By Eric Rempala August 29, 2023-OCCWA recently presented an updated Sulfide Mining Resolution to the town of Schoepke at their August board meeting. The updated resolution by Karl Fate which has slight changes from his original resolution still reflects the same purpose. The basic intent of both resolutions is to call for the repeal of Wisconsin ACT 134 which among other things eliminated the extremely popular Prove It First Law.
We are happy to report that the Schoepke Town Board unanimously approved the resolution joining the nine towns of Cassian, Crescent, Lake Tomahawk, Lynne, Newbold, Nokomis, Pelican, Pine Lake, Stella, plus the city of Rhinelander in opposition of ACT 134. Just to be clear, there is no need for towns who passed the previous resolution to consider the updated one as both resolutions call for the same repeal.
I would be remiss at this time if I did not express our appreciation to the town of Schoepke. The board meeting was exceptionally well run, with a large number of residents attending. Having attended many town meetings, I can say it was a pleasure seeing such an engaged audience as well as a board willing to solicit public input.
OCCWA will continue soliciting towns on this mining issue going forward, hoping to gain a larger majority of Oneida County town support. Clearly, the towns already on board represent more than 50% of the county's population. Potential September visits of towns not yet onboard are Woodboro, Three Lakes, Piehl, Woodruff. If you are a resident of one of these towns and would like Karl Fates latest resolution added to your towns upcoming agenda, please contact your town and request it.
Karl Fates updated mining resolution.
Sulfide Mining Resolution
Whereas, Oneida County is an extremely water rich part of Wisconsin, with over 1,100 lakes, and with nearly 38% of its surface comprised of lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands, totaling over 463 square miles, and
Whereas, there are three known sulfide deposits in Oneida County that are associated with ancient rock formations of volcanic origin, and
Whereas, sulfide deposits contain minerals that are compounds of metal and sulfur, and the process of mining these deposits creates an enormous amount of waste material, when exposed to air and water, create a condition, know as Acid Mine Drainage, that leaches metals from the surrounding environment, and remain a threat to the water resource for hundreds of years, and
Whereas, in Oneida County, these ancient deposits were buried under thick layers of glacial drift and water when the Glaciers receded, and
Whereas, our lakes, streams, and wetlands are intimately connected to the water contained in this glacial material, and In order to keep a sulfide mining operation reasonably dry, the pumping required would reduce lake and water well levels, reduce stream flows, and impair wetland function, and
Whereas, more than 62% of Oneida County voters opposed a sulfide mine upstream of the Willow Flowage, which is of great County, Tribal, and regional significance, and
Whereas, GreenLight Metals controls the Lobo Deposit and the Black Property in the Town of Schoepke, and is proposing to conduct exploratory drillings in areas north and west of Lucille Lake near the upper Wolf River, which is also of great County, Tribal, and regional significance, and
Whereas, the water resources of Oneida County are of profound importance, providing many people that live and work here with sustenance for many generations from our incredible fisheries, and many others that benefit economically from the folks that come from far and wide to enjoy the scenic beauty of the Northwoods, and
Whereas, the repeal of the Mining Moratorium Law, known as Act 134, eliminates the “Prove it first” provision from the metallic mining law, and also makes groundwater standards non-applicable in certain areas, weakens wetland protections, streamlines approval of bulk sampling, shortens the timeline for review of mine permits, weakens the criteria for the approval of high capacity wells, weakens the public process for the approval of mine permits, eliminates solid waste disposal fees, limits the timeframe for predictive modeling, and limits the timeframe to maintain an irrevocable trust for preventative and remedial activities, and
Whereas, the future of Oneida County depends on keeping our water clean and protecting our lakes, streams, and wetlands.
Now therefore be it resolved that the following Towns, Lake Associations, and Sportfishing groups consider Sulfide Mining to be incompatible with the goals stated above and ask the Wisconsin State Legislature to repeal Wisconsin 2017 Act 134 and replace it with the former Law, subject to thorough public review and amendment.
By Eric Rempala July 28, 2023-
First, we will start out with a tremendous YouTube video by Dr Steven Emerman. The Myth of Clean Mining - YouTube This 1-hour video answers all you need to know about Metallic Sulfide Mining's environmental impacts. For town board members to residents, if you want to clearly understand the ramifications of the Northwoods becoming a Mining District this is a must watch!
Next, we go to Marathon County where OCCWA has worked with local interests concerned about mining near the Eau Claire Dells. As we have stated before mining Northern Wisconsin is not just an Oneida County issue. From a Wausau Pilot and Review article we get Marathon County "seeking a return of local government control over environmental matters related to metallic mining exploration" Marathon County seeks local control over mining, wind energy projects, farm runoff - Wausau Pilot & Review (wausaupilotandreview.com) Also from Wausau Pilot and Review we get a fantastic Op Ed from Wisconsin River Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited opposing Metallic Sulfide Mining in our water rich areas. Bravo TU! Opinion: Clean, safe water is more precious than gold. Mining puts that at risk. - Wausau Pilot & Review (wausaupilotandreview.com)
Green Light Metals in their most recent PowerPoint Presentation reiterates their desire to turn Northern Wisconsin into a Mining District. PowerPoint Presentation (greenlightmetals.com)
A mining district is a special-purpose administrative subdivision used in North America. Mining districts were organized in sparsely populated, remote areas where mineral and metals mining were a viable commercial enterprise. Initially improvised as a means of self-governance for 19th-century prospectors, mining districts were eventually statutorily defined and still exist.
Sacrifice Zone Definition:
A sacrifice zone or sacrifice area is a geographic area that has been permanently impaired by heavy environmental alterations or economic disinvestment, often through locally unwanted land use. Wikipedia What are ‘sacrifice zones’ and why do some Americans live in them? | Adrienne Matei | The Guardian
In other news we at OCCWA have worked with and contributed to a new Facebook group Mining Impact Coalition of WI. Check it out when you have time we think you'll like it!
Last but not least, I'd like to call attention to a fledgling group in the UP who are working to raise awareness of mining alongside of the Porcupine Mountains. Protect Porcupine Mountains State Park From the Contaminating Metallic Sulfide Mine Copperwood - Protect the Porkies For anyone who has visited the Porkies, you know what a wonderful place it is. The website is accurate and offers a Petition to oppose a mine alongside the Presque Isle River and upstream of Lake Superior.
