Oneida County Clean Waters Action

Frolicking Snow Fleas!

JoAnne Lund's Oneida County Clean Water Minute

On warm winter days you may notice tiny black flecks on the snow that gather in groups and spring into the air. What on earth?!

These tiny creatures are Springtails (Class Collembola) and are not fleas at all. They are also not true insects. They are wingless creatures of moist soils that eat dead animal and plant bits, helping to break it down to become part of a rich, healthy soil. The name “springtail” comes from an appendage, the furcula, tucked under the abdomen. When released it launches the tiny critter into the air like a spring.

Why do they travel from the soil to the snow surface in winter? Are they sun-seekers? Are they looking for food or mates perhaps? And why do they leap about! Do they jump when startled? Is it some form of mating dance? The answers to all of these questions remain unclear.

In the warmer months Springtails crawl about in the soil and leaf litter on the forest floor. Their life cycle has not been well-studied, but it is known that they hatch from eggs into tiny adult forms bypassing the more common larval stage and proceed through a series of many molts as they grow.

These mini acrobats are sensitive to garden pesticides but are not in any way “pesty”, so please consider keeping a pesticide-free home and yard, not only for the Springtails, but for a host of other beneficial organisms that often go unnoticed.

JoAnne Lund is an ecologist and naturalist living in Oneida County. She thrives on kayaking, back-country skiing and nature photography.

Clean Water Updates

Current issues updated as necessary to keep our Clean Water supporters informed.

Posted 3/6/25- OCCWA joins WJFW's Up North @ 4.

OCCWA would like to thank WJFW for having us out on February 5th to discuss our Clean Water Updates. Our appearance begins at the 13:40 mark of the link Up North @ 4 | | wjfw.com .

Topics of discussion were the one-year anniversary of the Pelican River Forest and the potential consideration by the county to changing mining as a permitted use back to Zoning District Manufacturing and Industrial only. For those not familiar, mining as a permitted use was added to zones 1A Forestry and General Use back in 2018 with the county's rewritten Mining Ordinance. The results of the rewrite were opening up an estimated 70% of our county to mining as a permitted use.

For more details on these changes and why OCCWA thinks the 2018 changes should be reconsidered, please read our February 18 and January 30 articles below on our Home Page.

Call to Action

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.

Posted 2/26/25- Science on Tap in Minocqua to host UW Associate Professor Grace Wilkinson with a discussion and Q&A on algal blooms. (See Photo) On March 6th at 6:30pm Rocky Reef Brewing Company Home | Rocky Reef Brewing Company will host Science on Tap. The subject, Algal Blooms: Why They Happen, Why They Matter, and How to Stop Them. For those who may not remember, last summer Oneida and Vilas Counties had several algal blooms on some of our lakes. Algal Blooms, once thought not to be an issue in our northern climate are now just a reality with our fickle weather patterns. In fact, even Lake Superior in recent years has not been spared this alarming algal bloom trend.

So, come on out, support local business, rub elbows with friends and neighbors who care about our water, and learn a little about the dreaded Algal Blooms. OCCWA staff will be attending this event, we hope to see you there. More information including how to view this program online if you cannot attend in person can be found at SCIENCE ON TAP MINOCQUA - Home

Posted 2/27/25- Oneida County Land & Water Conservation Department (LWCD) presents a YouTube video, " A Watershed Moment: Keeping High Quality Waters High Quality"

The one-hour video “A Watershed Moment: Keeping High Quality Waters High Quality shares some of our county's High-Quality Waters and explains the work LWCD has done and continues to do monitoring and overseeing them. This particular work is done in coordination with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and their Healthy Watersheds, High-Quality Water initiative. Healthy Watersheds, High-Quality Waters | Protecting Wisconsin's Water Resources | Wisconsin DNR

The purpose of the initiative according to the DNR website?

" To draw attention to the state's finest waterbodies, the DNR's Water Quality Program has launched a Healthy Watersheds, High-Quality Waters (HWHQW) initiative. This new focus on the already healthy waterbodies and watersheds – or land area draining to a lake, stream or wetland – is intended to celebrate these treasures and draw attention to the ecological, financial and societal benefits of protecting clean water."

Who are these wonderful water protectors employed by the county?

Well, (LWCD), works in cooperation with a committee of elected supervisors to conserve the land and water resources in Oneida County, and meet local soil, water and related natural resource priorities. Healthy lakes and habitat improve every aspect of life in the Northwoods, from fisheries to recreation to tourism to choosing real estate! Using proactive conservation planning, we can successfully manage our clean air, soil, and water, so that our region will be a better and healthier place for future generations of Oneida County residents.

We at OCCWA can tell you that the LWCD does fantastic work, and we are grateful for their work and to the county for providing them as a conservation resource to all county residents. You can view all that LWCD does on their website at: Oneida County Land and Water Conservation - What's Buzzing?

Posted 2/12/24 - WXPR interview with RT Krueger of Great Lakes Service shares information on PFAS testing that private well owners should know.

OCCWA has run into RT Krueger multiple times covering the Town of Stella contamination specifically, and PFAS more generally. RT is the president of Northern Lake Service a local family-owned water testing company based in Crandon.

In WXPR's article Northern Lake Service stays up to date with latest PFAS testing advances | WXPR RT shares valuable information to those who have PFAS concerns about their private wells. In a quote from the article RT shares a bit of Northwoods common sense on PFAS testing.

"Krueger is a big advocate for testing when it’s inexpensive. PFAS is not. It can run upwards of $300.

He says he’s not an advocate of massive testing of private wells unless there’s some reason to expect it.

“We've been told this stuff is everywhere, and the fact is, from our testing, we've found that it might be everywhere at extremely low levels. The fact of the matter is it isn't everywhere, but it could be everywhere,” said Krueger."

OCCWA Soap Box

Oneida County residents know from Stella that our county has severe PFAS contamination. We also know that the most likely cause is legacy sludge/biosolid spreading on fields. Using that same Northwood common sense, more testing is necessary and should be paid for by the state until responsible parties are held financially accountable. Unfortunately, Wisconsin Politicians have chosen to not release PFAS funding for almost 2 years now. Rather they choose to play partisan politics. Our Northwoods common sense says, "pathetic".

We at OCCWA recognize RT's commitment to his community by his attending and participating in local meeting on PFAS. We've witnessed him sharing his expertise in water testing at the DNR's first town of Stella meeting as well as the most recent Science on Tap presentation in Woodruff. RT Krueger, someone you should know.

Posted 2/11/25- February's Science on Tap with DNR's Mark Pauli was a rousing success!

As promoted in OCCWA's Clean Water Updates, on Thursday February 6th, Rocky Reef Brewing Company Home | Rocky Reef Brewing Company hosted Science on Tap. Mark Pauli DNR drinking water specialist was the guest speaker. Mark is based out of Rhinelander and has been quite involved in the Town of Stella's PFAS water testing.

For those who could not attend, you missed a wonderful evening with an enlightened discussion on PFAS. If you would like to see what you missed, you may view a recording of the event on YouTube at PFAS and WI Ground Water .

Your next chance to meet OCCWA staff will be at the Northwoods Land Trust Holmboe snowshoe hike on February 20th Snowshoe at Holmboe Conifer Forest – Northwoods Land Trust . See our January 29 post below for details.

Posted 2/5/25- OCLRA's February eNews is out covering road salt impacts, crayfish, Six County Lakes Conference date and more.

You can subscribe to the OCLRA's eNews at Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association News ~ OCLRA . The next OCLRA Board meeting is Monday, February 10, at 9 a.m., at the ADRC building in Rhinelander, across the parking lot from Trig’s grocery. All are welcome. OCLRA does great work hosting the Six Counties Lakes Conference

every year here in our county at Nicolet College.

Posted 1/28/24- P&D to wrap up Comprehensive Plan language and forward to towns for 60-day review period.

As reported on numerous occasions, the County's P&D Committee has been working on writing a new Comprehensive Plan for close to two years. Many concerning changes have been made, which OCCWA has drawn attention to. According to the Committee in their last meeting on January 22, the final draft of the Comp Plan will go to the towns for review within a few weeks. The towns will have 60 days to review and provide input and share any concerns. What that 60-day review period means, is don't expect a Public Hearing until at least April.

When the public hearing does occur, it will offer one final chance for public comment on the proposed language. Yes, you will get 3 minutes to voice concerns/comments on this vast document. Unless of course, your name is Great Lakes Timber Professionals who received 4 hours of consideration.

Comments made at public hearing may or may not adopted by the committee. We understand that wading through all of the plan is more than one person may be willing do. That being said once we at OCCWA get the final product we will try to convey our most pressing concerns to our followers. It would be at this point we would recommend the public giving input. If you cannot attend the Public Hearing in person, please consider sending email comments to the committee. Remember, email input will be documented in the hearing. You may express concern to your County Supervisor by phone but that will not be documented unless the Supervisor chooses to share it during the meeting.

Once the public hearing is done and all final consideration for changes are incorporated, the new Comprehensive Plan will be brought to the County Board for approval. Please stay tuned and we will do our level best to keep residents posted here in our Clean Water Updates.

To track current P&D changes you can view the November 11th P&D changes at Oneida-GOPs-Summary-of-Changes-11.11.2024-1.pdf (note: Changes highlighted are only those made at the most recent meeting) Any future language changes will also be documented on this link. Feel free to share any concerns or suggestions with us through our Contact Us page Oneida County Clean Waters Action .

The Beauty and Necessity of Wetlands

Oneida County Land and Water Conservation Department shares things you should know about wetlands.

Posted March 5, 2025- Oneida County Land and Water Conservation Department shares press release from their Series on Water Quality.

FEBRUARY 10, 2025

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FROM: ONEIDA COUNTY LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
Wetlands: The Landscape’s Cinderella

Second in a 4-part Series on Water Quality

Wetlands are vital to the health and role of a watershed and therefore are a key component for high water quality. They serve as natural filters, flood buffers, and essential habitats for a wide variety of species. They are key contributors to water quality, flood management, and the overall balance of ecosystems, within a watershed.

Like Cinderella, wetlands in many ways do the dirty work yet tend to be underappreciated by the human population. They act as natural filters, capturing pollutants such as pesticides, PFAS (forever chemicals), fertilizers, road salt, and heavy metals from surface water. This helps improve waters quality before it reaches rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water. Wetlands also act as sponges, absorbing and slowing the flow of water during heavy rains or floods. By storing excess water, they reduce the risk of flooding downstream, offering protection to both human infrastructure and natural areas.

Wetlands provide crucial habitats for a wide variety of species, including migratory birds, amphibians, fish, and plants. These ecosystems support both rare and common species, playing a vital role in maintaining biodiversity. They also help regulate effects of a changing climate by storing large amounts of carbon for longer periods due to the waterlogged conditions of the peatlands in our local bogs.

The roots of wetland plants stabilize soil, preventing erosion along riverbanks and shorelines. This helps reduce sedimentation and preserves the integrity of the surrounding landscape. In addition, the plants and microorganisms in wetland areas process nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, preventing excessive buildup that could harm downstream ecosystems.

Just like with Cinderella, a few people really do appreciate them as they bask in the eerie beauty of a wetland while they hike, fish, canoe, or hunt in them, making wetlands a landscape feature of recreational value.

The DNR’s Healthy Watersheds, High Quality Waters Action Plan (HWHQW) identified 25 Healthy and 6 rare & unique wetlands within Oneida County. There are four different types of wetlands identified in Wisconsin:

We have submerged or aquatic wetlands in which plants grow entirely on or in a water body no deeper than 6 feet. Plants may include pondweed, duckweed, lotus and waterlilies. Also in the category are marshes, which are characterized by standing water and dominated by cattails, bulrushes, pickerelweed, lake sedges, and/or giant bur–reed.

Sedge or wet meadows are herbaceous wetlands and more often than not have saturated soils rather than standing water. Sedges, grasses and reeds are dominant, but you may also find forbs and wildflowers such as blue flag iris, marsh milkweed, sneezeweed, mint, and several species of goldenrod and aster.

