OCCWA's Letter to County on Zoning of Mines

By Eric Rempala January 30th, 2025- A short history lesson on how towns lost local control and critical protections and why it's important to take them back.

What happened in 2018

In 2018 Karl Fate sniffed out the loss of towns critical protections in Oneida County's 2018 adoption of their current Mining Ordinance. Karl expressed his concerns in a June 2018 OCCWA article, excerpt below.

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

  This had been pushed by some supervisors since 2012, as a way to retaliate against the Town of Lynne, and to force a mine on them. Although this maneuver was designed to facilitate a mine at Lynne, it could potentially impact any zoned town in the county, some having large portions zoned 1-A Forestry and General Use.  
  This Resolution came from the P&D Committee, which does not have a single member who is a strong advocate for our water. In fact, several committee members have been pushing a mine at Lynne for many years. It is clear that this process was used by this committee to push the agendas of the committee members onto the full Board of Supervisors.    
  Perhaps the most disgusting aspect of this debacle is that the supervisors disingenuously played innocent, as if they had no choice in voting for something that the people did not want. Yes, gentlemen, you did have a choice, and you decided to vote against local control, the towns, the taxpayers, and against protecting our water resources."  

One of the protections lost was the ability of towns to review mining proposals and decide whether to approve or not approve zoning changes to permit a mine. Before the new ordinance, mining was only allowed in District 8 Manufacturing and Industrial which accounts for only a fraction of the county's land. To permit mining a town would have to work with the county to rezone potential mine sites to District 8. The ability to be a part of the zoning/permitting process was stripped away from towns with the County's 2018 Mining Ordinance zoning changes. 

What's happening now

 In the February 5th Oneida County P&D Committee Public Hearing the County will be codifying the 2018 Mining Ordinances zoning changes into the Zoning & Shoreland Protection Ordinance six years after the fact. To be clear the zoning changes went into effect in 2018. The county is just now updating the shoreland Protection Ordinance to reflect those changes. In the Public Hearing agenda 2.5.25-NPH.pdf  one of changes to District 1A Forestry will be as follows.

District 1A Forestry

Permitted Use 

ADD: Metallic Mineral exploration and non-ferrous metallic mineral mining pursuant to Section 9.60

Note: non-ferrous metallic mineral mining is Metallic Sulfide Mining

  Due to current District 10 General Use zoning language (below) you can see that adding mining as a permitted use to 1A Forestry in turn makes mining a permitted use in District 10 General Use. 

District 10 General Use

B. Permitted Uses / Administrative Review Uses / Conditional Uses All the same provisions applying to permitted uses, administrative review uses and conditional uses (but not special conditional uses) in the following districts - Forestry, Single Family, Multiple Family, Residential and Farming, Recreational, Business (B-1), Business (B-2), and Manufacturing and Industrial also apply to the General Use District and are incorporated herein by reference. District 10 General Use from Chapter 9 – Zoning & Shoreland Protection Ordinance

What do these zoning changes look like?

Well, by using County Zoning Maps and guesstimating the percentage of towns' land that consists of 1A Forestry and General Use combined I came up with these numbers. In other words, what (estimated) percentage of town land is mining now permitted due to 2018 Mining Ordinance changes.

 Cassian 25%, Crescent 90%, Hazelhurst 60%, Lake Tomahawk 15%, Little Rice 85%, Lynne 90%, Minocqua 75%, Newbold 80%, Nokomis 100%, Pelican 95%, Piehl 10%, 

Pine Lake 40%, Schoepke 98%, Stella 40%, Three Lakes 55%, Woodruff 70%, Woodboro 90%. 

Since the towns of Enterprise, Monico, and Sugar Camp are not zoned, it's understood that mining is allowed on 100% of their land.

To be sure, in this case a bigger number is not better. Congratulations Piehl, you are the winner!

To get a picture of how much of your town's land that mining is permitted on you can find County zoning Maps at Index of /ZoningMap  and make your own guesstimate.

