Welcome to Oneida County Clean Waters Action
Exploring the issues that affect our rivers, lakes and ground water.
Wisconsin Waterways Have Mussel!
JoAnne Lund's Oneida County Clean Water Minute
In Oneida County, chances are good that your lake or nearby waterway supports a freshwater mussel population. Mussels are animals that live inside two shells much like a clam. They have fanciful common names such as Plain Pocketbook, Wabash Pigtoe, Strange Floater, Fatmucket, and White Heelsplitter. Mussels are highly beneficial: they feed by drawing in water from their environment, removing particulates, algae, bacteria, and heavy metals, and then expelling the water in a cleaner state. If there is a mussel population in a stream or lake near you, they are working hard to improve water quality!
Wisconsin has over 50 species of Freshwater Mussels, but most populations are in decline, and nearly half are threatened or endangered. Because of this, they are illegal to harvest. The decline is due to water quality changes, habitat loss, and competition with non-native species.
Mussels have a complicated life cycle: most require a fish species where their larvae develop, with no harm to the fish. This means that mussels are highly dependent on fish populations. The growth of a mussel shell is apparent in annular rings similar to a tree ring: the mussel enlarges its shell during the growing season to accommodate growth. Some mussels live over 30 years!
To learn more about mussels and the State of Wisconsin Mussel Monitoring Program go to WI Mussel Monitoring Program
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 4/16/25- Posted 4/11/25 - Wausau former mayor and Greenfire member John Robinson and Wisconsin Conservation Voters share a poignant 5-minute YouTube video on PFAS.
In the video Troubled waters: Wausau’s fight against PFAS and lead contamination | WCV Stories they share many comparable problems to those dealing with PFAS in Oneida County and the town of Stella. It's worth the watch!
The River Alliance of Wisconsin shares concerns over current proposed PFAS bills making the rounds in Madison.
In a recent River Alliance of Wisconsin post New PFAS bills aren't the progress Wisconsin needs - River Alliance of WI - Drinking Water they share their concerns on the current bills taking away the DNR's ability to hold corporate polluters responsible. A quote from the post states:
"The so-called innocent landowner language in these bills is a solution in search of a problem. The Department of Natural Resources isn’t, and hasn’t, using its power under the Spills Law to go after landowners who weren’t the source of pollution. The real problem is how these bills have too broad of a definition of “innocent” landowners that could extend exemptions to entities like paper mills."
The River Alliance also calls for the State to make clean drinking water a priority. We at OCCWA could not agree more on this issue. It's time to define truly innocent landowners, hold corporate polluters accountable, and get down to the business of providing financial relief to those affected by PFAS through no fault of their own. It's clear this cannot be done without taxpayer dollars, but Wisconsin Taxpayers should not foot the entire bill.
The River Alliances final statement rings true.
"State leaders should be bending over backwards to make clean drinking water a top priority. The legislature has the power to invest in rural wells and municipal water filtration, bring drinking water standards up to federal levels, and support a full-court press litigation strategy against big polluters.
Be wary of the parts of SB 127 and 128 that would erode the strength of our state’s Spills Law. This is not the time to give away the power of a law that has worked for over 40 years so that legislators can appease the demands of corporate lobbyists"
Trump administration fast-tracking reviews to increase logging in Northern Wisconsin necessary?
An April 10th article from WPR Trump administration will fast-track reviews to ramp up logging in Wisconsin - WPR reports that the Trump Administration will be speeding up environmental reviews on projects in the Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest (CNNF). An excerpt from the article states:
"The Trump administration is speeding up environmental reviews of logging projects on more than half of the country’s national forests, including parts of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin."
There are concerns that speeding up the process may not be necessary considering that the current process seems to be working while protecting Northwoods values. A quote in the article from Ron Eckstein a Northwoods resident in the article states:
"Ron Eckstein is the co-chair of the public lands and forestry work group for Wisconsin’s Green Fire. He said he doesn’t think existing federal regulations are too burdensome for loggers.
“We can produce the timber we need to produce. We can protect against wildfire using the (National Environmental Policy Act) process and Endangered Species Act and still produce forest products yet, protecting all the other values of the national forests, like wildlife, watershed, recreation, including timber,” he said.