By Karl Fate May 19, 2023- During the 1980s I conducted independent research on the mineral exploration patterns in Northern Wisconsin. The most perplexing patterns were drillings conducted by Noranda at what was at the time called the “Stockley Creek Site” in the Upper-Wolf River Watershed and the northeastern portion of the Town of Schoepke. This exploration site would eventually become known as the Wolf River Deposit but is really comprised of three poorly known deposits referred to as “Rabbit”, “Duckblind”, and “Lobo”.
Recently, a mining-related company, “Badger Minerals”, drilled a small number of exploration drill holes at these deposits. Badger acquired rights to the Lobo Deposit on private property but declined to acquire “Rabbit” and “Duckblind” when they terminated their drilling program. According to reporting at that time, “the results of the drilling program weren't worth pursuing further and the company will not be purchasing the land that the drilling was conducted on.” Rabbit and Duckblind are part of the 2nd phase of the Pelican River Forest, but the Lobo Deposit is not.
At this time a related company called Greenlight Metals controls the Lobo Deposit and what they call “Lobo East”, aka the “Black Property”, north and west of Lucille Lake, which lies between Meister Lane and Lake River Road in the Town of Schoepke.
The protection of the watershed of the Upper-Wolf River is of critical importance to the Town of Schoepke, Oneida County, multiple downstream Counties, and is of Regional and National significance. In 2018 our County Government approved a new Mining Ordinance that sets the County up “to host a regional mill & tailings facility” receiving sulfide wastes from across the North, and that removes an important local control from much of the County, including the Upper-Wolf River Watershed. Stay tuned for further details.
Link for Green Light Metals (referenced in article) presentation PowerPoint Presentation (greenlightmetals.com)
Mining Tidbits By Eric Rempala,
In a recent article posted by BHP Mining they state
BHP and Rio Tinto "aim to jointly identify a portfolio of tailings management partners with whom they can work to accelerate the development of technologies that could increase water recovery and reduce potential safety risks and environmental footprints associated with tailings storage facilities".
Thats interesting! I thought our legislators told us the current process was safe when they eliminated our Prove It First Law.
See BHP article link here BHP and Rio Tinto invite collaboration on new tailings technologies
By Karl Fate January 30, 2023-
Tom Tiffany’s mining fantasies have not been working out. He authored what may go down as one of the worst laws ever written, designed to create a low-cost iron mine by removing the top of the Penokee Hills and filling in the headwaters of the Bad River, a major river feeding Lake Superior, with the mine wastes. It did not end well for Mr. Tiffany.
Then Senator Tiffany’s dream came true when he was able overturn the so-called “Mining Moratorium Law”, despite overwhelming opposition to his scheme. The law was never a moratorium on metallic mining in our State but contained a common sense, “prove it first” requirement that the industry did not like.
The repeal of this law was treated by some in the industry, and much of the media, as a greenlight for Metallic Sulfide Mining in the Northwoods, but an examination of the difficult history of this type of mining in our Northwoods environment tells a different story.
Sulfide Mining became an issue in Northern Wisconsin when the Flambeau Deposit was discovered in 1968. Kennecott’s mining proposal was stopped in 1976 by local control, the year after Exxon Minerals discovered the world-class zinc/copper/precious metals deposit southwest of Crandon. The Exxon Mine was halted in 1986 amid local opposition to the storage of sulfide waste materials, and the dewatering of ground and surface waters in the Wolf River watershed.
By 1989 several mineral deposits had been discovered in northern Wisconsin and both resulting mining proposals had failed. Mineral exploration was intense, and interest was high, including for an area on County Forest just upstream of the Willow Flowage where Exxon and Kerr-McGee had been gathering data, but their activities were limited because the Forest was closed to metallic mining.
When Oneida County made the fateful, and extremely unpopular decision to open the Forest to metallic mining, Noranda Minerals was quick to secure a Mineral Lease to a vast wetland area upstream of the Flowage. Noranda promptly discovered the Lynne Deposit in 1990 and initiated a mine permitting process in 1992, but soon stopped the process when the obvious water issues came to light. Noranda eventually asked for an extension on their lease with the County and was denied. Noranda formally released its interest in the Lynne Site on March 10th, 1998. Noranda was a major player in northern Wisconsin, involved at Pelican River, Wolf River, and Reef, but they finally hit it big when they discovered the Lynne Deposit. Ironically, it also marked the beginning of their exit from the State.
A group of Supervisors began pushing for a mine at Lynne again in 2009. They were turned back three times in 2012 amid overwhelming public and tribal opposition. They tried again in 2018 with a Referendum Question following the repeal of the “Moratorium Law”. The Referendum Question was defeated by a substantial margin of opposition to leasing the Lynne Site, with only three of the twenty Towns favoring it.
The discovery of the Lynne Deposit physically brought the sulfide mining issue into Oneida County, and it clarified the problems with sulfide mining in this environment, already known to close observers of the Exxon Project.
In 1993 the Flambeau Mine began production, but it was dramatically scaled back compared to the original proposal, removing only the rich, upper portion of the deposit, leaving the rest, and shipping the ore to Canada for processing. After partial reclamation, the project was plagued by nagging water quality issues.
In 1997 the so-called “Mining Moratorium Law” was approved and was tested during the permitting process for the new Crandon Mine proposal, but it was somewhat of a moot point as the project suffered from social opposition and a myriad of environmental problems including an ill-fated scheme to pump the wastewater through a 38-mile-long discharge pipeline, drawing both Oneida and Lincoln Counties into the fray.
Tom Tiffany and his cronies undoubtedly hoped that repeal of the “moratorium law” would be a complete reset, creating a greenlight for sulfide mines beneath our watery world. They want the Counties and Towns to believe that they must accept and promote sulfide mining, even removing local control to facilitate it.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The historical reality is that multiple mining proposals failed substantially before passage of the “moratorium law” and the final Crandon project was doomed to failure despite it. Local Governments in Oneida County have recently gone on record opposing Sulfide Mining in the County and mineral exploration is receiving even more scrutiny than before it ended during the 1990s. The physical and social realities on the ground that caused these failures have not changed. Most of the Industry realize that Northern Wisconsin is an unwise investment because of these realities.