As an example, we have included a photocopy of Crescents Map at the top of this article, all of the gray area on the map is General Use zoned.

Transparency in the process?

Former Supervisor Sorenson in 2018 from WXPR article Sorenson Gets More Open Access To Mining Rule Rewrite | WXPR stated.

"....the change to the mining code, the potential possibilities of mining in Oneida county are going to be an extremely passionate item for large groups of people in the county. It's vitally important from the very start of this process that we operate in an environment so the people know what we are doing. To run this process behind a closed door is the worst idea we could ever have...."

I could not agree more. Was the process transparent? Did the towns understand at the time, and do they understand now the critical protections they lost?

Why were these changes made?

Well, the County stated that the changes were made due to the state's adoption of then District 12 Senator Tom Tiffany's 2017 ACT 134. ACT 134 eliminated the wildly popular and protective "Prove it First" law.  It's not clear why Oneida County believed that they had to permit mining in an estimated 70% of their land to comply with ACT 134. In fact, many counties across the state made no changes at all.  The John Muir Chapter of the Sierra Club stated.

"Oneida County chose to rewrite its formerly protective mining ordinance after 2017 Act 134 was passed that eroded state protections and under pressure by mining proponents including Senator Tom Tiffany to limit their ordinance. Sen. Tiffany and other proponents argued that local governments such as Oneida could not have local controls on mining that were more protective than state law and threatened that the legislature might pass further limits on local control.

The John Muir Chapter worked with local Oneida County residents, the Protect The Willow group and the River Alliance of Wisconsin to oppose the rewritten ordinance on the grounds that local governments can enact limited protections that are greater than state law. Despite this effort, the Oneida County Board approved the new ordinance that limited their ability to enact additional protections."

Can the Mining Ordinance be changed back?

The better question may be, can the towns and residents be a part of a discussion with the county on changes to the Mining Ordinance/Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance? There is no doubt that enough public input given to the county should initiate a discussion involving the interested parties and their concerns. There is no reason that the county cannot entertain ideas on at least reexamining the zoning changes.

   As a matter of fact, at the latest county Bruh Ha on mining in August Mining issue on Oneida County board agenda draws crowd - Tomahawk Leader Chairman Holewinski stated his interest in getting the will of the current board on pursuing a mine in Lynne. So, the question becomes, why wouldn't this be a good time to "get the will of the current board" on mining zoning?

Holewinski quote from Tomahawk Leader article on what he discussed at a meeting in Madison with a mining company.

“We discussed the history of the Lynne deposit, other deposits in northern Wisconsin, our mining ordinance and the resolution I was taking to the county board in August,” Holewinski said, adding that he wanted to “get the will of the current board” before any formal discussion about the Lynne deposit would move forward."

The resolution that County Chairman Holewinski speaks of in the quote was defeated      13 to 6. It's important to note Chairman Holewinski is also the chairman of the town of Sugar Camp. As mentioned previously, the town of Sugar Camp along with Enterprise and Monico are unzoned towns. Choosing to not have zoning is their choice. The fact of the matter though, is that choice is very different than the other 17 towns of Oneida County.

  So, is it a case of the tail wagging the dog? Perhaps, but I tend to think that County Chairman is a powerful position and anyone that accepts that position will have a strong influence in policy. After all, the County Chairman appoints all county committee members. That includes the members of the powerful P&D Committee. It is incumbent upon the supervisors of the 17 zoned towns to represent their constituents' interests above all else.

Supervisor whether county or town is a thankless job, and I have a great respect for those who accept that responsibility.

Best way to voice your opinion on mining zoning?

Call or email your County Supervisor, their contact info can be found at County Board – Oneida County, WI  Note: It's a little tricky, to find their email you must click on their name.

Call or email the P&D committee members at Planning & Development – Oneida County, WI Click on names for contact info.

Lastly, you may email the County Clerk County Clerk – Oneida County, WI  and request your email be forwarded to the P&D Committee.

Don't forget to include your name and address as well as any properties you own in Oneida County.