Shrub or scrub wetlands include alder thickets and sometimes bogs. They are defined by woody shrubs and small trees such as tag alder, bog birch, willow, and dogwood, stunted spruce and tamarack.

There are a wide variety of forested wetlands, including bogs and forested floodplain complexes, characterized by trees 20 feet or more in height. Tree species include tamarack, white cedar, black spruce, elm, black ash, green ash, and silver maple.
Most people prefer to live on lakes and rivers, because they are unaware of the abundance in wildlife and the important role wetlands play in maintaining high water quality. Wetlands make up a very large percentage of land in Wisconsin and provide one of Wisconsin’s secret treasures in North America.

OCCWA Soap Box:

Oneida County Land & Water Conservation does a wonderful job protecting our county's ecosystems and sharing a wealth of information with the public. More than that they provide access to Cost Share Grants as well as other programs and services. You can check out all they offer at Oneida County Land and Water Conservation - What's Buzzing?

Anniversary #1 for Pelican River Forest

Conservation Fund delivers on watershed protections, sustained forestry, and public road access.

By Tom Wiensch February 25, 2024- On January 23, 2024 Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers announced that the second and final phase of the Pelican River Forest project would be completed, and shortly after that, it was. The project began in earnest in 2021 when The Conservation Fund purchased nearly 70,000 acres of industrial forest in Oneida, Forest, and Langlade Counties.

The Conservation Fund is a private organization that works to conserve working forests, historic sites, wilderness, farmland and urban parks in all fifty states. The Fund typically purchases land, sells conservation easements to ensure that the property will be maintained as working forest, and then sells the land, subject to the easements.

In the case of the Pelican River Forest, this was done in two phases, with nearly 70,000 acres of land ultimately being conserved. The holder of the conservation easements on the forest is the State of Wisconsin. The easement on the lands in the first phase was paid for by the State’s Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund. The easement on the lands in the second phase was paid for with funding from the U.S. Forest Service, a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and money from private donors. The easements require that the land not be fragmented, that it be used for sustainable forestry, and that it be permanently open to the public for recreation.

With some small exceptions, such as a carve-out for development made at the request of the Town of Monico, the easement ensures that the entire forest will not be fragmented and developed. This is especially important as the forest provides a link between the

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest and the Oneida County Forest Enterprise Unit, contains miles of rivers and streams, including the headwaters of the Wolf and Pelican Rivers, and contains habitat for many species of plants and animals, including deer, bear, and moose.

Just after the anniversary of the Governor’s announcement I had a chance to speak with three of the people who are managing the Pelican River Forest – Brian Schneider, Forest Operations Manager for The Conservation Fund, and Tony Derleth and Nick Snyder of Huber Resources Corp, the company that The Conservation Fund has hired to manage the forest and get an update on the forest.

Huber Resources Corp is a forest management company based in Maine that manages forests of all sizes for landowners throughout the Eastern United States. Additionally, Huber manages its own lands and is associated with the J.M. Huber Corporation, known for manufacturing engineered wood products. Huber handles the day-to-day management of the forest, including preparing and supervising timber sales, and inspecting the property, including the roads and culverts.

Management of the forest has been going well, with The Conservation Fund achieving the goals and requirements of the easement. This has resulted in environmental benefits, solid, sustainable forestry, and strong contributions to the forest products and recreational aspects of our economy.

The logging operations in the forest are going on year around, except during spring break up time when roads are too easily damaged by traffic. In 2024, about 1100 acres were logged. Mr. Schneider says this is a good, sustainable level, and on target with the ecological goals of the easement. He notes that the harvesting is being done

in a sustainable manner and at a sustainable rate, with growth exceeding harvest, ensuring the forest will remain a consistent and reliable source of raw materials for the wood products industry.

The property consists of various types of forests, including northern hardwood forest, aspen mixed with balsam fir, and red pine plantations. There are some smaller parcels of older growth trees, and lowlands which include some cedar swamps, including some young growth cedar – something relatively scarce in Wisconsin.

The northern hardwood forest components are largely being managed for mixed age forest. This means that, when thinning is done, trees of various ages (usually the least high quality of each age group) are removed. This results in healthy forests consisting of trees of varying sizes.

The stands of aspen are generally clear cut or “patch clear cut”, meaning that smaller patches within a larger block are cut. Clearcutting aspen mimics the fires that occurred naturally in the past, maintains young forest which is beneficial to deer, bears, moose and other species, and allows for production of paper products.

Most of the pine plantations are currently being thinned, as they have not reached the proper age for a regeneration harvest. After harvest, the plantations may be replanted, or in some cases converted to hardwood forests.

Recreationally, things are going very well with the forest. Approximately 75 miles of road are open to the public for most of the year with the obvious exception of spring break up time. The Conservation Fund employs a security contractor which has helped minimize garbage dumping and other illegal activities.

Users of the forest are reminded to be respectful of the resource – Road maintenance is costly, and funds expended for trash removal and other damage remediation are funds not available for more positive things like road upgrading. Those traveling the roads need to be mindful of seasonal closures and closures due to logging activity or necessitated by natural events such as weather and beaver activity.

All snowmobile trails that were in existence at the time the easements were granted remain in existence. Additionally, using some of the old logging roads and trails, The Conservation Fund and Huber Resources have consulted with a local ATV club and designated new ATV trails within the forest. These trails connect existing trails on other lands, sometimes using ATV designated town roads as links, creating a better system of ATV trails in the area.

The Pelican River Forest has been a huge success. The forest provides year around jobs, supplies wood products, and provides land for recreational activities. Also, the forest stores an immense amount of carbon – equivalent to the amount created by millions of passenger vehicles annually, and filters billions of gallons of precipitation, which enters the groundwater, the wetlands, and the Wolf and Pelican Rivers and their tributaries.

PFAS in Oneida County School Addressed

Details shared of PFAS in water at Minocqua Hazelhurst Elementary School.

By Eric Rempala February 25, 2025- The Minocqua Hazelhurst Elementary School (MHES) or MHLT as the sign out front says, is located at 7450 TITUS DR in Minocqua. MHES has had a perfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) problem. The details of this problem we hope to share so that the public can better understand the most recent public PFAS discovery in Oneida County.

As per the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), MHES is a non-transient non-community (NN) public water system in Oneida County. This system operates with a main well (WUWN NO228) and a back-up well (WUWN XM158). The two wells providing a water source as the school is not hooked up to municipal water or sewer. The fact that the school serves greater than 25 of the same people per day for greater than 6 months of the year makes it a NN public water system.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires public water systems to test water supplies for bacteriological agents and chemical contaminants to protect the health of their consumers. The frequency and extent of testing is dependent on the type of public water system and the population the system serves. The water at MHES is tested for PFAS on a quarterly basis because the initial sampling results indicated the presence of PFAS at levels greater than the Wisconsin Department of Health Services’ (DHS) recommended health guidelines. The DHS’ health-based recommendations are 20 nanograms per liter (ng/L) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) combined, or a hazard index (HI) of 1. A hazard index calculates the level of risk from a mixture of PFAS in water. The school is responsible for the PFAS testing, and all sample results from public water systems can be found online at: Drinking Water System Portal: Home Page

Per the DNR's Drinking Water System Portal, the system initially sampled for perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on June 6, 2023 as a new sampling requirement after a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 70 ng/L for PFOA + PFOS was established in August 2022 by the administrative rule process and approval by the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board (NRB). The DHS established a recommended health guideline of 20 ng/L prior to starting the administrative rule process.

The Wisconsin DHS made a heath-based recommendation for PFAS of 20 parts per trillion (ppt) or HI > 1. Parts per trillion is equivalent to ng/L, therefore 20ppt is equal to 20 ng/L. Agencies choose to use one or the other measurement which can be confusing to the general public. The EPA actually has set their PFAS MCL's at 4 ppt in April 2024 with health advisory levels set at much lower levels. The state of Wisconsin has begun the administrative rule process to amend state regulations to match the EPA's 4 ppt PFAS limit.

MHES's initial sampling for PFAS back on June 2, 2023 had a HI exceedance occurring at primary well WUWN NO228 with a reported PFOA+PFOS concentration of 22.7 ng/L. Under authority in NR809.952, Wisconsin Administrative Code, a Tier 2 Public Notification letter was sent to the school by the DNR on June 27, 2023 with a signed copy received by the department on June 28, 2023. The second quarterly PFAS sample was collected on August 24, 2023 with analytical results indicating no detection of PFAS.

The third quarterly PFAS sample was collected on November 28, 2023 with analytical results indicating again a HI exceedance with a reported PFOA+PFOS concentration of 24 ng/L. A Tier 2 Public Notice was sent to the school on December 11, 2023 with a signed copy received by the DNR on December 13, 2023. Upon receiving results for the November 28, 2023 sample, primary well WUWN NO228 was inactivated and back-up well WUWN XM158 was activated as the main well.

Subsequent sampling of well WUWN XM158 for PFAS occurred on March 5, June 18, September 10 and December 3, 2024 with analytical results indicating no detection of PFAS. MHES has not had a Public Notice for PFAS since March 18, 2024 when second quarter 2024 results were received by the DNR.

Primary well WUWN NO228 was deactivated as the main well on November 28, 2023 and back-up well WUWN XM158 was activated as the main well for the school. WUWN NO228 was then only acting as the back-up (lag) well, it was not considered to have no PFAS detection, but it was no longer the compliance sampling location. The compliance sample from newly designated main well WUWN XM158 on September 10, 2024 indicated no detection for PFAS.

With back-up well WUWN NO228 indicating detects for PFAS greater than the EPA’s MCL, MHES applied for a $240,000 EPA Emergent Contaminant - Small Disadvantaged Community (EC-SDC) grant and submitted plans for approval on November 8, 2024 to install an ion exchange treatment system for PFAS removal. A grant approval letter was received by MHES on December 26, 2024. MHES contracted with the engineering firm MSA Professional Services to oversee the project, and a contractor bid process is expected to be accepted by the end of February. MHES has stated, an operable water treatment system is expected to be in place by August 15th.

So, the mandatory testing done by MHES found PFAS the school's water system. Action was taken by the school in concert with the DNR to prevent children from being exposed to PFAS going forward. On top of that MHES applies for and receives federal assistance money from an EPA grant to pay for the PFAS filtration system. Everyone did their job and the state system in place worked identifying and addressing the contamination. One does have to wonder though for how long as federal protections may soon be less stringent. See: Trump EPA withdrawal of PFAS effluent limits is setback for public health, EWG warns | Environmental Working Group

The source of the PFAS at the school has not been identified. We do know from WXPR's Katie Thoresen's historical sludge/biosolid spreading map Biosolids Spreading in Oneida County - Google My Maps that there has been no permitted sludge spreading within 12 miles of MHLT since 1996. We also know spreading has been done in county as far back as the 70's when PFAS use became common but was not yet identified as a health risk. No documentation is available for spreading before 1996.

OCCWA did ask the DNR, Considering the PFAS test results for the school, is the DNR required to do any investigation of the source?

The DNR reply:

"Under the state safe drinking water program, the DNR works with public water systems to identify and take steps to remove contamination in drinking water. Under state law Ch. 292 DNR’s primary role in addressing sources of environmental contamination and subsequent clean-up is to oversee and support investigation conducted by parties responsible for contamination. The DNR’s authority is triggered when we receive a report of a hazardous substance discharge. In this case, the source of the contamination has not been identified at this time, but the DNR will continue to evaluate any additional information as it becomes available. The DNR remains committed to working with our partners across units of government, including local county and municipal governments, to support the work underway and to continue to safeguard public drinking water and protect surface water and groundwater."

OCCWA would like to thank the DNR for their response as well as their patience with us in explaining the details of this complex issue.

OCCWA's Letter to County on Zoning of Mines

Opening mining up to over 70% of Oneida County while eliminating town input is unacceptable.

February 18, 2025- Below is OCCWA's letter to the Oneida County P&D Committee recommending zoning of mines should be returned to pre 2018 Mining Ordinance change.

