permanent storage of the tailings by  shipping the raw ore to Canada. Mining companies have much to gain by  exploiting the natural resources in our county, but Oneida County has little to gain and much to lose by experimenting with destructive mining  methods and proven environmental hazards. Tell our Supervisors that we are not interested in risking the Northwoods and our waterways for short term financial gain. VOTE NO to mining at Lynne on Nov. 6.

By Karl Fate, Rhinelander, WI

Oct. 24, 2018—Prior to the upcoming election we are seeing extremely misleading statements  contained in flyers and letters that are designed to sway our vote on  whether our county government should lease the Lynne Deposit on our  county forest, just upstream from the Willow Flowage.

We are being told that “strong environmental standards” are required, and  that, “There have been no changes to the groundwater standards.”

Our groundwater standards were required because of the Clean Water Act. It  is critical to understand that these standards allow degradation of our  groundwater quality, up to what is known as Maximum Contaminant Levels  (MCL).  These standards can be set depending on, if “the costs of  treatment would outweigh the public health benefits of a lower MCL.”  These “standards” are a political compromise, not “strong environmental  standards.”

In Wisconsin, a waste disposal facility is allowed to  exceed this political compromise. A sulfide mine at Lynne would create  an enormous amount of waste material, dwarfing our county landfill.  The  mining industry is allowed to exceed groundwater “standards” over a  much larger area than is allowed for any other industry or business, up  to 1,200 feet from the edge of any waste disposal facility.

We are also reading that there is insufficient information regarding the  hydrogeology at the Lynne site. You would reach this conclusion if you  only do an internet search. To find the information about the  hydrogeology at Lynne, you would have to dig deeper.

Noranda did do a study of the hydrogeology of the Lynne site, some of which can be  found in the “Notice of Intent,” which can be read in the Oneida  Courthouse. This study of wells constructed in the large wetland areas  shows that the groundwater was only inches from the surface at that  time, and it is wetter now than it was then. For anyone who has spent  time walking through these saturated wetland areas, the reality of the  hydrogeology is obvious.

If our county board signs a mining lease  at Lynne, they won’t be able to just back out of it when they feel like  it, or when the reality of how wet the site is finally sinks in.   Unfortunately, only four out of 21 supervisors have taken the time to  examine the water resources at Lynne, something critical to making an  informed decision. Other supervisors have chosen to focus on other  mining operations, unrelated to Lynne, at considerable taxpayer expense. 

We have ample information about Lynne to cast an  informed vote. Our county government should not repeat its past  mistakes. The facts on the ground tell us we should vote “No” on leasing the Lynne Site on Nov. 6.

By Karl Fate, Rhinelander, WI

Oct. 10, 2018—On  Nov. 6 we will be voting on a referendum question on whether or not our  county government should lease the county forest for a mine at the  Lynne Mineral Deposit site.

Now we are being told by various government officials and local media that  we will be voting “blindfolded” on the issue because we may not really  know very much about a mine at Lynne, so perhaps we should just pretend  that it might be just like the Flambeau Mine site.

At this point, there is really no excuse for anyone in the media, or in the  Courthouse, to claim ignorance about the issues at Lynne. Perhaps the  local newspaper should hire an investigative reporter to dig up the  “reams” of information about Lynne that have been hiding under our noses for the last 25 years.

We do know very much about Lynne, and it is much different than Flambeau.

The negative impacts from a sulfide mine can be divided into three categories. Direct environmental impacts, infrastructure impacts, and  socioeconomic impacts. All three are interrelated, and are substantially influenced by the location of the mineral deposit.  

We know where the Lynne deposit is, and we know where the Flambeau deposit is.

Any industry that has a wastewater discharge will want their business located next to a major, industrial river, making it much easier to meet effluent limits, and minimizing the infrastructure necessary to accomplish the discharge of the wastewater.

The Flambeau deposit is right next to a major industrial river, not by choice, but by dumb luck.