Eckstein noted the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is already one of the top timber-producing national forests in the country. The forest sold around 125 million board feet in fiscal year 2024. The Forest Service sells an average of 3 billion board feet each year nationwide."
This is a situation that bears monitoring. Hopefully current protections in place for woods, water, wildlife, and way of life will not be diminished. The CNNF is a source for many clean watersheds in Wisconsin. It is incumbent on Nothern Wisconsin residents to continue to practice responsible stewardship.
Posted 3/26/25- OCCWA calls on Oneida County residents to consider signing on to Wisconsin Conservation Voters (WCV) petition to support setting state PFAS groundwater standards.
The petition calls on the Wisconsin Legislature for urgent action on PFAS so all Wisconsinites can have access to safe groundwater. For more than seven years the state of Wisconsin has fumbled the ball on setting health-based standards for groundwater, which is Oneida County's main source of drinking water. The WCV petition can be found at Take urgent action on groundwater standards | conservationvoters.org
Why has it taken so long to pass standards for PFAS in groundwater? Well, from an excerpt from a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article:
" Gov. Tony Evers and the DNR last proposed groundwater standards in 2022, but because of the cost of treating groundwater, the rule was abandoned under the REINS Act, a law that requires legislative approval for the rulemaking process to continue when costs reach $10 million.
Though lawmakers attempted to introduce legislation that would exempt groundwater standards for PFAS from the REINS Act last session, the bill was not taken up before the end of the last legislative session. No similar bill has been introduced this session."
The full Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article can be viewed here: Wisconsin DNR board launches process for PFAS standards in groundwater
Considering the PFAS contamination in the town of Stella as well as potential undiscovered contamination elsewhere in our county, we ask that you take five minutes of you time to sign the petition to ask our legislators to act now.
Posted 3/13/25- Privatizing federal lands for profit has become a very hot topic as of late, where have we heard this before?
One only has to Google "sale of federal lands" to see there is a plethora of recent articles lamenting the potential privatizing of public lands. You may ask yourself, how is that possible?
Well, it started with the appointment of Doug Burgum to be our country's Interior Secretary as well as his appointment to serve concurrently as the head of the National Energy Council. In an excerpt from an article by Outdoor Life How Seriously Should We Take the Sale of Federal Lands? Very Seriously, Experts Say | Outdoor Life you can see how the groundwork has been laid.
" One of Burgum’s first actions as Interior Secretary was Feb. 3’s Secretarial Order 3418, which gave department officials 15 days to develop an “action plan” that would suspend, revise, or rescind protections for federal lands, especially those with fossil fuel development potential. Plan details haven’t yet been made public, troubling Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM), who yesterday wrote to Burgum noting that the delay of details “suggests an attempt to evade Congressional oversight, public scrutiny, and accountability, fueling concerns that the Administration is moving to undermine public land protections and sell our natural resources to the highest bidder in secret.”
Meanwhile, one of the incoming Congress’s first acts was a rule change that relieves the House of Representatives of lost revenue if it gives federal land to states or other interests. That action “is intended to create the illusion that disposal of these lands does not come as a financial loss, streamlining misguided legislative proposals that benefit special interests over the American people,” observes Backcountry Hunters & Anglers."
What does this mean for the Chequamegon National Forest and other federal lands in the Northwoods? Only time will tell. In the meantime, OCCWA will continue to monitor the Oneida County P&D Committee for any more Comp Plan language changes that reflect this type of extraction on public land.
Concern for Climate Change in Northwoods?
Climate Action and the Quiet Majority: What Northern Wisconsin Lakes Need Us to Know.
By Beckie Gaskill April 22, 2025 (Photo Credit Len Hyke) - Here’s something you might not expect, especially in today’s political climate: most people worldwide—a whopping 80 to 89 percent—want their governments to do more to tackle climate change. That’s not fringe. That’s not even 50/50. That’s nearly 9 out of every 10 people. If 9 of 10 people recommended a certain pub for a fish fry, would you take that recommendation? For sure!
But here’s the kicker: most of those people believe they’re in the minority when it comes to concerns over climate change.
It’s a phenomenon called the “false consensus effect”—and it’s the driving force behind the 89 Percent Project, a global initiative that shines a spotlight on this silent supermajority and encourages folks to speak up, act out, and push policy forward.