Karl Fate is a longtime Oneida County resident and OCCWA's go to contributor for all things mining. His resume includes- First got involved around 1982 doing research on exploration patterns, reviewed the first Exxon project, was involved reviewing Lynne on all three occasions, reviewed Flambeau #2, and reviewed the final Crandon proposals. Was also involved with the Oneida County Mining Ordinance back when it was designed to be protective.
The recent DNR decision referred to in the header is covered below here on our homepage "DNR Grants Flambeau Mine Certificate of Completion."
Dated January 20, 2023.
January 20, 2023
A joint press release by Deer Tail Scientific, Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Wisconsin Sierra Club, and Center for Science in Public Participation
DNR Declares Flambeau Mine Reclamation Process “Complete” Despite Ongoing Pollution
-Decision Shows Weakness of Wisconsin’s Mining Laws
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has granted a request from Flambeau Mining Company (FMC) to certify that the company’s restoration of the Flambeau Mine project site near Ladysmith has been successfully completed. The so-called “Certificate of Completion” (COC), originally sought by the company in 2007, was denied earlier due to surface water contamination problems in a Flambeau River tributary that crosses a portion of the project site.
The tributary at issue in 2007 (“Stream C”) remains polluted to the present day, but the DNR nonetheless decided to grant Flambeau Mining Company the certificate, citing provisions in Wisconsin’s mining code that allowed them to do so despite the pollution.
"The DNR's declaration of "complete" reclamation of the Flambeau Mine is just more greenwashing of a polluted mine site," said Al Gedicks, Executive Secretary of the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council and one of the plaintiffs in a 2011 Clean Water Act lawsuit against Flambeau Mining Company. He added, "The company will continue to promote the mine to targeted communities in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota as an example of an environmental success story while pollution continues at the site."
Background: The Flambeau Mine was an open pit metal-sulfide mine that operated for four years in the mid-1990s in Rusk County, Wisconsin. Constructed on the banks of the Flambeau River, the mine produced copper, gold, silver and a small amount of zinc. It was owned by Rio Tinto/Kennecott (Salt Lake City, UT) and operated by their subsidiary, Flambeau Mining Company (FMC).
When production ceased in 1997, the 32-acre mine pit was backfilled with waste rock, the surface was revegetated with prairie grass, and several recreational trails were constructed for public use. In 1999, two sets of wells were drilled within the backfilled pit to keep track of what’s going on beneath the surface. Ever since, high concentrations of heavy metals have been reported in the groundwater.
In 2002, FMC started to test the water in a Flambeau River tributary that crosses a portion of the restored project site. High concentrations of copper exceeding state water quality standards were reported on a consistent basis for many years and the result was that a half-mile segment of the tributary was eventually added to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) list of Impaired Waters in 2012. It remains listed to the present day.
FMC has tried to clean up the polluted tributary using a variety of different approaches approved by the DNR. Unfortunately, not only has the contamination persisted but in 2022, an additional stretch of the tributary within the project site was added to the EPA’s Impaired Waters list. As noted by Dr. David Chambers, an environmental consultant who has been tracking water contamination problems at the Flambeau Mine project site for many years, “Stream C continues to be contaminated even after the completion of reclamation activities. Both copper and zinc levels exceed water quality standards.”
In handing down its decision to certify that FMC had successfully reclaimed the Flambeau Mine project site, the DNR cited provisions of Wisconsin’s mining code that allowed them to do so. Primarily, they focused attention on their determination that FMC had “completed reclamation in accordance with the approved reclamation plan.”
That approach was consistent with what FMC had maintained in a legal brief filed in 2007, the first time the company sought COC certification. When making their legal arguments before the judge, the company characterized the COC process as “simple and limited to essentially “checking off” whether FMC has or has not completed certain specified reclamation tasks …”. Absent was any consideration of whether or not the reclamation plan had actually succeeded in protecting public waters.
In 2007, citizens challenged FMC’s interpretation of the law at a contested case hearing and were able to get some concessions from the company. For the most part, however, both the judge and representatives of the DNR agreed with FMC’s reading of the law.
In other words, Wisconsin’s mining laws simply require a mining company to prove they did whatever their reclamation plan said they were going to do. For example, FMC’s plan called for the construction of a stormwater detention basin to filter out contaminants before reaching Stream C, and FMC constructed the basin. The company also backfilled the mine pit with waste rock and added some limestone to try to minimize groundwater contamination, as specified in the plan.
The recent Flambeau Mine decision confirms that the issue of whether or not a mining company’s reclamation plan succeeded in protecting the state’s waters does not factor into a COC decision. When the DNR awarded the COC to Flambeau Mining Company, there was no mention of how the groundwater within the backfilled mine pit is highly contaminated and undrinkable. Nor was there any mention of how FMC’s stormwater detention basin had failed to adequately sequester contaminants and that, as a result, a tributary of the Flambeau River is now impaired.
The only thing the DNR’s decision stated with regard to water contamination issues was that FMC, in acknowledgement of the Stream C pollution problem, will develop a work plan for assessing impacts to the stream in early 2023. As noted by Dave Blouin, State Mining Committee Chair for the Sierra Club, “Wisconsin's environmental community will be watching carefully to ensure that the assessment and any follow-up steps including cleanup or remediation are accomplished to ensure the stream is healthy.” He added, “The impairment of Stream C due to pollution from the mine site demonstrates that the Flambeau Mine is not an example of a successful metal-sulfide mine.”
Laura Gauger, a citizen who submitted comments in opposition to the COC, summed it up like this: “Wisconsin’s weak mining laws have brought us to where we are today. Even though FMC’s restoration of the Flambeau Mine project site has been declared “complete” by the DNR, it doesn’t mean the water over there is clean. Rather, we are left with a polluted stream on the EPA’s Impaired Waters list and a large swath of river frontage with undrinkable groundwater.” She added, “Unfortunately, the public appears to have no legal recourse.”
OCCWA Commentary- We at OCCWA have long lobbied for the repeal of ACT134 and the reinstatement of the Prove It First Law. We included this request in our resolution recommendations to towns. Clearly the Flambeau Mine which has ceased mining operations 26 years ago continues to produce pollution that requires an on-property stream to be classified as impaired would not be an example of a successful mine by original Prove It First Law standards. That impaired stream is a direct tributary to the Flambeau River.