The Lynne deposit is not right next to a major industrial river. The groundwater that flows over the deposit, and the surface waters that  flow over, and aside the area over the deposit, all enter Willow Lake and the Willow River. The Willow River is not allowed to be degraded  because it flows into the Willow Flowage, a DNR-designated Outstanding  Resource Water.

The mining industry does not like non-degradation standards, so it is exceeding likely that there would be a wastewater discharge pipeline constructed at Lynne to discharge the wastewater somewhere else. This would substantially add to the negative infrastructure impacts to the  area.

A mine needs power, and a way to get ore, or ore concentrate, to a rail line for transporting somewhere for further processing, so it’s extremely beneficial for a mine to be near a power  source and a rail line. The closer the mine is to existing infrastructure, the less are the infrastructure impacts. The farther from existing infrastructure, the greater the infrastructure impacts.

Flambeau  is very near existing infrastructure; Lynne is not. The infrastructure impacts at Lynne would be large enough to make a mine there unacceptable.

By the same token, the negative boom and bust impacts of a mine are minimized near existing development, such as Ladysmith, and are much greater in a more remote area like Lynne.  

Then there are the physical differences between Flambeau and Lynne.

The Lynne site is dominated by wetlands. These wetlands are saturated with  groundwater, mere inches from the surface, a 40-ft. or so deep column that flows over the deposit towards the Willow River. There are large wetland areas over the western and eastern portions of the deposit. The western wetlands are associated with Stream 16-4 that flows into Willow  Lake, just upstream of the bridge on Willow Road. The eastern wetlands are fed by Stream 18-14 that flows from the east, and are adjacent to a  primarily bog lake bed to the north.

Unlike Lynne, Flambeau is an upland site. There are some small wetlands at Flambeau, and some were  directly, and indirectly, impacted by the mine. There are three small  intermittent streams at Flambeau, one being the controversial Stream  “C”, that is labeled an “impaired water” because of its copper levels. All of these streams flow into the Flambeau, a major industrial  river. 

In combination, the exceedingly favorable location of the mineral deposit, the extremely short duration of the mine, the off-site processing of the ore, and the relatively dry environment, make the Flambeau Mine an anomaly in northern Wisconsin, and cannot be used as a template for other deposits.

The fact that there are any water quality issues at the “Flambeau Anomaly” does not bode well for another mine in the Northwoods, where much more difficult conditions are the  norm.

Analysis by Karl Fate
Rhinelander


June 21, 2018--On June 19, the Oneida County Board decided to preemptively allow sulfide mines in areas of our county zoned 1-A Forestry and General Use, so that a mining company could avoid having to ask for a rezone the area. This effectively removes a critical protection from the towns and from all of  us who pay taxes here. 

  
This had been pushed by some supervisors since 2012, as a way to retaliate  against the Town of Lynne, and to force a mine on them. Although this  maneuver was designed to facilitate a mine at Lynne, it could potentially impact any zoned town in the county, some having large  portions zoned 1-A Forestry and General Use.  


This Resolution came from the P&D Committee, which does not have a single member who is a strong advocate for our water. In fact, several committee members have been pushing a mine at Lynne for many years. It is clear that this process was used by this committee to push the agendas of the committee members onto the full Board of Supervisors.    


Perhaps the most disgusting aspect of this debacle is that the supervisors disingenuously played innocent, as if they had no choice in voting for something that the people did not want. Yes, gentlemen, you did have a choice, and you decided to vote against local control, the towns, the taxpayers, and against protecting our water resources.  


In the early 1990s, our county government lost the public’s trust, and had to learn the perils of sulfide mining in our watery world the hard way. Those lessons have not been lost; they have been deliberately ignored. This government is  making the same mistake, and unlike the 1990s, it is not an innocent  one. The opposition that you have already seen -- the impressive turnout at the June 6 Public Hearing, and the two dozen public comments made on Tuesday, all against allowing mining in our county -- will increase  exponentially. And you will learn that the physical realities at Lynne will not go away. Once again, out tax dollars will be squandered because our government insists on trying to mount a dead horse.