By Eric Rempala August 20, 2024- In 1990 a sulfide ore deposit was discovered under the lands owned by Oneida County in the Town of Lynne in Western Oneida County which are enrolled in the County Forest Program. The ore body consists primarily of Zinc, but also contains significant concentrations of lead, copper, and silver, and a minor amount of gold. For more information, see the Noranda Minerals Wisconsin, Corp. “Summary Geologic and Geotechnical Report for the Lynne Project” which is available on the Oneida County Website - https://www.oneidacountywi.gov/archive/mining/Lynne%20Summary%20%26%20App%20C-F9c68.pdf?docid=10160&locid=135

  In 2018, an advisory referendum was put to the voters of Oneida County asking whether they would like to see a mine in the Town of Lynne. The question read like this:

“After performing their due diligence, should Oneida County allow leasing of County owned lands in the Town of Lynne for the purpose of metallic mineral exploration, prospecting, bulk sampling, and mining?”

  The citizens of Oneida County soundly defeated that referendum by a vote of 11,927 to 7129 (62% to 48%.) Many people hoped that, with an overwhelming majority of citizens having expressed their view, the issue of mining in the Town of Lynne was dead.

This summer, however, the members of the Oneida County Board received unsolicited inquiries from two different mining companies.

  On Friday August 16th, two business days in advance of its August 20th Board meeting, Oneida County posted an agenda for the meeting that included: “Offered by Supervisor Scott Holewinski to Entertain Any Unsolicited Inquiries for Exploration, Prospecting, Bulk Sampling and Mining Operations on County Owned Land Following Procedures Set forth in Chapter 9.61 of the County Ordinance.”

  Resolution 75-2024 was attached to the agenda. That resolution, which was offered by Mr. Holewinski rather than any committee of the County Board, stated that Mr. Holewinski and the chair of the Forestry, Land and Outdoor Recreation Committee had received unsolicited inquiries from two different mining companies.

  The resolution, if passed, would have designated the Forestry, Land, and Outdoor Recreation Committee as the body to “entertain” unsolicited offers from mining companies for exploration, mining, etc. on County owned lands.

  By the time of the meeting _approximately 200 people sent emails to the County Clerk about this issue. Every one of those emails opposed mining. Dozens of citizens attending the August 20th meeting. 32 of them spoke during the public comment section. Of those 32, 31 spoke against mining, while one spoke in favor of gathering more information.

Those speaking against mining in the Town of Lynne, included the Lynne Town Chair Jeff Viegut, members of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, and a number of other citizens.

  Celeste Hockings, Natural Resources Director of the Lac du Flambeau band appeared on behalf of Tribal President John Johnson Sr. Ms. Hockings read a letter to the board. The letter stated that the Band is opposed to mining in Oneida County. Another member of the Lac du Flambeau band (His name could not be determined from the meeting tape) read from a resolution or similar document opposing mining in Oneida County and indicating that the tribal council would seek any and all legal avenues to challenge any mining in Oneida County.

  Citizens speaking in opposition to a mine in the town of Lynne raised a number of issues, including the proximity of the ore body to the Willow Flowage, the relatively wet nature of the land above or near the ore body, the number of lakes, streams and wetlands in the area, the reliance of Oneida County on recreational tourism dollars, the potential for contamination of surface and groundwater by sulfuric acid and heavy metals which are present in sulfide mine tailings, and the feeling that the board should represent the will of the citizens as expressed in the referendum vote.

  One board member mused about the potential that mining technology may have changed in six years since the referendum. Given the fact that sulfide mines produce tailings, and sulfide tailings leach sulfuric acid when exposed to water, it’s unclear what type of technology might now exist that would prevent or minimize contamination.

  At the meeting, Board Chair Scott Holewinski disclosed that he had been contacted by the mining companies back on June 14, 2024, and in the days after that, but that he did not respond to them. He also recounted that County Board Member Russ Fisher told him that he had been contacted by Kyle Christianson of the Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) about County business.