One now can understand why the mining industry lobbied hard for our politicians to reinvent our mining laws with Act134 and eliminate the highly successful Prove It First Law. One has a harder time understanding why our politicians chose to pacify the mining industry over public opinion.
For a short refresher on Metallic Sulfide Mining environmental impacts check out link below.
Metallic Sulfide Mining | Sierra Club
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/
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:
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/
By Eric Rempala
June 25 2022- Recently I attended several DNR zoom meetings pertaining to PFAS. In the recent light of the state of Colorado banning all PFAS from drilling fluids, one of the questions I had posed was are the DNR's approved drilling fluids used for drilling core samples in mining exploration tested physically for PFAS content. The answer I was hoping for was yes, period, end of story. That unfortunately was not the answer I received.
Below is a recent press release out of Langlade County. Also, at the bottom of this piece are links to the Colorado story and the actual DNR PFAS meetings.
" Langlade County: Wisconsin state regulators do not know if chemicals used for mineral exploration drilling and water well construction are free of PFAS State regulators held two meetings June 17, 2022 during which it became clear that no one is testing drilling fluids and well construction aids for PFAS content. Officials from the Wisconsin DNR confirmed they only look at the Safety-Data-Sheets (SDS’s) supplied by the chemical manufacturers themselves as the sole determination of what is in the products. Most of the products are made by oil & gas industry service companies like Halliburton and Schlumberger. If the SDS doesn’t list “PFAS” as an ingredient, the DNR doesn’t look for it.
Because of an exemption known as the “Halliburton loophole” these chemical manufacturers do not need to disclose the exact make-up of their product mixtures. They simply claim that divulging the true ingredient list would jeopardize trade secrecy and give competitors an unfair advantage. Most drilling fluid Safety-Data-Sheets claim the privilege of not disclosing the full ingredient list because of trade secrecy.
There is another inherent problem with the SDS’s that regulators rely on. OSHA has rules guiding what needs to be listed on SDS’s. If a manufacturer determines that the product contains less than 1% of any ingredient they are not required to list those ingredients. Essentially, what gets shown on an SDS is up to the manufacturer’s own discretion. This discretion is what Wisconsin regulators have been relying on for years.
What about product testing? It was confirmed that state regulators like the Department of Health Services and the Department of Natural Resources do not do any testing to confirm what exactly is in the drilling products. No state agencies do testing for PFAS content or testing to confirm the information on the SDS is accurate.
It was also confirmed that the preeminent testing authority in the nation does not test products used for exploration drilling and well construction for PFAS content. The NSF confirmed that they ‘may’ only test for PFAS content if it is one of the listed ingredients on the chemical labeling. Even though there are over 180 drilling products that carry the NSF logo indicating they are allowed to come in contact with drinking water, this full product listing does not include testing for PFAS content.
Since the manufacturers are incentivized to not list the full ingredient list, this eliminates their need to test drilling fluids for full chemical content. Why would an oil & gas industry supplier test their products to determine if they contain PFAS? If found it would be the end of sales for those products. Conversely, if the manufacturers know their products contain PFAS, but they are allowed to not disclose the full ingredient content, why would they list exactly what is in there? If the SDS or the labeling listed PFAS as an ingredient it would be a giant red flag that the product is not safe.
Who is testing products that are used for drilling holes into the water aquifer? Answer: No one.
There isn’t any comprehensive testing occurring to make sure drilling fluids do not contain PFAS. This reveals the major health concern that from the time a hole is drilled in the search for minerals or water, the chances are high this is when the PFAS contamination cycle begins.
Is anyone doing something about this? Not in Wisconsin – yet. However, on June 3, 2022 Colorado decided to move forward with a law that bans the use of drilling fluids that contain PFAS. Going forward; any manufacturer who wants to offer drilling fluids for drilling exploration holes or water well construction, is going to need to prove it first that the products do not contain PFAS. The burden of full chemical content testing and factual certification is on the manufacturer – not the tax-payer. If the manufacturer wants to sell their products in Colorado they are going to have to prove they are free of PFAS.
These developments should serve as a call to action for Wisconsin state regulators and law-makers to follow the lead of Colorado. If Wisconsin wants to get ahead of the seemingly unending emerging PFAS contamination problem, they need to make sure that the chemicals used from day-one of well drilling are not the source of the problem. Wisconsin needs to ban the use of drilling fluids that contain PFAS – right now."
Colorado article
DNR PFAS technical meeting
https://wiseye.org/2022/06/17/pfas-technical-group-meeting-2/
DNR PFAS external advisory group
https://wiseye.org/2022/06/17/pfas-external-advisory-group-2/
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.
Is sulfide mining really safe? This short video may help you decide whether it's right or not for your community.
By Eric Rempala
More towns adopt the sulfide mining resolution
March 24, 2021--Karl Fate and I attended three town board meetings in the past week. The towns of Stella, Crescent, and Pine Lake all were holding votes on adopting Karl's resolution on sulfide mining. All three towns voted unanimously to adopt said resolution. We thank all three towns for their professionalism and for their foresight in protecting Oneida County's water.
These three towns now join the City of Rhinelander and the towns of Lynne, Nokomis, Cassian, Newbold and Lake Tomahawk in adopting our resolution. The town of Schoepke has committed to having us out when they feel Covid will permit.
Karl and I will continue to solicit remaining towns to have our presentation added to their town agenda's. If your town has yet to adopt our resolution, and you would like them to consider it we recommend you contact your town board to ask to have us present. You can read the resolution on our mining issues page.
As always, if you have any questions, please contact myself or Karl Fate. You may also contact us at Oneida County Clean Waters Action by using the Contact Form on the Contact Us page.Thank you for your interest in preserving our clean waters!
Rhinelander City Council approves resolution
Feb. 9, 2021--Last night the City of Rhinelander voted unanimously with one abstention to adopt a town-specific resolution opposing sulfide mining in our water-rich area.
In the language there is the request to repeal Act 134. This was adapted from Karl Fate's resolution stating the same. Rhinelander joins the towns of Lynne, Newbold, Lake Tomahawk, Cassian, and Nokomis in adopting this resolution.