And up here in Northern Wisconsin, where the health of our lakes defines so much of our lifestyle, economy, and identity, we cannot afford to stay quiet.
What’s at Stake: Climate Change and Northern Wisconsin’s Lakes
Our lakes are more than just pretty postcards. They’re complex ecosystems, economic engines, and places where families make memories—whether it’s early-morning paddles, late-night loon calls, or a kid’s first bluegill on the line. We all have special memories on and around the lakes we love.
But climate change is threatening all of that, and in very specific, very local ways.
Warming Waters and Fish Stress
Cold-water species like walleye and cisco are under pressure. As lakes warm, their preferred habitat shrinks—and sometimes disappears altogether in the hottest months. This affects not just the fish, but the entire food chain around them.
More Algal Blooms
Warmer temperatures and more frequent intense rainfall events increase nutrient runoff from shorelines and roads. This fuels algal blooms, including harmful blue-green algae that can shut down beaches and make water unsafe for people and pets.
Disrupted Ice Cover
We’re seeing shorter ice seasons and thinner ice, which throws off everything from lake stratification (the way water layers) to safe ice fishing. Those changes ripple through aquatic ecosystems—and through communities that rely on winter tourism. Most of us in the Northwoods have seen some strange ice conditions, or lack thereof, in the past few years. We are starting to truly see the effects of the variability in ice- on and ice-off dates on our lakes.
Invasive Species Love the Chaos
Many invasive aquatic species thrive in warmer, more disturbed systems. As native species struggle to adapt, invasives like Eurasian watermilfoil or zebra mussels find more room to spread—and do damage. Species that have been knocking on our proverbial door could easily find that door opening wider with climate change looming.
The Real Majority Is Us
Here’s the wild part: most people care. Most people want their government to take stronger action to protect places like these. But because we’re all quietly thinking, “Am I the only one who feels this way?” we don’t speak up. We don’t push for bold policies. We don’t demand protection for the lakes we love.
That’s what the 89 Percent Project is trying to fix. It’s a reminder that you are not alone, and that change is more possible than we think—especially when we realize we’ve already got the numbers on our side.
What You Can Do in Oneida County
- Talk about it. Let your neighbors know how much you care about clean water and climate action. Conversations change culture.
- Support lake associations and conservation efforts working on shoreline restoration, runoff prevention, and invasive species control.
- Encourage local leaders to adopt climate-resilient land use and zoning practices that protect lakes long-term.
- Vote with water in mind. Support candidates who back science-based climate policies and clean water protections.
---
Let’s make the silent majority the unstoppable majority. Our lakes are worth it. And the truth is, we don’t need to wait for someone else to speak first—we are the 89%.
Trout Lake Station Studying Northern Lakes
More than meets the eye at this Northwoods University of Wisconsin research center.
By Susan Knight April 16, 2025- In the 1920s, E.A. Birge, a zoology professor whose career focused on zooplankton, retired as president of the University of Wisconsin and refocused on founding the new discipline of Limnology, or the study of inland waters. Birge was drawn north to establish Trout Lake Station (TLS) on the shores of Trout Lake in Boulder Junction. He invited other professors, graduate students and assistants to this new facility to study the chemistry, physics, and biology of the Northern Highlands lakes.
Trout Lake Station moved from its original location to its current home on the south end of Trout Lake in the 1960’s but is still dedicated to studying our northern lakes and training the next generation of lake scientists. Trout Lake Station is the northern laboratory of the Center for Limnology and is the sister facility of the Hasler Lab, located on the shore of Lake Mendota on the UW-Madison campus. There are 9 full-time staff at TLS but that number swells to about 30-40 visiting researchers in summer, including faculty, graduate students and undergraduates from UW-Madison and other institutions across the US.
Over the years, there have been many research projects at Trout Lake Station. A key project has been the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program. Since the early 1980s, researchers have been sampling and studying seven nearby lakes, sampling every two weeks in the open water season and monthly during winter. This effort has provided over 40 years of consistent and publicly available data on water quality, plants and animals and other aspects of lake life. The data are helpful in finding patterns and detecting change over time and providing a robust platform for many other research projects.
For example, shortly after the program was started, rusty crayfish invaded Trout Lake and slowly made their way around the entire shoreline. From routine crayfish sampling and plant surveys, we could see how the progression of the crayfish decimated the plant population. But, in the last few years, there has been a reversal, as the crayfish succumbed to a parasitic disease (studied by one of our visiting researchers) and the plant populations have rebounded.
