Comprehensive Plan Changes Put Mining Back on County's Radar
P&D Committee sneaks NECESSARY METALLIC MINING language into Comprehensive Plan.
By Kathleen Cooper June 20, 2024- Attention Oneida County Residents!
There are important changes underfoot for the Oneida County Land Use Plan. Counties in Wisconsin are required to write land use plans and to update them every ten years. The latest proposed updates from the Oneida County P&D Committee are alarming.
Under Chapter 2: Natural, Agricultural, and Cultural Resources, Goal 6, the language in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 2013 reads: “Encourage the USDA Forest Service to obtain their Allowable State Quantity (ASQ).” (This refers to the timber harvest from the forest land in Oneida County.)
The P&D Committee's proposed changes to Goal 6: “Allow for necessary metallic mining through the County’s non-metallic mining and metallic mining exploration, bulk sampling, and mining ordinance while balancing the interest of County residents to comply with state laws.”
This is problematic for many reasons. No metallic sulfide mine has ever been demonstrated to operate in the long term without damaging the environment in the United States or Canada. These mines destroy our land, pollute our air, and poison our water, which is our most valuable resource in Oneida County. Sulfuric acid (also known as battery acid) occurs when sulfides from the mines are exposed to oxygen and water. This deeply acidic water can leach toxic substances from the mine, including sulfates and heavy metals like arsenic, lead, and mercury. Rainfall, runoff, and the failure of impoundments and liners can result in a toxic stew that infiltrates the groundwater and contaminates nearby lakes and streams, where it directly sickens and kills fish and other aquatic species. Metal mining also harms our health. In 2017 half of all toxic chemicals that were released or disposed into the environment originated from the metal mining industry - nearly 2 billion pounds of them, and 72 percent of toxic chemicals disposed onto land came from metal mining that year. Exposure to these toxic heavy metals can damage every organ system in the human body, including damage to the nervous system, kidney damage, bone loss, cancer, skin disorders, liver damage, gastrointestinal disorders, and developmental disorders in infants and children, to name a few. Sulfide mines also use large amounts of water, which depletes our groundwater, and has led to surrounding private wells drying up.
The economic impact to Oneida County’s tax base as a result of mining is questionable. Mining is a boom or bust industry. Due to mechanization, the mines employ far fewer people and are less likely to hire locals. Overall, about half of these mines inflict an overall negative impact on the local economy, because once the minerals are extracted, the mines are abandoned, leaving the taxpayers to clean up the environmental mess the mines have created in many instances. Recent data is unavailable, but in 1988 the cleanup costs associated with acid mine drainage for just one year reached $30 billion. In contrast, tourism, which will be threatened in the event of the establishment of sulfide mines in our area, generates more than $20 billion of economic activity a year in Wisconsin. It seems like the only ones who make money from mines are the mining companies themselves, as well as the politicians who allow them to operate.
So, my question is, do you think these proposed changes to the Oneida County Comprehensive Land Use Plan are a good idea? They are basically an open invitation to mining companies, telling them that Oneida County is open for the pollution and destruction of our land, forests, lakes, rivers, and overall health that mining will bring. If you object to these changes, please tell your county board supervisor, talk to your neighbors, and show up for Planning and Development Committee meetings, as well as Oneida County Board meetings. Please make a stand for our property values, our land, our water, our air, and our children.
Monitor ongoing P&D changes here Oneida County Comprehensive Plan 2024 | North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ncwrpc.org)
OCCWA Commentary: The concerning language change of NECESSARY METALLIC MINING may not seem monumental at first glance. Tie it in with our counties last changes to their questionable pro mining industry Mining Ordinance, and the concerns magnify.
The last change to Oneida County's Mining Ordinance added mining as a permitted activity in zones 1A Forestry and General Use. The change allows mining in almost all of the county while eliminating both Town and public input. Keep in mind that the zoning changes were not mandated by the state.