Oneida County P&D Committee and County Board members,

Oneida County Clean Waters Action (OCCWA) would like to submit our concerns for the county's consideration pertaining to the additions of Metallic Sulfide Mining as a permitted use in zoning Districts 1A Forestry and General Use in Chapter 9 of the Oneida County Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance. Bear in mind that OCCWA has no resources to contract a lawyer and any opinions given are those of our group not that of a lawyer. We respectfully ask that that the P&D Committee and the county's legal counsel determine the validity of our presented concerns and consider reassessing the zoning changes mentioned above.

Initial Questions

Referencing Oneida County's Corporation Counsel's quote from 2018 article New mining ordinance, referendum passed - Northwoods Star Journal

"Some members of the public present at the meeting called for the old ordinance to be left alone, which would effectively leave an unenforceable ordinance on the books according to Fugle. He said that because state law had repealed the moratorium, the greatest danger would be a prohibition on mining in the event that the county was taken to court."

“Very clearly, the legislature spoke that mining is permitted in Wisconsin,” Fugle said.

Question #1) Exactly what reference is being cited by Mr. Fugle when he states the legislature spoke as far as what a prohibition on mining is?

Question #2) Since permitting mining in 1A Forestry and General Use allows mining as right in an estimated 70% of county land, how did the county decide that permitting mining on 70% of its lands somehow codifies the legislature's supposed requirements?

Question #3) Exactly what is the minimum percentage of land mining must be permitted on to not qualify as a prohibition according to the legislature?

Question #4) Does the legislature actually have a minimum requirement or was the 70% determined by the county?

Question #5) Does permitting mining as Conditional Use Permit rather than a permitted zone use fulfill the percentage requirement in determining a prohibition?

Question #6) Does allowing mining in any zone in the county by requiring the land owner to apply for a rezone in order to mine not fulfill the supposed percentage requirement in determining prohibition?

Less than on tenth of one percent inaccurate?

Referencing Oneida County's Corporation Counsel's quote from Northwoods Star Journal linked above.

"During the county board’s discussion of the ordinance, Assistant Corporation Counsel Michael Fugle said that to limit mining to districts zoned manufacturing and industrial would only account for less than one-tenth of one percent of the land in Oneida County. Based on that, mining companies could make an argument that mining was practically restricted, he explained."

Question #1) Why was it stated that mining was limited to only one tenth of one percent of Oneida County, when in fact mining was also permitted in all of the land in the towns of Sugar Camp, Enterprise, and Monico?

Question #2) Permitting mining in Sugar Camp, Enterprise, and Monico surely is a much greater percentage of Oneida County. Would this percentage not fulfill the supposed percentage requirement in determining prohibition?

Question #3) Though we clearly don't believe this inaccuracy was deliberate, would this fact not be a substantial reason to reconsider zoning changes that were made in 2018?

Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) language

Reference WCA website- 2018-final-mining-handbook.pdf

Excerpt from WCA mining handbook:

"1. Legal Standards for Zoning Ordinances. A zoning ordinance is an exercise of a county’s police power. Police power is defined as “the power to regulate for the advancement and protection of the health, morals, safety or general welfare of the community as a whole.”43 Zoning ordinances will be upheld when they are deemed a valid exercise of a county’s police power. As such, zoning ordinances must have a reasonable and rational relationship to the furtherance of a proper legislative purpose. Protecting the public from potential impacts of nonferrous metallic mining, particularly any environmental or health impacts, likely qualifies as a “proper legislative purpose.” Wisconsin Statute § 293.49(1)(a)6 anticipates a local zoning regulatory overlay and requires that a “proposed mining operation conforms with all applicable zoning ordinances.” Other sections of Chapter 293 reference local zoning considerations, thus contemplating and anticipating local zoning of nonferrous metallic mining. A zoning ordinance is unconstitutional when its provisions are clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, and have no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.44 Potential impacts of nonferrous metallic mining such as noise, dust, water quality and traffic usually have a substantial relationship to public health and welfare. As such, a comprehensive zoning ordinance that addresses public health concerns such as noise, dust, and water quality is more likely to withstand a constitutional challenge."

OCCWA Question: Doesn't the above language from WCA indicate that the county may use its Policing Powers to not allow an activity if it's doesn't protect the health, morals, safety and general welfare of the community as a whole?

OCCWA Question: Did the county settle on allowing mining in 1A Forestry and General Use in fear of an undetermined lawsuit, while dismissing a town's right of their rezone powers?

Also, an excerpt from WCA's mining handbook Q&A Page 10

WCA question: May a county explicitly prohibit nonferrous metallic mining in its zoning?

WCA answer: Perhaps. A county may explicitly prohibit nonferrous metallic mining in its zoning code, or it may effectively prohibit nonferrous metallic mining by not including it as a permitted use or a conditional use. Counties must also be mindful of equal protection issues. See Section VII/9 – Zoning Ordinances/Permitted Uses and Equal Protection below for more information.

OCCWA Question: Though we are not recommending an outright ban on mining, is it not interesting that WCA intimates that an outright ban may be possible?

Conditional Use Permit advantages
A conditional use permit (CUP) offers advantages over standard zoning by providing greater flexibility for landowners to use their property in ways not typically allowed by zoning regulations and enabling specific exceptions to zoning rules while still allowing local governments to control potential negative impacts through imposed conditions, often making it a simpler and more targeted alternative to rezoning the entire property. A conditional use permit (CUP) offers an advantage over standard zoning by providing flexibility to allow specific land uses that might not be permitted under typical zoning regulations, while still enabling the local government to set conditions to mitigate potential negative impacts on the surrounding area, making it suitable for projects like schools, hospitals, or religious institutions in residential zones that could be beneficial to the community when managed appropriately.

Key advantages of a CUP over standard zoning:

Site-specific considerations: AA CUP allows for a case-by-case evaluation of a proposed land use, taking into account the unique characteristics of the property and its surroundings, rather than applying a blanket zoning rule.
Mitigation of potential impacts:By attaching specific conditions to the permit, the local government can ensure that a potentially impactful development is managed in a way that minimizes negative effects on the neighborhood.
Flexibility for beneficial uses:A CUP can enable necessary community facilities like schools or community centers to be permitted in areas where they might not be allowed under standard zoning, provided they meet certain criteria.
Public input and review process:The application for a CUP usually involves a public hearing, allowing residents to voice concerns and providing an opportunity for the local government to consider community perspectives.

Important points to remember about CUPs:

Not a guaranteed approval: While a CUP offers flexibility, it does not guarantee approval of a proposed land use; the applicant must still demonstrate that their project meets the established conditions.
Potential for controversy: Due to the site-specific nature of a CUP, there might be concerns about favoritism or special treatment for certain developers.
Administrative burden: The process of reviewing and approving a CUP can be more complex than a standard zoning permit, requiring additional staff time and resources.

OCCWA Question: Wouldn't permitting mining by way of Conditional Use Permit rather than permitted by zoning, reinstate a town's ability to give input by way of approving or denying a zoning change?

OCCWA Question: Why would the county want to take away a public hearing, allowing residents to voice concerns and providing an opportunity for the local government to consider community perspectives?

Wisconsin Supreme Court Eco-Site decision
The Fawn Lake Group who contested siting of a cell tower in the February 5th P&D meeting is worth paying attention to. The Fawn Lake Group cited the Eco-Site LLC v. Town of Cedarburg.

A quick google search revealed the information below.
In 2019, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the Town of Cedarburg's denial of a conditional use permit to build a cell tower. The case was Eco-Site, LLC v. Town of Cedarburg, 2019 WI App 42.

What happened?

Eco-Site, a wireless infrastructure provider, applied to build a cell tower on private land
The Town Board denied the application
Eco-Site appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals upheld the Town's decision

Why was the decision upheld?

The Board's decision was based on the tower's impact on the neighborhood's uses and lifestyle, as well as its economic impact on neighboring property values
The decision was not based solely on aesthetic concerns

What does this decision mean?

This decision is important for municipalities that want to regulate cell tower siting. It shows that municipalities should consider non-aesthetic factors when granting cell tower permits.

OCCWA question: Is the allowed denial of a CUP siting of a cell tower not relative to the citing of a mine?

OCCWA question: Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a town may legally reject a CUP be it cell tower or mining, why wouldn't the county want to have that ability afforded to them?

Final recommendations

As the P&D Committee knows, Karl Fate and the OCCWA have for many years questioned the county's adding mining as a permitted use in Districts 1A Forestry and General Use during the 2018 rewrite of the County's Mining Ordinance. Our opinion has always been that limiting mining as originally allowed before the 2018 rewrite to only District 8 Manufacturing and Industrial would not be a practical ban/ prohibition on mining - as long as a company can petition for rezoning any land in question. By returning to original pre 2018 zoning the county will restore a town's ability be a part of the permitting process, thus ensuring local input once again.

Furthermore, we question the transparency of the County in waiting 6 years to reflect the changes made in 2018 to the Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance. Not making the changes to the Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance in 2018 when the Mining Ordinance was revised, made it very difficult for towns and residents alike to understand the power to approve rezone they lost.

The zoning changes the county made in the 2018 Mining Ordinance have opened up an estimated 70% of county land to mining. 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 the estimated numbers below. In other words, what (estimated) percentage of town land is mining now permitted due to 2018 Mining Ordinance changes.

Estimated percentage of land mining is permitted for Oneida County towns: 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.

Clearly some of these percentages are ridiculously high. Considering the results of the 2018 Oneida County Referendum where 62% of the county voted against a mine project in Lynne and measurable opposition to mining from the public in recent years, we believe that that zoning should be changed back to pre 2018 Mining Ordinance with mining being permitted only in District 8 Manufacturing and Industrial with the ability of landowners in all other zoning districts to apply for rezone for the ability to mine.

Additionally, we recommend the county enact changes to the proposed current Comprehensive Plan language related to mining, incorporating WCA's recommended language.

"As such, a comprehensive zoning ordinance that addresses public health concerns such as noise, dust, and water quality is more likely to withstand a constitutional challenge."

Adding this language to the Comprehensive Plan will reflect public opinion and only increase county's ability to withstand a constitutional challenge. Changing the current proposed language of

"Allow metallic mining through the County’s metallic mining exploration, bulk sampling, and mining ordinance while balancing natural resources, and the interest and safety of County residents and landowners to comply with state laws."

with

We thank the Committee for soliciting our input.

Respectfully,

Eric Rempala

occwa.org

Take Action - public comments needed

If you are a resident or property owner in Oneida County and agree with OCCWA's position that mining should not be a permitted use in zoning districts 1A Forestry and General Use, please join us and respectfully voice your opinion.

Send your concerns to the Oneida County Clerk at occlerk@oneidacountywi.gov

In your message be sure to state your position, and that you'd like it forwarded to the P&D Committee. Don't forget to include your address of where you live as well as properties owned.

Elk in the Pelican River Forest?

People asked so we did some digging whether Elk introduction is even feasible or being considered.

By Tom Wiensch February 19, 2025- Like people most everywhere, Wisconsin residents love to view large wild animals. We love the deer and elk and rare moose that we see in Wisconsin. We love to dream of the time when there were actually woodland caribou in the state. Since the conservation victory in 2024 that resulted in the nearly 70,000 acre Pelican River Forest being conserved for environmental protection, logging, and recreation, there has been talk among people in the area of the potential for the forest to someday support an elk herd. Of course, the forest already supports whitetail deer, and on occasion, moose are spotted there too.

I have had the chance to do some reading about the history of elk and moose in Wisconsin and to speak with Joshua Spiegel, the Northern Elk Herd Biologist for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The information in this article comes from a number of sources, including my reading and my conversation with Mr. Spiegel.

Mr. Spiegel has a bachelor’s degree in natural resources with an emphasis in fish and wildlife ecology from Northland College in Ashland Wisconsin. He has worked in several jobs with the Wisconsin DNR, working closely on the northern elk herd since 2012, and serving in his current position since 2020. During that time, he has focused on elk in Wisconsin and has a wealth of knowledge on the subject. He and other DNR staff study and monitor the herd and monitor the limited annual elk hunts. They monitor the herd and estimate its size using such techniques as trapping and collaring, as well surveying elk during rut/bugling season. He explained that the elk are trapped in baited corral style traps. Given the relatively calm nature of elk, this can be done with minimal stress to the animals. Elk are social herd animals and are quite vocal during mating season, so they can be called in by humans imitating the bugling of bulls and the calling of cows. This is also how elk can be captured and translocated when needed.