The resolution is also being considered in the town of Piehl and will be presented to the towns of Stella, Crescent, and Pine Lake in the coming weeks, with the town of Schoepke committing to have it on a future agenda.
We at Oneida County Clean Waters Action thank Rhinelander and the towns who have adopted our resolution for their consideration and foresight in protecting our most valuable resource: the clean waters of Oneida County's lakes and rivers.
Open Letter to the Rhinelander City Council
Jan. 26, 2021--On behalf of Oneida County Clean Waters Action, I would like to thank you for your time and consideration on our resolution submission. We respect the fact that you chose to delay the vote for the reason to obtain input from your constituents. We understand that due to Covid this process becomes that more difficult. If any of your residents would like more information on our presentation, please direct them to this website.
We would also like to provide you with the results of the Nov 6, 2018, referendum on the Lynne deposit, which we feel is a clear indication of your city's position on metallic sulfide mining. Note that a no vote was a vote opposed to mining in Lynne.
Aldermanic District Yes No % No
AD 1 142 211 60%
AD 2 115 236 67%
AD 3 116 217 65%
AD 4 122 190 61%
AD 5 172 322 65%
AD 6 135 216 62%
AD 7 100 230 70%
AD 8 145 204 58%
The Lynne site is located 34 miles west of Rhinelander. Since this referendum two years ago, drilling has occurred this summer in the town of Schoepke, which is just east of Rhinelander and much closer than Lynne.
We urge you to consider the environmental effects of this type of mining in this water-rich area that we live in. Acid Mine Drainage and heavy metal leaching into lakes, rivers, and aquifers could damage hunting, fishing, and tourism for hundreds of years.
Remember that mining is a boom-and-bust industry, around only until the mine is exhausted. One only needs to look to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to see what happens to mining towns when the mines go away. For these reasons we urge you to consider adopting our resolution. Rhinelander will benefit far more from tourism and second home-residents who come for the beauty of the Northwoods and especially our clean waters, not to be found anywhere else. That is where we will see our greatest economic rewards.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this important issue.
Town of Nokomis and Town of Newbold adopt sulfide mining resolution
Oct. 22, 2020--Karl Fate and I attended the Cassian town board meeting this month and gave our presentation. The board was friendly and accommodating. Our information was well received and the board had numerous questions. Karl and I were pleased that the board showed a good knowledge of mining issues and we are hopeful that Cassian will consider our information and vote to adopt the resolution.
The Town of Nokomis has adopted our resolution. The board listened to our presentation at their September board meeting and was very aware of the environmental impact of sulfide mining, given their proximity to the Willow Flowage, an area threatened in 2018 by a proposed sulfide mine. We thank them for their hospitality.
The Town of Newbold also has passed our resolution, with slight modification, making it more town-specific. Our meeting with them went extremely well. What a terrific bunch of warm and welcoming people, with great interest in protecting their water.
An update on the Town of Schoepke meeting: we had been on their agenda for October but they notified us that we had been removed over concerns that because of Covid too many people might crowd into the town hall building. The town clerk was accommodating and they have offered to put us back on when they feel it will be safer.
The Town of Lake Tomahawk will put us on their agenda for the Nov. 11 meeting. Kudos to Eileen Lonsdorf for meeting with Lake Tomahawk's chairman George DeMet and explaining our presentation.
The Town of Minocqua has been sent all our information and we are hoping to be added to the agenda of a future board meeting. Anyone who is a resident of Minocqua can contact the town board and ask that we be added. Help is always appreciated!
Our request to be added to a board meeting at the Town of Woodruff is on hold because of Covid concerns, according to town chairman Mike Timmons.
The Town of Three Lakes has been contacted and board chaiman Jeff Bruss has told us that he did not feel mining was an issue for his town. We have sent him some information that we hoped to convince him that may not be true, but he has yet to reply. I'm afraid if a town chairman refuses to hear our presentation there is not much more we can do, other than ask the town residents to speak up and request that we be added to an agenda.
Karl and I will be attending the Rhinelander City Council meeting Mon., Oct. 26, to request that we be added to their next meeting. All our information has been sent to the mayor and city council members, and if one chooses to have us added we should be in line for the following meeting. Any Hodag love would be appreciated!
On a sour note: Karl and I attended the Hazelhurst Town Hall to ask to be added to their November agenda. Chairman Ted Cushing was not receptive. In fact, this was the worst reception we have been given by any town. Mr. Cushing apparently had a preconceived idea of what we were presenting and immediately said he was not interested. Funny thing: Karl was a few minutes late and by the time he got there, it was all over. We found it curious that a chairman who represented a town whose citizens voted 74 per cent against mining at Lynne, had no interest in our presentation. Karl did send a cordial follow-up email but has yet to hear back.
I would like to thank County Supervisor Jim Winkler for his support. He asked to have our resolution brought up at a Conservation and UW Extension committee meeting, which I gratefully attended. Mr. Winkler was very supportive of our work, which is no surprise as he is a staunch supporter of protecting the waters of our Northwoods.
Finally, I would like to address those following us at OCCWA and are Oneida county residents or landowners: We are a small group of grassroots, boots on the ground volunteers who have experience in protecting our water-rich area from the toxic damage of sulfide mining. Many of us cut our teeth with The Protect the Willow action. Karl Fate, who has been involved in these issues since the 1980s, is our backbone. His knowledge of mining and its legislation both past and present is the engine that drives us.
We are working hard to protect our water, but we can't do it without the people of Oneida County. So, we ask you to follow our website, share our information, share your concerns with your elected officials, and join us in protecting Oneida County's water!
Note: You can read the 2020 Resolution on the Mining Issues page.
By Ron James
Langlade County
April 22, 2020, Rhinelander—This afternoon the Oneida County Planning & Development Committee held a meeting in the Oneida County Courthouse. There were a few in-person attendees and approximately 20 attendees who participated by phone. About 60 written comment letters and emails were received from the community prior to the meeting.
The item on today’s agenda, “Discussion/decision concerning an exploration license for Badger minerals in the Town of Schoepke, Oneida County” was the issue that generated all the public comment.
An announcement in early February that a Canadian-owned mineral company had been granted an exploratory drilling license in the Headwaters of the Wolf River by the DNR was the preceding factor that required the Planning & Development Committee to take up the issue.