  Mr. Holewinski said that he himself then contacted Mr. Christianson on three occasions in July, and that Mr. Christianson inquired about the County’s stance on the Lynne Deposit and said that the WCA was working to help counties get the best deals with mining companies. Mr. Holewinski also said that Mr. Christianson asked for a meeting in Madison to discuss potential mining at the Lynne Deposit.

  Mr. Holewinski said that he traveled to Madison on August 12th where he and Board Member Russ Fisher met with Stephen Donohue of Green Light Metals, Mark O’Connell, President and CEO of the WCA, Kyle Christianson, and Attorney Andrew Phillips who represented the WCA. Mr. Holewinski said they discussed the history of the Lynne Deposit, other deposits in Northern Wisconsin, the mining ordinance, and “the resolution that I’m taking to the County Board in August.” Mr. Holewinski also said that he told them that he wanted to “get the will of the County Board before any formal discussion of the Lynne Deposit should move forward.”

  After Mr. Holewinski spoke, County Board Member Steven Schreier asked questions and raised issues about the sequence of events, transparency, why the matter wasn’t simply referred to the Forestry Committee, the involvement, if any, of the WCA or a mining company in preparing an Oneida County Resolution, and whether Mr. Holewinski expected to be reimbursed by the County for travel costs.

  Oneida County Forest Director Jill Nemec indicated to the board that the land containing the ore deposit is enrolled in the County Forest Program, and that, before mining could take place, there would be a potential that the Wisconsin DNR would have to approve and that, depending on the type of mining, the land might have to be removed from the County Forest Program, which is apparently a fairly involved process.

  At the meeting, Karl Jennrich, Head of the County Planning and Zoning Department read to the board portions of the County Code. Some members of the board seemed to believe the code already gives authority to the Forestry, Land, and Outdoor Recreation Committee to receive unsolicited offers from mining companies.

  After discussion, the Board voted 13-6 to reject resolution 2024. At this time, it’s not clear what will happen next concerning the County’s dealing with mining companies over the ore body in the Town of Lynne.

WXPR Coverage: Resolution to clarify procedure raises concerns of mining interest in Oneida County | WXPR 

WJFW Coverage: Meeting report begins at the 7-minute mark  5pm Newscast | | wjfw.com 

Thank you one and all.

Personally, it was wonderful seeing many of those who stood tall during the 2018 Protect the Willow action again. It was also gratifying to see new faces both young and old voicing their concerns. Public participation such as this warms one's heart and reminds us of what we can accomplish together protecting our most valuable resource, clean water.

By Karl Fate July 9, 2024- Back in 2009 a group of County Board Supervisors spent three years trying to lease public lands in the Town of Lynne for a mine in a vast wetland area upstream of the Willow Flowage.  The public was opposed to the proposal, and most importantly, so were the people in the local area of impact.

  After the legitimate concerns of taxpayers had been disrespected for three years by the committee in charge, the Lynne Town chair informed the County that the Town would block a rezone of the area to “Manufacturing and Industrial”, a prerequisite for the construction of a mine at the site.

  The County Board Chair at the time, Ted Cushing, was reported in a local newspaper saying, “If they chose to exercise those powers, then so be it.  Personally, I think everyone who pays taxes in this county should have a weigh-in on this because that’s the only way you’re going to get a true cross section in terms of a correct answer (to the question of whether mining proposals should be sought).”  “Cushing added that the county board could move in that direction next month by approving a public referendum on the issue.”

  Ultimately, after a summer of bizarre manipulations at the Committee level, in 2012 the County Board finally listened to the owners of the property in question and squashed the leasing scheme for good.

  The referendum question would have to wait for six more years, resurfacing in the wake of Tom Tiffany’s repeal of the wildly popular “Prove it First” Law.   The repeal of the law was interpreted by some as a requirement that mining must take place and must be promoted regardless of what the local taxpayers thought about it.  In Oneida county a Metallic Mining Ordinance was passed to promote a mining district in the County, removing several important protections including essential local controls, by allowing metallic mining as a matter of right in those zoning districts where sulfide deposits were known, including Lynne.  Local concerns during public meetings and at the public hearing were disrespected and rendered moot by elected representatives Tom Tiffany, Dave Hintz, and Scott Holewinski who were all pushing a mine at Lynne.