Although elk, moose, and woodland caribou were all once native to the state of Wisconsin, unfortunately all three were extirpated by humans through unregulated hunting and habitat changes. Caribou were gone by about 1850. A market hunter’s shipping receipt shows the last evidence of Elk in 1886, and moose were likely gone by about 1900, although some moose sightings occurred during the 1900’s.

It is very likely that elk once lived in every county in Wisconsin. Remains in the form of antlers and bones have been found in over 50 counties. The city of Elkhorn in extreme Southern Wisconsin was so named after an elk antler was found in a tree in the area in 1836. More recently, in 2005 most of a 500-year-old skeleton of a bull elk was found in Middle Eau Claire Lake in Bayfield County in far Northern Wisconsin. Elk are generalists that can live in varying upland habitat. As animals that primarily graze (eat ground plants), they prefer areas with grass and forbs, but also do browse (eat tree buds etc.) This, and their ability to adapt to many climates and ecosystems allowed them to inhabit many different parts of North America from Mexico to Northern Canada.

Caribou were likely confined to areas of old growth boreal forest which is now extremely limited in Wisconsin. Moose were more common, especially north of the 44th parallel. Like caribou, moose have more specific habitat needs than elk. Suitable moose habitat would need to include a great deal of young cover, significant spruce and fir forest, and wetlands.

In 1989 the Wisconsin Legislature asked the DNR to study the feasibility of reintroducing elk, moose, or caribou to the state. A study was conducted, and it was determined that elk were the strongest candidate for reintroduction. Proper habitat for woodland caribou is severely limited in Wisconsin, and caribou have been gone from Minnesota for decades and are receding northward in Ontario. It was determined that moose reintroduction would be difficult without larger scale clearcutting of forest to imitate historic burn areas, and because of the high numbers of deer in Wisconsin. Deer are carriers of brainworm (P. Tenuis or meningeal worm), which is fatal to moose. It is believed that moose survival would be threatened in areas where deer populations are at 10 deer per square mile or greater. Most or all of Wisconsin has deer densities greater than that.

Interestingly, since the reintroduction of moose to Upper Michigan in the 1980’s, moose have begun appearing in Wisconsin, including in the Pelican River Forest. One of the forest managers reports seeing tracks there on a fairly regular basis. Also, in recent years, two moose sightings occurred within the city limits of Rhinelander. Moose are great travelers though, so it’s hard to know how many, if any, spend the entire year in Wisconsin. In 2002 a moose calf was born in Forest County Wisconsin. It was the first moose calf known to have been born in Northern Wisconsin in many years. Its mother was thought to have been a summer resident of Wisconsin, spending the falls and winters in the U.P. Also, in 2003 a moose was collared in Forest County. Over recent decades there have also been moose sightings in other areas, including Iron County and Vilas County. It is estimated that the Wisconsin moose population is between 20 and 40 animals. Still, because of limited habitat and high densities of deer throughout the state, the establishment of a large population of moose is unlikely.

There have been multiple attempts to reintroduce elk into Wisconsin, and most of the Eastern United States, beginning in the early 1900’s. In 1913 elk from Yellowstone National Park were transported to a fenced area near Trout Lake in Vilas County Wisconsin. In 1917 40 more elk were brought from the Jackson Hole Wyoming area. In 1932, 15 surviving elk from these transplants were released into the wild. By the 1950’s, it was determined that all had been killed. During the same era, Yellowstone elk were reintroduced into the northern part of Lower Michigan. That began a herd that has survived to this day.

The DNR feasibility study that was ordered in 1989 identified 15 potential suitable locations for the reintroduction of elk into Wisconsin After the completion of that study, Governor Tommy Thompson ordered that the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point further study the potential reintroduction of elk to the state. The preferred location for the reintroduction of elk was determined to be the Bayfield Peninsula. Apple growers and snowmobilers in the area disagreed. So, it was determined that the Clam Lake area of Ashland County, near the Ashland/Sawyer County line, was a good second choice. This area contained a large open land corridor because of Project ELF that had (a U.S. Navy communications project) that had resulted in the clearing of many acres of land in a large “X” pattern.

In 1995 the State of Michigan donated 25 elk, and on May 17,1995, those elk were released near Clam Lake Wisconsin and became the beginning of the modern-day northern elk herd in Wisconsin. The herd grew until the middle of the first decade of this century, when growth slowed. An aging forest, awaiting rotation as litigation suspended timber harvest, coupled with predation, created difficulties. Without the timber harvests, proper elk habitat was decreasing. Two options were looked at to address this: The expansion of the northern herd area to the south into the Flambeau River State Forest where more young successional forest could be harvested; and the movement of more elk to Wisconsin.

Next, a plan was developed to start a herd in Eastern Jackson County Wisconsin. Unfortunately, the development of that herd was delayed due to the discovery of chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin, which limited the movement of deer and elk in Wisconsin.

Finally, in 2012 approval was granted to obtain elk from the State of Kentucky to start a herd in Jackson County and to supplement the northern herd. In 2015 and 2016, 73 Kentucky elk were released in Jackson County to form the Central Wisconsin elk herd. In 2017 and 2019 more elk, totaling 91 animals were released in the expanded northern herd area. This not only added animals to the northern herd, but also added genetic diversity, as Kentucky had obtained over 1500 elk from Utah, Oregon, North Dakota, New Mexico, and Kansas.

The Wisconsin elk herd has grown to the point that there are now limited tribal and non-tribal hunts each year. It is estimated that, after the 2024 spring calving season, there were about 350 elk in the northern herd and about 180 in the southern herd.

We can thank the Wisconsin DNR for its work in the lead role in reintroducing and managing elk in Wisconsin. Significantly, the DNR has received financial and other assistance with the project from the Ho Chunk Nation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, the Wisconsin County Forest Association, the United States Forest Service, the Jackson County Wildlife Fund, The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, several Wisconsin counties, a number of grassroots volunteers, and others.

Could an elk herd be established in the Pelican River Forest? Probably. The DNR study ordered by the governor identified 15 areas in the state that were potentially suitable for elk reintroduction (see map.) Area 11 contains part of the Pelican River Forest, and lands to the north and east of it, including Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest lands. When asked if the introduction of elk would increase the likelihood of brainworm in the moose that show up in the Pelican River Forest, Mr. Spiegel indicated that the risk might not be significant as moose and elk utilize different habitat. He did indicate, however, that if chronic wasting disease were to be present in the area, that could be an issue.

The current elk management plan was adopted in 2024. It is a 10-year plan that addresses the two existing elk herds in Wisconsin but does not call for the introduction of more elk into other areas of the state. With the return of elk, also come nuisance complaints and other complications. Understanding and addressing these complications is critical, so further reintroduction plans can reduce human-elk conflicts. So, there is no current plan to try to establish an elk herd in the Pelican River Forest, but who knows what the future might bring? Bringing elk back to any part of Wisconsin was once only a dream.

History of County Mining Zoning Changes

It's Incumbent upon Towns and residents to take back critical protections on mining.

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.

Time for Public to Weigh in on Popular Program

Beckie Gaskill's Midwest Conservation checks in with just the facts on Knowles Nelson Program.

By Beckie Gaskill January 21, 2024- The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program has provided grants to nonprofits and local governments and has awarded hundreds of grants to fund any number of conservation land purchases as well as to fund recreational development across Wisconsin. Grants through this program have been used in a variety of ways including purchasing land, creating recreational trails, campground and boat launches. One of those land purchases recently, however, the Pelican River Easement, was threatened by a statute that mandated involvement of the state’s Joint Finance Committee in certain land purchased, but only in a particular part of the state, and only if that purchase required a certain amount of money.

In the case of the 56,000-acre acquisition in the Pelican Lake Forest, $4 million was needed, coupled with $11.4 million in Federal dollars. One member of the Joint Finance Committee 9JFC) moved to block that purchase. It was originally done anonymously, but eventually Senator Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) came forward to say that she was the one who objected, stating that many of her constituents were against the acquisition and that it would take away from possible future tax rolls of the small Town of Monico, among other things.

At that point, recreational enthusiasts as well as hunting and fishing organizations and individual stakeholders banned together in an attempt to see the state’s largest land acquisition go through to keep that land from being developed in perpetuity.

After this, the JFC’s involvement in any Knowles-Nelson was called into question. Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the law allowing JFC’s ability to anonymously veto a Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program project. The opinion was authored by Justice Rebecca Bradley, according to Gathering Waters, an alliance for land trusts that supports more than 40 land trusts statewide in Wisconsin. This caused some ire in the legislature and there is now a push to eliminate Knowles-Nelson funding. Gathering Waters opposes this elimination, as do other organizations and individuals in the state.

To learn more about Knowles-Nelson and to see an interactive map of the projects funded through the program, visit: https://knowlesnelson.org/an-interactive-map-of-knowles-nelson-grants/

For Wisconsin residents who may want to contact their legislators to show their support for Knowles-Nelson, simply click this link: Take Action – Knowles Nelson Stewardship

Midwest Conservation by Beckie Gaskill is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber at Midwest Conservation by Beckie Gaskill | Substack

OCCWA Commentary: To easily send a postcard to your legislator supporting the Knowles Nelson Program go to link Take Action – Send a Postcard to Your Legislator – Knowles Nelson Stewardship A few minutes of you time is all it takes!

To read Tom Wiensch's OCCWA article on local Knowles Nelson projects, see his October 10th post below on our Home Page.

New Wave Boat Study, Same Conclusion

Latest Wave Boat study from Connecticut reinforces setting higher end numbers on restrictions.

By Dan Butkus December 24, 2024- Many of us have been following the issue of the impacts of wake boats on our local lakes in Wisconsin. The impacts include powerful waves that can erode shoreline, stir up sediment, safety, and aquatic invasive species transfer. Several states have gone before Wisconsin in attempting to regulate the boats on inland lakes. There is outcry from lake users and pushback from wake boat owners and the boating industry. It’s a tug-of-war over whose data is “real”. But now there is one more study that supports the position that these boats have a large negative impact on lakes. The Lake Waramaug Inter-Local Commission published its report on November 15, 2024. The study was done by Terra Vigilis Environmental Services Group. It included surveys of area residents, a literature review, as well as their own testing and observations. Lake Waramaug is a 656-acre lake in the towns of Kent, Warren, and Washington in Litchfield County Connecticut.

There’s a lot to go through in the report. If you’d like to read the entire report, it can be found through this link: lake_waramaug_final_report.pdf . Several different wake boats and ski boats were used in their study on Lake Waramaug.

There are several key take-away’s from the report. First, they found that wake boats in wake mode (bow-up configuration at slow speeds), create waves at least twice as high as a water ski boat. These waves also have 4 times the wave energy as a ski boat. In order for a wake boat wave to dissipate to the same energy as a ski boat 100 ft from shore, the distance of the wake boat needs to be over 500 ft from shore. This confirms several studies including the University of Minnesota and Water Environment Consultants (WEC) performed on Lakes Rabun & Burton, Georgia, January 2021.

Secondly, the effects of the downward wash from the boat’s motor reaches down to at least 26 ft deep, roiling the water and re-suspending lakebed sediments. Additionally, the wakes created increase suspension of lake sediments near shore. Not only does settling out of re-suspended sediments cover aquatic plants robbing of them of sunlight, Terra Vigilis also noted increased levels of suspended phosphorous in Lake Waramaug, especially around the shoreline.