The county officials tabulating the comments indicated that all the comments received (except for one from a mineral company employee) were against approving exploration that might lead to a sulfide mine being constructed.
In an odd sequence of scheduling the meeting’s agenda, the Public Comment opportunity was actually scheduled and carried out after the five-person committee had already unanimously approved the three points to allow Badger Minerals to begin drilling.
The Committee voted to approve the exploration license based on it being an allowed activity (or “permitted” activity) in the County’s ‘Metallic Mineral Exploration, Bulk Sampling and Mining’ section of the ‘Oneida County Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance’. This section was revised in 2018 in response to the 2017 Wisconsin Act 134 mining law that Wisconsin Sen. Tom Tiffany was responsible for authoring and which Gov. Scott Walker signed into law.
The reasoning of the Oneida County officials was that since the county’s ordinance seemed to allow exploration for sulfide minerals, and that the DNR had already approved a license for Badger Minerals, the committee had no other choice but to approve the County’s portion of the permitting process.
This committee-level action does not require approval by the full Oneida County Board. The construction of a metallic sulfide mine in the Headwaters area of the Wolf River moves one step closer to becoming a reality.
Sept. 30, 2020--Badger Minerals won’t pursue further sulfide mining exploration at a site in eastern Oneida County, the company told WXPR. The site is near the Wolf River.
In June, the company drilled six holes at the site in the town of Schoepke, a first step to determining whether the area could be a good place for a sulfide mine. Profitable sulfide minerals include gold, silver, lead, zinc, and copper. Badger Minerals had the option to buy the land from a private landowner if the results looked promising. But Badger Minerals geologist Eric Quigley told WXPR the results of the drilling program “were not considered significant enough to justify the purchase.” The full story by Ben Meyer can be found at wxpr.org.
By Jonathon Sadowski, Up North News Wisconsin
July 1, 2020--Ronald Zabler considers his family’s property in rural southeastern Oneida County to be “sacred land.”
Zabler’s grandfather bought 80 acres of secluded wilderness in the county upon returning from World War II. The area, just off the Wolf River, has remained pristine ever since. But the family’s sacred land — and the lakes and waterways in the massive Wolf River watershed — may be tainted, Zabler fears, by a potential sulfide mining operation next door.
“When you start disrupting one little system, it snowballs into other things affected,” said Zabler, a self-described anti-mine activist, conservationist, and former plumber who is out of work due to injury.
Badger Minerals, a Michigan-based subsidiary of a Canadian mining corporation, is currently wrapping up some minor test-drilling adjacent to the Zabler property to help determine whether the company will propose a full sulfide mining operation for gold, silver, and other minerals. Continue reading.
June 18, 2020
Stockley Creek is a tributary to the nearby Wolf River
in the Headwaters area of the Wolf River, Oneida County,
an area of Class 1 Trout Streams with cold clean water.
To find it, take Brown’s Road entrance off Hwy 8, between Crandon and Rhinelander,
to the Managed Forest Law Program Land (MFL)
Metallic Sulfide Mining Exploration Project Site --
referred to as ‘Schoepke Site’ on the DNR website.
The location of this creek is in the center of the exploration area.
It would also be the center of the open-pit metallic sulfide mine,
should one be developed here.
Treaty rights and Native American cultural issues
Will Sulfide Mines Bring Employment and Economic Benefits to Northern Minnesota?
MiningTruth.org, 2012
The Economic Role of Metal Mining in Minnesota: Past, Present, and Future
Power, Thomas Michael, University of Montana Economics Dept., 2007
The use and abuse of economic modelling in Australia
Denniss Ph.D., Richard, Chief Economist, The Australia Institute, 2012
Assessing the Quality of Economic Impact Models
Business Central, 2008
Report on Groundwater and Surface Water Contamination at the Flambeau Mine
SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF THE FLAMBEAU MINE SITE
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2012
(Note that this paper is the supporting document for the DNR recommendation to EPA that Stream C be designated as impaired. The EPA concurred and designated Stream C as impaired due to zinc and copper pollution in 2012. The DNR no longer has this paper archived online.)
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: The reliability of predictions in Environmental Impact Statements (case studies of twenty-five U.S. mines including the Flambeau mine)
Kuipers, J.R., Maest, A.S., MacHardy, K.A., and Lawson, G., 2006
Deer Tail Scientific
Duluth, Minnesota deertailscientific.wordpress.com
November 2019
A new report reviewing mining industry practices at the now-closed Flambeau Mine1 near Ladysmith, Wiscon- sin exposes how crucial environmental monitoring data have been withheld from the public. The Flambeau Mine, considered state of the art by today’s standards, has been promoted by supporters of the PolyMet and Twin Metals projects in Minnesota as an example of a copper mine that operated “without polluting local waters.” Similar claims have been made by proponents of the Back Forty project on the Michigan/ Wisconsin border, the Eagle and Copperwood projects in Michigan, the GTac, Bend and Reef projects in Wisconsin, and the Pebble project in Alaska. It’s as if the Flambeau Mine has become the industry’s calling card.2
The primary author of the report, the late Dr. Robert E. Moran (Michael-Moran Associates, Golden, CO; remwater.org)3, reviewed thousands of pages of historical and modern Flambeau Mining Company (FMC) documents and concluded the following in his 116-page report, Flambeau Mine: Water Contamination and Selective “Alternative Facts” 4 (available online at https://deertailscientific.wordpress.com/moran-report/):
“For decades, some of the most relevant data and the most significant water-related impacts at the Flambeau Mine site have been withheld from public view.”
It's unclear if some of the crucial data Dr. Moran sought but found missing in the FMC reports had indeed been collected by the company and simply not made public, or if the company, realizing the data might prove problematic for them, never collected it to begin with (i.e., Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell).
One thing is clear though: Dr. Moran, with his more than 45 years of domestic and international experience in conducting and managing water quality, geochemical and hydrogeologic work for private investors, industrial clients, tribal and citizens groups, NGO’s, law firms, and governmental agencies at all levels, identified numerous deficiencies in the environmental monitoring program at Flambeau. He summed it up like this:
“I know of no metal-sulfide mines anywhere in the world that have operated without degrading the original water quality, long-term – even those employing modern technologies. Given this historical reality, FMC’s approach has been to ensure that damaging data have not been made public.”