  Five days after the June 6th, 2018 “public hearing” on the new ordinance, the P&D Committee met to discuss the hearing results, but the meeting eventually turned into a discussion of the next move to push a mine when Mr. Holewinski decided to stray off the agenda and discuss leasing public property in the Town of Lynne.  It was during these “off agenda” discussions that the referendum question resurfaced.  Mr. Holewinski was convinced two days later to drop his proposal to lease Lynne until after the referendum results were known. 

 The supervisors pushing the referendum were those most rabidly pushing a mine at Lynne, and they were the same supervisors that ignored the facts on the ground year after year that was the basis for the public concerns and opposition.  Had those supervisors been listening, the result would not have been surprising when more than 62% of voters rejected leasing Lynne for a mine.

  Tom Tiffany, perhaps unhappy that his latest mining fantasy is floundering, has infected our county government with a radical, anti-conservation group from Texas. Perhaps Scott Holewinski thinks he can jump-start a mine by putting language from this Texas group, that is anti-conservation and promotes metallic mining in the county, into the comprehensive land-use plan.

  It's ironic that some of the same supervisors that insisted on the referendum question now want to ignore the answer to the question. The people of Oneida County are the owners of the Lynne Site and they clearly do not want a mine there. Isn’t it time that our elected representatives start listening to property owners, taxpayers, and voters and start advocating for local control and the protection of our water resources?

OCCWA Reference: 

Current language proposal by P&D Committee for the county's next Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources Chapter 2, Goal #6:

 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. 

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) 

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 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/

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.

Oct. 2, 2019--Wisconsin Leadership Development (WiLD) Project announces a short documentary highlighting the organizing story of the Protect the Willow group’s successful campaign to halt risky sulfide mining in northern Wisconsin.

The Protect the Willow group formed ahead of a November 2018 referendum on expanded mining in Oneida County. Using organizing practices developed at the July 2018 WiLD workshop, and coaching support from the River Alliance of Wisconsin, the team launched a campaign—and won.

How exactly did a grassroots team of "political rookies" mobilize 62% of voters to reject mining in one of Wisconsin’s most environmentally sensitive areas? This new video offers insights into effective organizing that can be replicated across communities and campaigns.

“To place a sulfide mine in this particular site, which was really environmentally sensitive, was outrageous. And even more outrageous: it was being contemplated on public land. Cut down all the pine trees, take out all the metals, and leave poison water—it upset me that it seemed like we hadn't learned anything. Those sorts of things propel people into feeling uncomfortable, so then you end up at county board meetings and writing letters to the editor and talking to your neighbors. And the next thing you know you're exchanging email addresses and phone numbers, and you see the same faces at all the meetings,” Rick Plonsky, a member of Protect the Willow, shared.

“Rather than to be too partisan or divide people, or have anyone feel attacked, they were really strategic in their approach. Clearly with the outcome of the referendum, it resonated. They really did have a bipartisan vote on an issue that people agreed on,” stated Danika Laine, communications director, River Alliance of Wisconsin.

“Protect the Willow: An Organizing Story” video links:
Facebook: https://bit.ly/ProtectTheWillowStory
YouTube: https://youtu.be/524iosf6C80
Video Still image: https://wildproj.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PTW-thumbnail.png

About the Wisconsin Leadership Development Project:
The Wisconsin Leadership Development (WiLD) Project cultivates Wisconsin’s greatest resource—its people—as a source of renewal for our state. At WiLD workshops, participants learn how to engage others around their own core values, structure effective leadership teams, and make strategic choices that lead to measurable, effective action for change. Since its start in 2016, the project has trained more than 1,000 leaders across the state. For more information, visit www.wildproj.org.