The following action items for Lake Waramaug Inter-Local Commission were developed by Terra Vigilis:

· “Develop and establish management procedures for large displacement wave action impacts on Lake Waramaug, CT”
· “Develop and establish management procedures to assure a 500-foot minimum distance from the near shore, other vessels and shore structures relative to Wake Board boats in surf mode on Lake Waramaug, CT”
· “Develop and establish management procedures to assure minimum depth areas to be designated and protected from sediment redistribution events from Wake Board boats in surf mode on Lake Waramaug, CT”
· “Develop and establish educational programs to address measured limits of public knowledge regarding safe boating practices for all vessel types and lake usage on Lake Waramaug, CT”
· “Develop and establish educational programs to address public awareness of large wave impacts to the surface and subsurface of Lake Waramaug, CT”
· “Additional study of sediment re-distribution and nutrient release”

Back here in Wisconsin, over 50 environmental and lake organizations as well as businesses that serve water sports have formed a coalition to promote reasonable regulation of wake boats in our state. The new study from Connecticut goes a long way in supporting what the coalition has proposed:

· Operate at least 700 ft from shore
· Operate at depths greater than 30 ft
· Minimize transport of aquatic invasive species (ballast tanks do not completely empty when moving from one lake to another)
· Retain local control for more restrictive regulations by towns/municipalities.

It is hoped that meaningful dialog can take place to provide a state-wide standard for operating wake boats so that their impact on the environment may be managed, and other users of our lakes can coexist with wake boats.

Future of Forests Considered

Given Wisconsin's Greenfire's latest report, what does the future hold for Oneida County's Forests?

By Tom Wiensch December 19, 2024, (Photo credit Len Hyke)- The history of forests and forestry in Wisconsin is long and storied. The tales from the big cutover of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which include mythical creatures and massive tragedies like the Peshtigo Fire, have left an indelible mark on Wisconsin Culture.

More recently, our forests have provided ecosystems and products that sustain traditional indigenous culture, habitat for animals, jobs, raw materials, and recreation. Importantly, our forests also protect our lakes and rivers, sequester carbon, and provide clean air.

Currently, about 46% of Wisconsin is forested. Of Wisconsin’s 72 counties, Oneida County is in the top tier at number 11 with 77% of the County being forested. Oneida County has a substantial county forest of 83,000 acres along with state and national forest lands. The County also contains much of the nearly 70,000-acre Pelican River Forest and other industrial forest land. Historically this has made Oneida County an important part of the forest products and recreation industries in Wisconsin.

As the world changes, though, the forests of Wisconsin and the industries they support are also changing. Recently, Wisconsin’s Green Fire (WGF) issued a report on the risks that Wisconsin’s forests are facing. The report is: Wisconsin’s Green Fire. (2024). Wisconsin forests at risk: engaging Wisconsinites in another century of forest conservation [White paper]. The report is available at: Opportunities Now 2024: Wisconsin Forests at Risk • Wisconsin’s Green Fire Also, you may register for a free December 15th, Wisconsin's Forests at Risk webinar hosted by WGF at: Meeting Registration - Zoom

WGF is a professionally staffed organization that was founded in 2017. Its mission is to “advance science-informed analysis and policy solutions that address Wisconsin’s greatest conservation challenges.” As part of that mission, WGF publishes issue papers in its “Opportunities Now” series that summarize science and background information concerning key conservation and environmental issues and makes policy recommendations that support conservation.

The “Forests at Risk” paper describes how ecological, economic, and social changes are affecting Wisconsin forests and are likely to change the ownership and management of the forests in ways that decrease the benefits that forests provide. The paper also makes recommendations and offers hope for the future.

Among the risks to forests and forestry cited by WGF are:

· The loss of tree species and other species. Example – The loss of ash species due to emerald ash borer.
· Over-browsing by deer changing the composition of forests. Examples – Restricted regeneration of white cedar.
· A decline in biodiversity and the condition of forest, caused in part by invasive species. Example – The domination of the understory in some forests by non-native buckthorn.
· Climate change. Examples – The change in forest species and shorter winter logging seasons.
· Changing forest age. Examples – Fewer young forests and very few old growth forests.
· Declining markets for forest products. Example – The decline of pulpwood markets caused in part by the decline in demand for writing paper.
· Landowner goals changing from forestry to development and other non-forestry uses. Example – The decline in forest product prices and increase reforestation costs leading landowners to divide and develop forest land.
· The development of carbon markets. Example – These markets represent a new use for forests, but the markets may not be as accessible to smaller landowners.
· Fragmentation and a decrease in size of private forests. Example – Land is cleared for development, decreasing continuity of forests, and making forests less suitable for certain species.

The “Forests at Risk” paper also offers ideas for actions things that can be done to address the risks our forests are facing. Examples include:

· Working to stop forest fragmentation.
· Preparing for invasive species by researching, monitoring, and keeping forests diverse.
· More strongly integrating the fields of forest management and wildlife management.
· Increasing the recruitment and training of loggers, and assuring their access to financing, insurance, and training certifications.
· Retaining and expanding programs which provide incentives to landowners to keep their lands forested.
· Using regional planning to optimize opportunities to achieve conservation of forests and ensure a supply of forest products.
These are only a few of the steps recommended by WGF. Additionally, other agencies, organizations and individuals have been working to address these issues. Examples:
· The creation of a seedbank which will include black ash seeds by the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) and the Lac Vieux Desert Nursery, as described in an article in the Winter 2024 – 2025 issue of “Mazina’igan: A Chronicle of the Lake Superior Chippewa” published by GLIFWC.
· The work being done by the River Alliance of Wisconsin to launch a Manoomin (wild rice) Stewards Project. Although perhaps not conventionally considered a forest plant, Manoomin is a native plant, culturally significant to Wisconsin’s Native American people, which occupies many lakes within Wisconsin forests.
· The purchase by the State of Wisconsin of a conservation easement on the nearly 70,000-acre Pelican River Forest.
· The efforts of Individuals like Joe and Mary Hovel and groups like the Northwoods Alliance in purchasing land to prevent forest fragmentation.

Finally, WGF calls for a statewide conversation involving all stakeholders, including local, county, state, federal and tribal leaders, conservation and industry organizations, and communities.

WGF is right; the conversation needs to involve all stakeholders. Also, it’s important that all stakeholders act responsibly to conserve the forests of Wisconsin.

In Oneida County, the County Planning and Development Committee is currently working on rewriting the County’s Comprehensive Plan. A re-write is done every ten years and addresses such things as land use. Comprehensive plans are very important, as they establish land use goals, and because state law requires that county ordinances comply with comprehensive plans.

In working on the re-write, the Committee has been accepting written and verbal public comments. Some have commented in favor of the protection of forests in Oneida County for logging, recreation, and the clean air and water that they provide. Others have asked that the plan limit the ability of landowners to conserve forests, restrict such forest recreation projects as bike trail development, and have called for mining in the forests.

It is critical that the leadership of Oneida County bear in mind the fact that logging and recreation are two keystones of our economy. The Comprehensive Plan must recognize these economic facts as well as the cultural and societal importance of forests in Oneida County. The plan should not attempt to restrict the rights of landowners to protect their forests and should recognize that the majority of Oneida County citizens do not wish to have forest land converted into mines. The history and future of Oneida County as a good place to live, work, and play is closely tied to its forests.

Will P&D See Forest for the Trees?

Pelican resident shares concern for P&D Committee's deviation from original values in Comp Plan.

By Ron Eckstein December 17, 2024-

To Members:

Oneida County Planning & Development Committee

Oneida County Conservation & UW-Extension Committee

Thank you for your service to Oneida County and for your important work updating the Oneida County Comprehensive Land Use Plan over the last year and a half.

The 2013 plan served the county well and in the past 12 years many new people and businesses moved into our area. What makes Oneida County an attractive place to live, and work is our way of life and our values. Those values include a commitment to our natural resources, clean water, abundant wildlife, recreation opportunities, and productive forests. We recommend Oneida County continue the 2013 policies that attracted those new people and businesses.

To be successful, the updated Comprehensive Plan must remain true to our values. Unfortunately, a comparison of the 2013 plan to the draft 2024 plan shows a dramatic move away from keeping our forests healthy, our wildlife abundant and our outdoor recreation diverse.

Of particular concern are recommendations from the Great Lakes Timber Professionals. We cannot understand why the timber professionals support fragmenting our forestland into small parcels. All research on forest management shows that forest management is not economically feasible on most small parcels in light of today’s large expensive logging equipment. In addition, landowners of small forest parcels are far less likely to conduct timber sales. Parcelization of larger blocks of forest result in fewer timber sales and the subsequent loss of forest productivity and wildlife habitat.

Another important concern is the recommendation to take away the property rights of private forest landowners. Some private landowners want to manage their land to promote sustainable forestry, wildlife habitat and maintain water quality. These landowners may choose to use private conservation easements or sell to a public agency.

The proposed changes are not in the public interest, do not represent our values and they degrade forest productivity, wildlife habitat, clean water, and our way of life. In addition, the recommendations appear to have been written by the American Stewards of Liberty, a Texas group.

Attached are research studies conducted by Wisconsin DNR’s Division of Forestry. Please read them to help understand the relationship between public land, private MFL land and the ability of towns and counties to provide vital services.

FR-833-Evaluating-the-Association-Between-Public-Access-Land-and-Local-Tax-Rates

FR-835-Timber-Sale-Impact-Estimate-for-the-Proposed-Pelican-River-Forest-Easement

FR-834-Economic-Impacts-of-Timberland-Conservation-Easement-Acquisition

Sincerely,

Ron & Jan Eckstein

Epidemiologist Seeks Grant to Test for Pfas

Free testing of Stella residents' blood for PFAS just one part of proposed study.

By Kathleen Cooper December 17, 2024-

In spite of the continued lack of interest in the health of Wisconsinites that have been impacted by PFAS by our state legislators (who have been withholding funds budgeted for PFAS mitigation for the past year and a half), OCCWA has good news that has nothing to do with our state government. Amy Schultz, a scientist at UW Department of Population Health Sciences and Epidemiology Senior Data Scientist, contacted OCCWA for introductions to the Oneida County Health Department and the people in Stella.

Dr. Schultz is in the process of writing a grant submission to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a community-based research project to quantify human PFAS exposure and community-level risk for the residents of Stella. As previously stated on the OCCWA website, the Town of Stella was found to have the highest PFAS levels in their groundwater, and consequently in their private wells, of anywhere in Wisconsin. This study will consist of a community-based participatory research approach which will recruit interested Stella residents, who consent to have blood samples taken to detect PFAS levels in their bodies. Dr. Schultz has proposed setting up a 12-day phlebotomy clinic at a community site in Stella where residents will have blood drawn to test for PFAS levels, a test that would normally cost $400-$600. Residents who agree to have their blood tested (for free) will be paid $40. Individual results will be shared with the volunteer participants via mail, and aggregate results will be shared at the Stella Town Hall, in keeping with the privacy of the participants. After the blood tests are completed, 40 participants who had the highest PFAS blood levels will be offered an at-home visit where PFAS levels will be tested in their home environment. These at-home participants will be paid an additional $20.

The purpose of this study is to learn of human exposure to PFAS and PAP’s (which are newer chemicals intended to eventually replace PFAS), to learn of community level risks in Stella compared to the general population, to learn of PFAS in garden and outdoor soil and household dust, and to learn of additional ways to limit exposure.

Participation is optional, but the study is seeking 160 people to participate. These participants will receive updates regularly or as requested, of the findings and final report. Interested participants will be offered the opportunity to serve on the Stella Study’s Advisory Board, guaranteeing local involvement.

This study has limited scope and outreach, but once completed can open the way for additional studies, both locally and statewide, so that we can finally understand the scope of the problem of PFAS contamination, the health consequences of high blood PFAS levels, and possibly may persuade our state legislators to finally release the state funding that they have budgeted for PFAS testing/remediation. Perhaps they will even allocate more money in the next budget session! I know, I am a serial optimist, but I can dream, right?

Many thanks to Dr. Amy Schultz for her interest in and compassion for the rural residents of our state. Also thank you to our Oneida County Board of Health Committee for being proactive on this matter. Last but certainly not least, we at OCCWA would like to acknowledge committee member and Stella resident William (Casey) Crump for his valuable input and commitment to his community on this issue.