Following are some of the major problems identified by Dr. Moran in his report:
“The narrative ‘predictions’ made by FMC’s main Wisconsin consultant in the various permit-related and Annual Reports appear to be largely naïve geochemically and hydrogeologically ... most useful for obtaining permits, less so for generating quantitatively-reliable predictions.”
Foth also consults for PolyMet and Twin Metals in Minnesota and has been involved in drafting permit- related documents for the Back Forty, Copperwood and Eagle projects in Michigan.
After his thorough review of FMC documents, Dr. Moran concluded his report with the following comment:
“In short, the Flambeau Mine is the poster child for a severely-flawed permitting and oversight process that has likely generated long-term public liabilities.”
He added: “Flambeau ground and surface water quality is being and has been degraded—despite years of industry public relations statements touting the success of the FMC operation. Rio Tinto said in a 2013 public relations (PR) release regarding the Flambeau Mine: ‘Testing shows conclusively that groundwater quality surrounding the site is as good as it was before mining.’ In efforts to encourage development of the other metal-sulfide deposits in northern Wisconsin and the Great Lakes region, the industry approach has been to simply repeat this false statement over and over, assuming that repetition will make it believed. Unfortunately, the FMC data show otherwise.”
To read Dr. Moran’s report in its entirety and for a summary of the key findings, go to:
https://deertailscientific.wordpress.com/moran-report/
For more information, please contact Deer Tail Scientific5 at deertailscientific@gmail.com or visit our website at deertailscientific.wordpress.com/.
______________________________
1. The Flambeau Mine, a Rio Tinto/Kennecott project, was a small open pit copper-sulfide mine that operated near Ladysmith, Wisconsin in the mid-1990s. The project was controversial, in part due to the close proximity of the 32-acre pit to the Flambeau River (a 140-foot separation). When production ceased in 1997, the Flambeau pit was backfilled with waste rock, some of it amended with limestone. No tailings are stored at the site, since all ore was shipped by rail to Canada for processing. Yet the site groundwaters are contaminated, and “these waters would require expensive, active water treatment to be made suitable for most foreseeable uses” (Moran, 2019). Environmental monitoring, included as part of the owner’s long-term care responsibilities under Wisconsin law, is expected to continue through at least 2047 (40 years following the 2007 certification of the completion of pit reclamation activities), but state regulations also include a provision allowing for potential early termination of the responsibility.
2. To see a letter and “fact sheet” featuring the Flambeau Mine that was sent to Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton and all Minnesota lawmakers by Mining Minnesota (a mining trade association) in September 2013, go to: https://deertailscientific.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/flambeau-promotionals.pdf. Flambeau-related promotional materials circulated by others (Rio Tinto, Foth, Twin Metals, Aquila Resources, Wisconsin Mining Association, Pebble Partner- ship, Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company, etc.) are also posted.
3. This project was undertaken by hydrogeologist Robert E. Moran (Michael-Moran Associates, Golden, CO; remwater.org) in February 2017. He published a summary of his initial findings in April 2017 (https://remwater.org/projects/flambeau-mine-ladysmith-wisconsin-u-s/) while continuing to work on a more detailed report to be issued later the same year. Upon the premature death of Dr. Moran, the project was completed by Dr. David Chambers (Center for Sci- ence in Public Participation, Bozeman, MT; csp2.org) and research assistant Laura Gauger (Deer Tail Scientific, Duluth, MN; deertailscientific.wordpress.com), with funding provided by Deer Tail Scientific.
4. Flambeau Mine: Water Contamination and Selective “Alternative Facts”, Robert E. Moran, Ph.D. (Michael-Moran Associates, Golden, CO; remwater.org), May 2019 (posthumous), 116 pg.; available online at https://deertailscientific.wordpress.com/moran-report/.
5. Deer Tail Scientific is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization founded in 2017. As stated in its bylaws: The mission of Deer Tail Scientific is to educate the public, government officials and tribal sovereign nations with fact-based information on: (1) the permitting, development, reclamation, environmental performance and economics of Wisconsin’s Flambeau Mine; and (2) how the Flambeau Mine compares to other mines (closed, currently operating or proposed) in the Great Lakes region and beyond.
OCCWA Staff Report
May 13, 2018—After months of laboring over an extensive revision of the Oneida County’s metallic mining ordinance (9.61), the county board’s five-member Planning and Development Committee signed off this week on its final draft and began preparing for presenting it to the public. The required public hearing will be held June 6, 6 pm, in the Rhinelander High School auditorium.
The revision was necessary after the passage into law of State Sen. Tom Tiffany’s “Mining for America” bill in December, known as the 2017 Wisconsin Act 134. The Act, which goes into effect July 1, lifted the state’s moratorium on metallic mining, in effect for the past 20 years.The moratorium had required that applicants for approval of a sulfide mine demonstrate to the DNR that a sulfide mining operation in the U.S. or Canada had operated for at least 10 years without polluting surface water or groundwater and that such mine had been closed for 10 years after mining without polluting surface water or groundwater.
The Oneida County P&D Committee was charged with re-writing the county’s ordinance to conform with Act 134, which left little leeway for the stronger environmental protections that are in the original mining ordinance. Mike Fugel, one of the P&D’s lawyers specializing in mining, told the committee many times, “The overarching theme of this [re-write] is, you can’t require more than the State requires. You have to be backtracking along with the State requirements.”
So, what is being changed? What do citizens need to know, going into the public hearing?
1. First, it’s important to understand that while the neither the current ordinance nor the new one refer to “sulfide mining,” sulfide is the major component of mining in the three major deposits found in Oneida County. The mining would be for copper ore, zinc, nickel and precious metals; the hard rock these metals are found in is sulfide-bearing rock. Sulfuric acid is created when sulfides are released through the mining process and exposed to air and water.
2. The current ordinance says that non-ferrous metallic mining is prohibited in all zoning districts other than the #08 Manufacturing/Industrial zoning district. The new ordinance opens up mining exploration in the following zoning districts: District 1-A Forestry (167,000 acres of publicly-owned land); District #8 Manufacturing and Industrial; and District 10 General Use.