Concerns of who our local representatives are pandering to while squashing the public's ability to give input are justified and need to be monitored. In the meantime, let them know your opinion on the new Comprehensive Plan language as well as the county's Mining Ordinance.
P&D Committee email contacts:
Bob Almekinder ralmekinder@oneidacountywi.gov
Scott Holewinski sholewinski@oneidacountywi.gov
Michael Timmons mtimmons@oneidacountywi.gov
Mitchell Ives mives@oneidacountywi.gov
Dan Hess dhess@oneidacountywi.gov
Mining the Common Denominator
County Board opposition to Pelican River Forest tied to mining despite 2018 referendum results?
By Karl Fate February 28, 2024- The fact that our County Government spent so much time fighting the immensely popular private property called the Pelican River Forest illustrates how our current Board, chaired by Scott Holewinski, has devolved into a partisan political quagmire, and exposes the hypocrisy of some elected Wisconsin Representatives and County Board members.
This all started when then State politician Tom Tiffany interfered in a local county election and then proceeded to launch an attack on local control, aided by his political cronies on the County Board, allowing real estate developers to chop up even the tiniest of our lakes into 100-foot lots. This threw away decades of hard work and investment by many Counties across the North that was focused on protecting their lakes.
In 2018 Tiffany’s repeal of the wildly popular “Prove it First” law, gave some County Board Supervisors an excuse to remove a vital local control from the Towns for the purpose of creating a Mining District in the Northwoods centered around the Lynne Deposit that lies under a vast wetland area upstream of the Willow Flowage in the Town of Lynne. The fact that so-called property rights advocates would deliberately strip local control from property owners, could not be any more outrageous and hypocritical. This scheme only died because the Referendum question asking for the support of voters in the County was rejected substantially at the ballot box. Now, that method of gauging public opinion has been removed thanks to Mary Felzkowski and other State Politicians.
Between 2009 and 2018 our County Government spent an enormous amount of time and considerable resources promoting something that the people of the County did not want, and more recently our County Government spent considerable time and energy trying to block something that most people strongly favored. This is clearly an unacceptable way for our elected representatives to operate and could have been avoided had they been listening to the people they are supposed to represent.
The common denominator for these cases is a small number of supervisors and Representatives pushing a mine that the local people do not want, one on public land at Lynne near the Willow Flowage, and the other adjacent to the Upper Wolf River in the Town of Schoepke. Our County is poorly served when our County Government becomes infected with partisan politics because our elected officials stop listening while they are serving other interests. Get the Politics out of our Courthouse and start representing the public’s interest!
Advisory Referenda Method of Gauging Public Opinion Stripped Away
Direct quote from the June 16th, Felzkowski Flyer emailing on banning advisory referenda.
"Preventing local governments from using hot-button political advisory referendums, on issues they have no direct control over, to increase partisan voter turnout."
Please note the assertion "issues they (local governments) have no direct control over".
The 2018 Lynne referendum where 63% of voters opposed mining is an example of an advisory referenda that has now been stripped away by our legislature.
It's noteworthy that the June 16th, 2023, Flyer link is conspicuously absent from Senator Felzkowski's webpage log. News (wisconsin.gov)
Schoepke Approves Updated Mining Resolution
OCCWA member, Karl Fate's updated mining resolution unanimously approved by Schoepke town board.
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.
Mining News & Notes
Short points with outside links to keep Oneida County residents updated on current mining news.
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.
Upper-Wolf River Mineral Deposit History
With all the debate on Pelican River Forest one should consider what kind of development.
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
Oneida County History -People vs Mines
In lieu of the DNR's recent decision on Flambeau Mine, Oneida County history lesson warranted.
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.
DNR Grants Flambeau Mine Completion Certificate
Decision is disturbing due to ongoing pollution issues.
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
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/
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/
PFAS in Drilling Fluids?
The Wisconsin DNR does not physically test approved drilling fluids for PFAS
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/
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.
Fishing for trout on Stockley Creek
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.