Link to Power Point presentation of study overview- https://uwmadison.box.com/shared/static/3jhvxsiev01zm8jp5niaolxhy73iedb2.pdf

Related OCCWA Q&A with Wisconsin DHS following May 1st Stella PFAS meeting

After the May 1st meeting presented by the Wisconsin DNR and Wisconsin DHS addressing the Stella PFAS contamination, OCCWA asked a few questions we felt were not addressed. The questions asked are directly related to the current proposed study. Those questions and answers are posted below.

Question- Does the DHS recommend residents of Stella to have their blood tested for PFAS?
- DHS Answer- DHS does not currently broadly recommend blood testing for PFAS. Blood PFAS levels do not give actionable data yet—for now, we can only compare levels to national averages, we cannot estimate risks for any specific health effects. If individuals are concerned, they can talk with their healthcare providers about whether blood testing would be appropriate—ATSDR has factsheets that address this for both residents and clinicians.
Question- Is there any financial assistance from the DHS or the State of Wisconsin for blood testing?
- DHS Answer- DHS does not have funding available to support blood testing at this time.
Question- Does the DHS recommend cancer screenings and what level of PFAS exposure warrants it?
- DHS Answer- DHS recommends that all Wisconsin residents follow recommended cancer screenings, regardless of PFAS exposure. At this point, DHS is not recommending additional screenings.
Question- Does the DHS or any federal agency plan on any historical medical comparisons of Stella residents to non PFAS contaminated communities.
- DHS Answer- There are not currently plans or resources to investigate a medical comparison. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has conducted some health and exposure studies nationwide and has information available on their website.
Question- Has the DHS studied AMA tracking of PFAS related illnesses in Oneida County and how they rank historically statewide?
- DHS Answer- DHS does not have the resources available to conduct an investigation into health impacts/illnesses at this time.

OCCWA Commentary: In three of the five DHS answers they reference " do not have the resources" (money) or "does not have funding available" (money). This in a state with a $4.6 billion budget surplus and a $1.9 billion rainy day fund. Oh, and by the way, for the last year and a half the legislature can't seem to find a way to release the measly $120 million dollars for PFAS relief for impacted citizens across the state. Though extremely grateful for any beneficial information garnered from the Stella proposed study, one has to ask, what are our legislators thinking?

MEA Protecting Communities Since 1999

Non-profit became necessary due to state eliminating the Office of Public Intervenor.

By Tom Wiensch November 30, 2024- There was a time when Wisconsin had a public agency tasked with taking legal action to protect Wisconsin’s Resources. When that time came to an end, Midwest Environmental Advocates stepped up to handle the job.

In 1967, Republican Governor Warren Knowles created the State Office of the Public Intervenor, which was overseen by the Wisconsin Attorney General and its own citizen advisory committee. Staffed with attorneys, the office legally intervened on behalf of the public on environmental issues in court cases, administrative hearings, and otherwise. The office also provided advice to citizens, agencies, and legislators. Over its history, the office worked to develop mining regulations, took legal action against DDT, successfully fought for access to lakes, called attention to serious potential issues with the proposed Crandon Mine, and more. Sadly, the Office of Public Intervenor was eliminated by the 1995-96 budget of Republican Governor Tommy Thompson.

The elimination of the Office of Public Intervenor left a large void. Despite much public support for revival of the office, Wisconsin government is still without such an office. Thankfully, Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA), has worked hard to fill the void. MEA was founded in 1999 by Melissa Scanlan, then a far-sighted law student, and now a University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee professor, and Director of the Center for Water Policy.

MEA is a non-profit law center funded by grants and donations which works to protect the rights of people to healthy air, water, and land. Overseen by a board of directors, it employs a small staff, including attorneys. MEA’s work is three pronged, including legal action, policy advocacy, and community education. Since its inception, the organization has been deeply involved in some of the most important environmental issues in Wisconsin.

As part of its mission to provide community education, MEA has produced a series of written guides, podcasts, and webinars on such topics as CAFO’s, PFAS, mining regulations, public trust waters, pipeline regulations and more. These resources are available to anyone at no cost on the MEA website.

In the area of public policy, MEA has advocated for such things as water quality standards for PFAS, prevention of childhood lead poisoning in Milwaukee, a shutdown of the Enbridge Pipeline Number 5 (which currently runs through a water rich area on the tribal lands of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa), and much more.

MEA has been at the cutting edge of environmental litigation in Wisconsin. Currently, MEA attorneys are representing Citizens for a Clean Wausau, Clean Water Action Counsel of Northeast Wisconsin, River Alliance of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Environmental Health Network, and former Marinette Mayor Doug Oitzinger, in a case involving Wisconsin’s spill law. That case was filed by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc. and Leather Rich, Inc., asking, among other things, for

“A declaration that Defendants’ (DNR) policy of regulating substances they refer to as emerging contaminants, including PFAS compounds, as Hazardous Substances in the RR and VPLE programs is an unlawfully adopted rule, and is invalid and unenforceable.”

MEA is opposing the legal relief that WMC and Leather Rich seek and is supporting the ability of the DNR to protect us from PFAS contamination, by preparing a friend of the court brief to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Recently, MEA successfully represented a group in Bayfield County in stopping a private company from establishing a water bottling operation within the Lake Superior watershed, a legal battle which took MEA from a local board of adjustment to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

In May of 2020, MEA represented the Sierra Club – John Muir Chapter, Honor the Earth, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Superior Rivers Watershed Association, and 350 Madison in a request to intervene in a public interest determination concerning Enbridge Pipeline Number 5. Since then, MEA has worked hard at every stage of the matter, and its attorneys are currently in the process of reviewing 898 pages of the final environmental impact statement concerning the pipeline.

These are just a few of the projects that MEA has undertaken to protect Wisconsin’s air, land, and water. More information is available at the MEA website. Also, please remember that, unlike the Office of Public Intervenor, MEA is not publicly funded. Instead, it relies on grants and donations to fund its efforts to protect our resources. Donations can be made through its website – Midwest Environmental Advocates | Legal Services | Policy & Advocacy | Organizing | Wisconsin

Timber Group Gets Big Seat at P&D Meeting

Industry gets 4 hours to influence Comprehensive Plan while public gets 3 minutes.

By Eric Rempala October 24, 2024- The Oneida County Planning and Development (P&D) Committee continues to plow ahead with significant changes to the county's Comprehensive Plan, remember that the current actions are those of the P&D Committee only. The P&D Committee is comprised of five County Supervisors appointed by County Chairman Scott Holewinski.

P&D Committee Member Contacts:

When the P&D process is complete the public will have a chance to weigh in at a public hearing. After the Committe considers all public comment at the hearing, the finished product will be introduced to the County Board where a vote will be taken to approve or reject the newly proposed language. The public will get a final chance for comment before the vote at that County Board meeting. With all this in mind our staff at OCCWA has put together some things for our readers to consider.

The Oneida County Planning and Development Committee has been working on creating a new comprehensive plan for the County, a process which must be undertaken. Comprehensive plans are required under Wisconsin law, and must include a number of elements, among which are land use, agriculture and natural resources. Once a comprehensive plan is adopted, certain county ordinances, including general zoning and shoreland zoning must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Because of that, comprehensive plans have effects on such things as mining and shoreland and other development, which in turn affect water quality.

In the process of creating its plan, the Committee has received comments from the public. The Great Lakes Timber Producers Association (GLTPA) provided comments. A document titled “GLTPA Oneida County Land Use Plan Comments”, signed by Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director of the Great Lakes Timber Professionals (GLTPA) was provided to Oneida County Planning and Zoning Director Karl Jennrich. Mr. Schienebeck also spoke about the plan at a recent P&D Committee meeting.

GLTPA, which is headquartered in Oneida County, has a website which contains statements that read:

“Our Mission Enhancing Multiple Use Forests for Future Generations”

and

“Provides proven leadership in the Lake States Forest products industry for over 70 years. GLTPA is a non-profit organization proud to represent members in Michigan and Wisconsin and is committed to leading Forest Products Industry in sustainable forest management.”

GLTPA’s comments to the comprehensive plan include recommendations of language that GLTPA believes should be included in the plan. Some of the language that GLTPA recommends including is:

1. COORDINATION
GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “All land use planning processes, including on all federal and state land, and lands utilizing federal or state funding and including any and all guidance, executive, or other mandated actions, shall coordinate with the county and towns and work to resolve all planning conflicts to the satisfaction of the county and towns prior to finalizing plans or other actions.”
and
“Notification, consultation, and coordination with the county is required at the earliest time possible for any land planning and/or proposed action by state and/or federal agencies, or nonprofit organizations, or for any change in existing activities, newly permitted activities, or changes in regulations that may affect the economic basis of the county. Consultation and coordination with the county is necessary to determine the full scope of potential social and economic effects of proposed activities. The county considers that consultation and coordination must include all impacted towns on all forest management issues.”
QUESTIONS – Does GLTPA believe that the County has the legal authority to control how the State of Wisconsin and the United States manage their lands?

2. PRIVATE LAND SALES
GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Conversion of private property to public for nonprofit conservation purposes shall not be approved unless it is determined by the county that the long-term economic impact will be negligible.”
QUESTIONS – Does GLTPA believe that the County has the legal authority to prevent private landowners from selling or gifting their land to the State or other governmental units? Shouldn’t private landowners have the right to sell their land to any willing buyer that they choose?

3. SHORELAND ZONING
GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Shoreland restrictions can impair property rights and harm the local economy. All proposed shoreland policy shall be coordinated with the county and be consistent with the county comprehensive plan. County shoreland regulations cannot be more restrictive than state law and administrative code.”
QUESTIONS – Does the County have the legal authority to require “coordination”? What does limiting shoreland protection have to do with timber production?

4. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Oneida County discourages the use of the MFL program in conservation easements. The two programs are inconsistent or at odds in their duration. The MFL program contracts are 25 or 50 years whereas conservation easements are established into perpetuity. The MFL program provides a mechanism for leaving the program. Reducing the tax base in perpetuity is antithetical to the interests of county residents and gives up local control.”

and

“If there are new easements, require any new easements to sunset after 15 years. Allow renewal through an approved re-assessment of the easement’s compliance and compatibility with current conditions. Analyze all existing easements on public lands every 15 years for compliance and compatibility with current conditions, calling for extinguishment of the easement if it does not do so.”

and

“All new conservation easements must contain a buyback provision in the contract, allowing the landowner to make the property whole if they have been negatively impacted by the agreement.”
QUESTIONS – Why does GLTPA want the county to discourage all conservation easements on MFL land, when, in some cases, such as that of the Pelican River Forest Easement, conservation easements have been used to conserve land for forestry purposes? What authority does the County have to discourage or prohibit people from placing easements on their land? Shouldn’t private landowners have the right to place easements on their own land if they wish? Does the County have the legal authority to require private landowners to place length limits and buyback provisions in their private contracts? Why should county government intrude in private contracts in this way?

5. LAND LEASE LIMITATIONS
GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Define forested lands as agricultural lands for legal purposes and impose the constitutional requirement for agricultural lands that all leases of such land should be 15 years or less.”
QUESTIONS – Does the County have the legal authority to limit private landowner’s ability to lease their lands? Shouldn’t private landowners be allowed to choose the length of leases they enter into?

6. FLOODPLAIN MAPS
GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Coordinate with FEMA to update floodplain maps with new technology.” and “All floodplain maps shall be updated in coordination with the county.”
QUESTIONS - Does the County have the legal authority to control how a federal agency draws maps? What does this have to do with timber production?

7. MINING
GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Pursue metallic mining through the county’s non-metallic mining and metallic mining exploration, bulk sampling, and mining ordinance while complying with state laws and balancing any projects with the interests of county residents.”
QUESTIONS – What does this have to do with timber production? If anything, wouldn’t this have the potential to encourage land to be removed from timber production?

8. TRAILS
GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Prohibit any further land acquisition or conservation easements for trail projects. Lease agreements must not run for more than 15 years.” NOTE – GLTPA recommends that this language be added to language which reads as follows: “Encourage the development of a comprehensive County-wide trail plan that includes facilities for hikers, bikers, ATVs, and disabled and elderly individuals and a system that ties together attractions and natural and cultural resources throughout the county.”
QUESTIONS – Does the County have the legal authority to stop state or federal agencies, or private landowners from developing trails? What does preventing trail development have to do with timber production?