3. Instead of requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for mining operations, a one-time permit into which restrictions can be applied, the new ordinance requires simply a permit, subject to review by the P&D. The timeline of 60 days for reviewing the scope of the county baseline study in the current ordinance has been dropped, as has the 120-day review period of the application, and the 90-day period before recommendation or denial of the CUP. There is no mention of a second hearing by the County Board.
4. The permitting process follows a new procedure, triggered by a mining company’s expressed intent in applying for a permit. A committee will be formed, known as the Local Impact Committee for Nonferrous Metallic mining, or Mining oversight/Local Impact Committee (MOLIC). This committee will be composed of a group of individuals who will play a significant role. Lawyer Mike Fugel told the committee: "Ultimately, the local agreement is going to be the lynch pin in terms of someone having a mining operation." The new ordinance doesn’t spell out who chooses who is to be on this committee, or its make-up. Will the affected town’s interests be adequately represented? Is there a danger of loading up the committee with either pro- or anti-mining? The committee is given the power to negotiate the Local Agreement with the town where the mine would be. The Local Agreement receives a public hearing, and a vote of a simple majority by the County Board, after which the mining company can be permitted.
5. The current ordinance prohibits the process of solution mining, smelting or refining, and disposal of mining wastes at a mining site in the county. This has been dropped from the re-write.
6. Financial responsibility for the applicant has been watered down. The current ordinance states a certificate of insurance certifying the applicant as an active liability insurance policy deemed adequate to cover all mining activities, for no less than $25 million, and must emain in effect for 40 years following the permanent closing of the mine. The re-write shortens the time required for the insurance provisions to remain in force—only through the reclamation operations—and specifies that impairment liability coverage be “not less than $10 million per claim, and $10 million in aggregate.” Sen. Tiffany attended the P&D Committee on Wednesday to reassure it that the changes to the financial assurance requirements in 2017 Wisconsin Act 134 were sufficient to cover damages at a mining waste site, for up to 250 years after closure. The new financial assurance requirements need to be studied carefully to see if, as claimed, they are sufficient.
7. Bulk sampling, part of the process for determining the quality of a deposit, is defined under the new re-write (9.62) as excavating “less than 10,000 tons of material, including overburden [covering rock] and any other material removed from any portion of the excavation site.” There is no language provided for monitoring or regulating this process, and the duration of the moratorium "shall be in effect for 18 months up to and including January 1, 2020."
8. Through the passage of 2017 Wisconsin Act 134, the state has opened its doors to mining. Environmental standards have been lowered. For instance, Act 134 states that “groundwater contamination enforcement standards do not apply below the depth in the Precambrian bedrock below which the groundwater is not reasonably capable of being used for human consumption.” Current law states that “groundwater standards generally apply from the land surface down through all saturated geological formations.” Act 134 “eliminates special administrative code provisions applicable to impacts to wetlands caused by a nonferrous [sulfide] mining operation.” Under the current law, generally applicable wetlands requirements apply to a mining site. The area cited for mining in the Town of Lynne is a vast wetland.
9. Can the Town of Lynne just say No to mining? According to lawyer Mike Fugle at the committee meeting on Wednesday, "A town could say no to mining, we’re never going to agree to a mine; but that would likely open a town up to litigation." Committee Chair Scott Holewinski added, "MOLIC would be the town’s level of participation. It would be veto power for town. Like the county can’t just say no to mining, nor can the town. They have to have good reason to say no."
The state’s 72 counties will be dealing with increased pressure from mining companies to issue permits. Oneida County in particular will be targeted. Citizens will need to inform themselves about the new law, and think hard on how mining would affect the county’s forests, wetlands and water bodies—the life breath of its $221 million/year tourist industry.
OCCWA Staff Report
May 5, 2018--At Friday's P&D Committee meeting, three out of five members were present, enough for a quorum, and they used it to make important changes to their current draft of the Oneida County Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance, Article 6, Section 9.61, which addresses regulation of metallic mineral exploration, bulk sampling and mining in the county.
The current Ordinance states "Special Conditional Use Permit Required. Mining and prospecting operations and mining site whether conducted or located in whole or in part within this county may be allowed under a special conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of this section, but only in the #08 Manufacturing/Industrial zoning district."
The most significant change requested was to ask the committee's lawyer, Bill Scott, to adjust the draft to rezone county-owned forest lands (1-A) for permitted use of metallic mining, as well as the General Use zone. This would be in addition to the current Ordinance's #08 Manufacturing/Industrial zoning district. They also voted to eliminate the need for a CUP, and go only with the permitting process, with "General Standards" applying. Committee members voting were County Supervisors Jack Sorenson, Scott Holewinski and Ted Cushing. Billy Fried and Mike Timmons were absent.
Bill Scott told the committee that the mining district "has to include more land, you need to add land to it to be attractive to mining companies." With more land use open to mining, "you can do away with Conditional Use Permitting (CUPs), and just go with Permitted Use, and General Standards would apply." Scott noted that the Committee would likely run into incompatible standards for mining in some districts, but he felt that forestry would not be incompatible for mining. "You can reclaim forest lands. The mine is a temporary thing. You can restore forestry use [when the mine is closed]...The 1-A zone looks considerable in size, and may be sufficient."
Other proposed changes to the mining ordinance reflect the Committee's desire to receive proposals from mining companies. The Committee is intent on establishing a Joint Local Mining Impact Committee for reviewing applications as soon as they are filed with the County. The composition of the Committee has to be worked out, but may include committee chairs, town chairs and others.
If the Committee gets its way, the Northwoods as we know it will change. Wherever there is a mineral deposit, even in county forest lands, the land could be destroyed for a mine and subject to sulfide runoff. Mining companies, along with their promoters among the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate, will make a case for how good the technology has gotten and how responsible mining companies are for cleaning up their waste sites. But their claims are undermined by the government's lifting of the Prove-It-First Moratorium Law last year, that had been in effect for 20 years and which stated that no company would be given a permit without proving it had a record of restoration lasting 10 years.
Here is a short video taken yesterday by Eileen Lonsdorf of a piece of Oneida County-owned forest land in Woodruff. The spring peepers are joyous with the warm weather. This area could be subject to mining.
Oneida County Clean Waters Action
Copyright © 2024 Oneida County Clean Waters Action - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.