9. TRANSPORATION
GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Evaluate the scope and existence of the Northwoods Transit System by subjecting the enterprise to a cost benefit analysis. At times, the system has been heavily underused, and an updated study should guide whether it is to be continued, and, if so, at what level of subsidy, if any.”
QUESTIONS – What does this have to do with timber production?

10. ROAD PLANNING AND SAFETY, BIKE TRAILS, ETC.
GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “ELIMINATE ALL OF THE ABOVE!”
NOTE – The part that GLTPA recommends being removed reads:
“Work with local governmental units to plan for a network of interconnected roads in planned development areas to control highway access, preserve rural character, and improve access to these areas. Space roadway access according to minimum standards to increase safety and preserve capacity. Support expanded bike accommodations on County Highways with resurfacing/reconstruction projects and additional off-road bike trails that use grant funding.”
QUESTIONS - Is GLTPA against road planning and safety, and bike trails? Why? What do these things have to do with timber management?

11. LAND DEVELOPMENT
GLTPA COMMENT – “defeats the goal to provide an adequate supply of developable land for the future. Such development may be desirable, depending on community needs, private landowner wishes, and the willingness and ability of developers to pay a fair share of infrastructure costs, which leads to the next policy: . . .”
NOTE – This suggestion is in response to language that reads “Discourage sprawling, low-density development where there is no existing infrastructure and service capacity.”
QUESTIONS - What does this have to do with timber production? Wouldn’t this type of development have the potential to remove timber lands from production?

Although not all of the examples above relate to water quality, they illustrate the breadth of GLTPA’s comments on the comprehensive plan.

At the recent P&D meeting that he attended, Mr. Schienbeck indicated that GLTPA has over 20 directors on its board, and that he worked with a committee to prepare these recommendations. He indicated that Senator Tom Tiffany, Lakeland Times writer Richard Moore, and Margaret Byfield of the Texas based group “American Stewards of Liberty” (ASL) were involved.

The ASL website speaks out against conservation easements and says that it trains local governments in a strategy called “coordination.” The ASL website also indicates that “ASL is the nation’s oldest property rights organization run by Americans steeped in the battle to protect this essential right.” The level of involvement of ASL in creating the GLTPA recommendations is unclear. It is clear, however, that by suggesting government restrictions on the sale, leasing, and other conveyance of private lands, GLTPA is suggesting that the County severely limit, rather than protect private property rights.

A bit over a decade ago, three towns in Oneida County sent “notices of coordination” to Oneida County instead of developing comprehensive plans. Ultimately, the Oneida County Corporation Counsel asked Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen to issue an attorney general’s opinion on the subject. One of the questions asked of Attorney General Van Hollen was:

“Does the use of the word “coordination” in various Wisconsin statutes dealing with municipal planning by itself impose affirmative duties upon certain municipalities that are in addition to any other affirmative obligations that are imposed under those statutes?”

Attorney General Van Hollen’s answer was, ultimately “No.” Tax dollars and time had been expended putting forth these “notices of coordination”, which Attorney General Van Hollen ultimately said had no legal effect.

The questions now are:

Why is GLTPA expending its resources advocating for governmental policies that, in some cases, have little or nothing to do with timber production?
Will Oneida County have its legal counsel offer opinions on whether it has the right to adopt GLTPA’s suggestions, including suggestions to restrict the land use of the state and federal government, private organizations, and private individuals in the ways that GLTPA suggests?
If Oneida County were to include “coordination in its comprehensive plan, would it have any more legal meaning than it did when the three towns sent notices of coordination in lieu of developing comprehensive plans?

Hopefully our elected county officials will adopt policies that are strongly grounded in the law, and that represent the wishes of the voters.

Note – The comments of GLTPA were too long (31 pages) to be included in this article in their entirety. Readers may be able to obtain copies of the written comments submitted by GLTPA from the Oneida County Planning and Zoning Department at Planning & Zoning – Oneida County, WI

Commercial Pathways bring Invasive Species

WDNR looks to educate industries while enforcing state restrictions to curb invasive species problem

By Beckie Gaskill November 20, 2024- This week I was fortunate enough to attend the Upper Midwest Invasive Species Conference (UMISC) virtually. The topic of one of the sessions I attended was pathways by which invasive species find their way from place to place. Part of the focus, of course, was pets that were let loose, but the other part was commercial pathways by which invasives can spread.

The first presenter was Department of Natural Resources (DNR) warden Robert Stroess. He spoke about how Wisconsin attempts to keep illegal invasive species from coming into the state through trade routes, and the challenges with doing that.

Of course, as with AIS on our own lakes, it starts with education. Unfortunately, Stroess said, even after educating suppliers and in-state vendors such as pet stores about Wisconsin Administrative Code NR-40 listed species, over 80% of those businesses who were later checked again were still selling those same invasives.

Stroess said traditionally, the only AIS work wardens did have to do with things like weeds on trailers or getting boaters to empty their live wells of water. But most states are not dealing with these organisms in trade, until recently, Wisconsin was the same, he said.

In 2019, some may remember, a red swamp crayfish was reported in a pet shop. Also, a specialty grocery store was found to be selling three species of carp – big head, silver and grass carp. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg where AIS, and also Terrestrial Invasive Species (TIS), is concerned in trade routes.

While there was great outreach from the AIS education program to different industries about what they could and could not bring into the state, it was doing little in most cases.

“For those businesses that didn’t care,” he said. “It was just noise in the background.” With no connection between AIS outreach and education and the enforcement arm of the department, it was difficult, if not impossible, to know who had already received education on these issues and simply did not care to change their practices. Bait shops, specialty grocers, pet shops and even gardening suppliers, which can spread both TIS and AIS, can be part of the problem.

Even within enforcement itself, individuals were tackling single incidents, such as that red swamp crayfish, and treating them as such. However, that one incident was indicative of a much larger problem. And that was a problem Stroess said was not being delt with effectively at that time.

With that, a dedicated AIS enforcement staff was created. This is a consortium of different entities dedicated to those trade routes, including distributors. Even if a distributor had a disclaimer on their website that they would not ship certain species to Wisconsin, for instance, shipments were still being made.

In the years since those findings, there have been 35,000 individual specimens in trade that they know about that have come to Wisconsin. Estimating high, Stroess felt they might know about 10% of those species that are coming in through various trade industries.

“Nobody knows about it until you turn over those rocks,” he said. “That’s when the landslide starts.”

Third party markets make finding these sellers even more difficult. Pet shops, bait dealers and specialty grocery stores can all be places of interest, Stroess said. Coordinating between pieces of the department, rather than working in with a silo-mentality, is also key. AIS staff and law enforcement and others can document the places where they have done outreach. Then businesses could be held accountable for repeating this behavior.

Stroess said he would look for vendors and contact them to see if he could purchase AIS that was not allowed in the state.

“If they don’t sell it to them, great,” he said. However, if they did sell things to him that were not allowed, he could then build a case against that business. In many cases, it is an interstate cooperation that brings about federal charges against suppliers and sellers.

The Lacy Act of 1981, which was amended again in 2008, regulates “the importation, exportation, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase of any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or any Indian tribal law, or foreign law.”

LA Crawfish, Stroess said, was a big offender in the state. Most crayfish boils have been done with red swam crayfish from LA Crawfish. They can escape, or some of them may simply be released. After cracking down on LA Crawfish, they were eventually charged with 15 federal crimes and were ultimately convicted of 10. He assured those at the conference that Wisconsin was dedicating staff and time to this issue, and urged other states, provinces and countries to do the same.

Education and outreach can also be aimed at pet owners. Often, when pets get bigger than people expected them to, or kids are “bored” with a specialty pet, they get released into lakes, rivers, wetlands, or wherever a pet owner thinks they will get along well. It goes without saying that they are wrong – 100% of the time.

All of these avenues have the potential to change ecosystems in our lakes, rivers and wetlands.

All of these avenues have the potential to change ecosystems in our lakes, rivers and wetlands. As local lake lovers, we may not feel we have the power to change interstate, and sometimes international, trade routes. But we can use education and outreach to stop the “demand” side of this “supply and demand” cycle.

Educating our friends and neighbors and helping them learn that there are plants and animals they can still purchase online in many places that are harmful to our environment and potentially our lake ecosystems, can be one of those ways to bring about change. For the most part, people want to do the right thing. Often, however, they are not sure what that is. Outreach regarding the release of exotic pets can help keep AIS such as red swamp crayfish from our lakes and rivers. We can even talk with local pet shops and/or specialty grocery stores if we see a problem invasive in their establishment. While invasive species in commercial trade seems like a huge problem, and it is, that does not mean that we are powerless at the local level to help others understand the problems with invasive species of all kinds, and to help keep them out of the lakes and rivers we love.

Beckie Gaskill is a freelance outdoor and environmental writer as well as a content creator. She runs her own podcast as part of her media company FlaG (Fish Like a Girl) Media. She is a Master Naturalist and sits on the board of several different conservation organizations. She has also started her own digital magazine, The Wisconsin Conservationist. More information regarding that magazine can be found on her website: The Wisconsin Conservationist Magazine – All the news that is important to you (wordpress.com)

Exploring Bogs – Walking on Water, Literally

Local Land Trust provides exploration and education as part of conservation efforts.

By Troy Walters, Northwoods Land Trust Outreach and Monitoring Coordinator November 11, 2024- We are fortunate to live in an area that has some of the highest concentration of lakes in the world. One of the hidden wonders associated with some of these lakes is a unique plant community that has specialized adaptations to thrive in an acidic, low nutrient environment. Bogs are a type of wetland that is composed of a mat of plants and partially decomposed plants that form a surface that grows towards the lake center over time. These mats are solid enough to support animals and even people walking on them, albeit precariously and very bouncy and “sucky” at times.

At the Northwoods Land Trust (NWLT), we offer a number of outdoor programs each year that explore some of the protected properties we own, and occasionally, private conservation easement lands that the landowner is excited to share with others. One such program offered the past couple summers is a bog ecology and exploration opportunity on a property donated to NWLT in the town of Sugar Camp. Participants have the opportunity to walk to the lake edge and step onto this mat of floating vegetation and observe these unique plants up close.

Local expert Susan Knight has offered her expertise to guide participants through glacial history of the lake formation and subsequent plant growth. One of the key plants associated with bogs is sphagnum moss, a water laden plant that creates an acidic environment due to the chemical exchange in their cells. Leatherleaf, a native evergreen shrub, is another critical plant that aids in extending the bog mat lakeward by providing a network of roots where other plants can take hold. We observed several other plants like labrador tea, bog laurel, bog rosemary, and cranberry. There are even some carnivorous plants in a bog; pitcher plant, sundew, and bladderwort of which we observed the first two. Pitcher plants are just that, hollow pitchers that fill with water and contain digestive enzymes. When animals fall into the water, they get digested, and nutrients extracted for the plant. Sundew is a fairly small plant that has a sticky, sweet-smelling drop of liquid on the end of each tentacle. When an insect lands on the drop, it is immobilized, and the plant will close slowly around it. After digestion, the trap can be reset. Bladderworts have not been found at the particular bog we visit but are quite common and are most easily detected with their beautiful, above-ground flower (most common species is yellow). The actual insect-catching “bladder” with trap door is underwater and catches prey based on a pressure difference created by the plant itself. Seach online for some very cool videos that show this speedy trap door capture.

Visit the NWLT website at Northwoods Land Trust and search the news and events tab for future offerings. The newest upcoming program will be exploring lake ecology in winter, hosted and taught by Trees for Tomorrow’s professional naturalists.

Northwoods Land Trust permanently conserves natural shorelands, woodlands and other natural resources to benefit present and future generations in Vilas, Oneida, Forest, Florence, Iron, Price and Langlade Counties.

Forest Protectors Honored With Award

Joe and Mary Hovel receive recognition for a lifetime of conservation efforts.

By Tom Wiensch October 22, 2024- We’re excited to announce that Joe and Mary Hovel of Conover Wisconsin have been awarded the 2024 Land Legacy Award by Gathering Waters, an alliance for land trusts in Wisconsin. Joe and Mary earned this honor by working for decades to conserve land in Northern Wisconsin, Upper Michigan, and in Wisconsin’s Central Sands Region. Between them, they have accomplished as much as many conservation organizations do, advocating for healthy lands, undertaking the purchase and conservation of lands, building kiosks, writing articles and books on conservation, and more.

Their work began with educating the public about the risks of the pesticide Aldicarb when they lived in the central part of the State. Since moving to Conover, Wisconsin years ago, they’ve divided their time between operating a log home building business, raising a family, and working hard on some of the most important land conservation projects to happen in Wisconsin and Upper Michigan.

Their work has included the creation of community forests, land legacy projects and the purchase and conservation of lands that ultimately became part of the Northern Highland – American Legion State Forest. Joe and Mary are humble people who have invested their time and money into preserving lands. At many points in their lives, they likely could have purchased lands, developed them, and greatly enriched themselves. Instead, they have repeatedly worked against land fragmentation and for the common good, moving from one project to another, and protecting lands that are valuable for wildlife habitat, sustainable timber production, and public recreation.

One example of their projects is the Wildcat Falls Community Forest in Upper Michigan. This project saved the land surrounding a beautiful waterfall from being fragmented and developed. Another example is the Upper Wisconsin Legacy Forest in Vilas County Wisconsin, through which flows the upper Wisconsin River. This land includes beautiful boreal forest and is home to spruce grouse – a threatened species in Wisconsin.

Mary and Joe have a passion for the forests and waters of the Northwoods. Their family has extensively paddled the rivers of the north, including some of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers. One of the projects they worked on – The Headwaters Cedar Community Forest in Vilas County, contains wetlands that filter water that flows into the National Wild and Scenic Ontonagon River. Some days Joe and Mary can be found cruising the backroads of Vilas County on their electric bikes, checking out the forests that they have worked to conserve. It’s impossible to study the conserved lands of Northern Vilas County without learning about the work that the Hovels have done.

Joe and Mary have both served in various roles as part of several organizations, including the Northwoods Alliance, a Northern Wisconsin Conservation group that they were instrumental in creating. Details of many of the projects they have worked so hard on can be found at the Northwoods Alliance website - https://www.northwoodalliance.org/ If you know Mary and Joe, or have a chance to meet them, thank them for all they have done to help ensure that the Northwoods will continue to have the beauty and wildness that it has today.

Editor's note: In recent years OCCWA has leaned heavily on Joe Hovel's expertise on sustainable forestry's value to clean watersheds. Joe's input on the recent Pelican River Forest Project being just one such example. Joe and Mary are truly unsung Northwoods heroes. Please join us in congratulating them on this well-deserved honor.

Knowles Nelson Program in Jeopardy?

JFC co-chair intimates' program may be in jeopardy after ruling on his committee's legal overreach.

By Tom Wiensch October 10, 2024-

Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program Facts and History

The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program (“KNP”) exists to allow Wisconsin to preserve natural areas and wildlife habitat, protect water quality and fisheries, and create opportunities for outdoor recreation. Created 35 years ago, the program was named after two notable Wisconsin conservationists: Warren Knowles (R) Governor of Wisconsin 1965-17, and Gaylord Nelson (D) U.S. Senator from Wisconsin 1964-81.

Sometimes thought of as a land acquisition fund, the KNP is much more than that, having been used to acquire lands and easements, but also to develop and support recreational infrastructure such as local parks, boat landings, campsites, beaches, and recreational trails.

KNP has helped fund dozens of projects in Oneida County, including:

The Minocqua boat landing
The Town of Sugar Camp Lion’s Park (Play equipment, basketball courts, bleachers etc.)
The Brandy Lake Beach in the Town of Arbor Vitae (Play equipment, wood fiber base, timbers & access pad)
Renovation of the City of Rhinelander Hodag Park Public Boat Landing
The Oneida County Perch Lake Park and Trails (Shelter, restroom & equipment storage)
Fredrick’s Public Boat Landing on the Wisconsin River near McNaughton
The Bearskin State Trail (Snowmobiling, biking, and walking) Aquisition
Minocqua-Kawaguesaga Lakes chemical treatment of invasive Eurasian water milfoil
Acquisition of land for the Northern Highland – American Legion State Forest
Road, parking lot, shelter, water system, toilet, and picnic area at the Town of Newbold Wooden Bridge Park
Lake Tomahawk Boat Launch restroom facilities
City of Rhinelander Boyce Drive Boat landing

An interactive map of KNP projects can be seen here - https://knowlesnelson.org/an-interactive-map-of-knowles-nelson-grants/

The KNP funds are budgeted by the Wisconsin Legislature, and it is currently funded through 2026. A few legislators have called into question whether it should be funded in the future. Among Wisconsin residents, though, KN is very popular. A 2023 survey paid for by The Nature Conservancy and conducted by the nationally recognized bipartisan research team of FM3 Research (D) and New Bridge Strategy (R) found that, although many residents did not know about the KNP, once they were informed about it, an overwhelming majority favored it. More detailed results of the survey can be viewed here - https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/2023-Polling-on-Stew-Fund-Results-Press.pdf

The Increasing Veto of Stewardship Projects by Members of the Joint Finance Committee

For much of the history of the Fund, the small Joint Committee of Finance has played a large role in deciding which projects the fund should contribute money to. Under the statutes, any single member of that committee could anonymously stop funding for any project that had a cost of over $250,000 and, more recently that was located north of Highway 64.

In recent years, that Committee has been dominated by Republicans. The Committee currently has 16 members, 12 of whom are Republicans and 4 of whom are Democrats.

Recently, over a period of approximately four years, the Republican controlled Committee blocked 27 projects, or about 1/3 of those that were submitted for approval. In previous years, the anonymous “pocket veto” had been used more sparingly.

Examples of recent blocked projects include:

The Pelican River Forest Conservation Easement (2023.)
A Lake Superior boat launch in the City of Ashland (2024.)
The conservation of the Cedar Gorge along Lake Michigan in Ozaukee County (2022.)
A boardwalk rehabilitation project near the City of Appleton’s airport (2022.)
Acquisition of 93 acres of land in the Crex Meadows Wildlife Area (2021.)

The Pelican River Forest project would have involved the purchase of a conservation easement to ensure that the forest would be available for logging and open to public recreation, a sort of project that would almost certainly enjoyed bi-partisan support in the not-too-distant past. That project was ultimately completed using other funds.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down JFC Members Veto Power

In 2023, Governor Tony Evers brought a legal action concerning the pocket veto. The matter was heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and in 2024, the court ruled that the power of anonymous individual members of the Joint Finance Committee to veto Stewardship spending violated the Wisconsin Constitution. The court’s majority opinion was written by conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, who wrote “Maintaining the separation of powers between the branches is essential for the preservation of liberty and a government accountable to the people . . .” The court ruled that, once the Legislature budgets money for the KNP, it is a duty of the executive, rather than the legislative branch to determine how that money is be spent. Under this ruling, the DNR (part of the executive branch), and its professional scientists and land managers, rather than individual members of the legislature will carry out the details of how KNP funds are spent.

DNR Budget Request

In September of 2024, the DNR made its budget request for the next two-year budget period. Out of a total agency budget request of 1.2 billion dollars, the DNR has requested $100 million per year for the KNP.

The Reaction of Born and Felzkowsi

Wisconsin Public Radio reported that, after the State Supreme Court handed down its opinion, Republican Representative Mark Born stated:

"It’s unfortunate that Governor Evers’ lawsuit removed all accountability (emphasis added) of the Stewardship program, which helped ensure local voices were heard and that taxpayer resources were spent wisely . . .” Born, who is the co-chair of the Joint Finance Committee also said, “The entire program is now in jeopardy.”

These comments are curious on two levels. First, there is still accountability for KNP expenditures. The Wisconsin Statutes place a number of restrictions on how Stewardship funds can be spent. Also, the DNR is charged with administering the program in accordance with the statutes. In addition, people, including those who live near where projects may take place have the ability to communicate their opinions to the DNR.

Second, it’s unclear why Mr. Born says that the entire KNP is in Jeopardy. There is nothing innate in the court’s ruling that puts the program in Jeopardy. One interpretation of Representative Born’s words could be that he and/or other members of the Republican controlled Wisconsin Legislature may wish to refuse to adequately fund the program now that individual members of the Joint Finance Committee can no longer anonymously veto stewardship projects.

In its report, Wisconsin Public Radio noted that, Republican State Senator Mary Felzkowski, speaking in response to the DNR’s budget Request, and noting that the DNR has been without a secretary for over a year said:

“The likelihood of an agency of this size, that creates so much frustration throughout the state, receiving big increases without an executive head taking accountability is, in my opinion, low . . .”

Ever's Response

Governor Evers has said that he is having a difficult time finding someone willing to act as the DNR Secretary, due to the Republican Held legislature having fired so many of his appointees. The last DNR secretary, Adam Payne served for ten months before resigning, without the legislature ever having confirmed his appointment. On March 12 of 2024, CBS News reported that the Legislature had fired eight more of Evers’ appointees, bringing the total fired by the Legislature since Evers took office in 2019 to 21. The CBS News report indicates that, among those fired were:

“. . . two Universities of Wisconsin regents who voted against a deal that limited campus diversity and four judicial watchdogs who wouldn't commit to punishing liberal state Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz.”

The Future of Public Lands, Parks, and Recreational Facilities

The extent to which the KNP will be funded in the future remains to be seen. In the meantime, there seems to be strong support for conservation and recreation as a whole, and the KNP specifically. For example, The Wisconsin Waterfowl Association’s website currently contains an article that originally appeared in 2020, supporting KNP funding.

That piece, authored by its executive director included the following statements:

“Now more than ever, outdoor spaces are important to Wisconsinites.”
“But Knowles-Nelson does more than pay for land purchases. It funds trail building, campground development, trails signs, boat launches, and more. We have to take care of the land we have protected, and Stewardship helps us do that.”
“The K-N Stewardship program costs each Wisconsin resident about $15 / year. That’s a really good deal.
“We must be careful with state dollars, but Stewardship is a tiny fraction of Wisconsin’s debt, only 2%. The Stewardship program is an investment in Wisconsin’s future.”

The entire article can be viewed here - https://www.wisducks.org/things-to-know-about-the-knowles-nelson-stewardship-program/

The Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation also posted a piece in support of KNP funding on its website on October 7 of this year. That piece, titled “Key Public Land Acquisition Fund Faces Reauthorization in Wisconsin” indicates that the CSF, along with partners, conducted meetings in Madison with members of the Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus to stress the importance of the KNP. The CSF site may be viewed here: https://congressionalsportsmen.org/news/key-public-land-acquisition-fund-faces-reauthorization-in-wisconsin/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=bc42c3d2-5e45-484b-bba0-75be2842b4ad

Additionally, the following organizations have expressed support for or otherwise acknowledged the importance of the KNP:

The Wisconsin Bike Federation
Ice Age Trail Alliance
Wisconsin Green Fire
The Wisconsin Audubon Council and nine Wisconsin chapters
The Mississippi Valley Conservancy
Pheasants Forever
The Sierra Club
Driftless Area Land Conservancy
The Ruffed Grouse Society

Additionally, “Team Knowles-Nelson”, lists on its website a plethora of organizations as its partners or sponsoring partners. A sampling of those organizations includes:

Gathering Waters Conservancy
Ducks Unlimited
The Conservation Fund
The Wisconsin Society for Ornithology
American Trails
League of Wisconsin Municipalities
The Nature Conservancy
Rails to Trails Conservancy
Wisconsin Trout Unlimited
Wisconsin Counties Association
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation

These many organizations, along with a large majority of Wisconsin residents support the Knowles-Nelson program. The question is now, whether the Republican controlled state legislature will respect the will of the majority and adequately fund the program.

WTMJ Television Coverage Conservation program in jeopardy as DNR asks to triple funding (tmj4.com)

Welcome to Oneida County Clean Waters Action