Ongoing and past projects include an investigation of why walleye are declining in area lakes, the effect of rainbow smelt on lake fisheries, how climate change might disrupt the timing of seasonal changes in the lake, why wild rice is declining in so many area lakes, how trees are affected by lake water levels and many others.
Trout Lake Station is committed to sharing our research through outreach efforts. We hold an annual Open House where we highlight the current research projects, have a display of common aquatic plants and invertebrates and offer pontoon rides to demonstrate some of our sampling gear. Our monthly science café, Science on Tap-Minocqua, held at Rocky Reef Brewery, brings in scientists from UW-Madison, and other organizations to talk about a variety of science topics, with plenty of time for audience questions. In winter, we host students from area schools to sample lakes through the ice and learn about limnology. We have an ongoing art and science program encouraging visiting artists to interact with scientists and bring new dimensions to our science.
Trout Lake Station is an exciting place to work or visit, and we hope to see you at our next Open House on August 1, 2025.
Trout Lake Station website: Trout Lake Station Welcomes Our New “Wisconsin Idea” Lakes Limnologist – Center for Limnology – UW–Madison
Public Gets Chance to Influence State Conservation
Do not fail to exercise your right to participate in Wisconsin's Conservation Congress.
By Tom Wiensch April 9, 2025- Each year The Wisconsin Conservation Congress (WCC) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources offer the chance for citizens to vote on advisory questions concerning environmental/conservation issues. The WCC is the only statutory body for which citizens can elect delegates and vote on questions which advise the Wisconsin DNR. The annual spring hearings are held at locations across the State, and members of the public can vote in person or on-line.
This year the in-person voting will take place on April 14 at 6:00 p.m. The Oneida County location is at the James Williams Middle School Auditorium.
On-line voting takes place between April 14 at 7:00 p.m. and April 16 at 6:00 p.m. Here is a link to the DNR website, which includes all the questions, and which will include a live link to the questionnaire starting on April 14 at 7:00 p.m.: https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/about/wcc/springhearing
Many, but not all the questions relate to hunting, fishing, and trapping. For those interested, there are several questions that specifically relate to fishing size and bag limits for several Oneida County lakes. Those include: Questions 21 – Pelican Lake bass regulations; 22 – Crescent Lake bass regulations; 31- Crescent Lake walleye regulations; 32 – Lake George walleye regulations; 40 & 41 - Multiple lakes panfish limits.
There are several questions that relate to environmental quality this year, including those listed below. The explanations and questions are taken verbatim from the DNR website. The numbers shown indicate where the questions fall on the questionnaire.
45. Statutory Exemption from Wis. Stats. s. 227.139 (the REINS Act) for PFAS Rulemaking
During the rulemaking process, every agency is required to produce an economic impact analysis, estimating the implementation and compliance costs of the proposed rule. Under Wis. Stat. s. 227.139 (adopted as part of 2017 Wisconsin Act 57, commonly known as the REINS Act), if the costs of a proposed rule exceed $10 million in any 2-year period, the department must stop rulemaking and wait for legislative approval to continue. The statutory requirements for an economic impact analysis do not allow the department to take into account the financial benefits of a proposed rule. The department has proposed rulemaking to adopt groundwater quality standards for certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). The economic impact analysis determined that the costs of the proposed rules would exceed $10 million in a 2-year period. However, there are many potential economic benefits that could results from the rules, including decreasing the risk of costly illness and disease. PFAS regulations could also encourage brownfield restorations, support water technology industries in the state, protect Wisconsin residents relying on private wells in rural areas, and enhance the state’s ability to attract and retain businesses that rely on clean water sources. Section 227.139(4) currently contains an exemption for proposed rules regarding air quality. Adding an exemption from section 227.139 for rules regulating PFAS in the environment would require DNR to do an economic impact analysis but would allow DNR to continue with rulemaking without legislative approval if the proposed economic impact of the rule exceeds $10 million in any 2-year period.
45. Do you support an exemption from Wis. Stat. s. 227.139 for rules regulating PFAS in the environment?
OCCWA Position: Support. This change would allow rule-making agencies to better assess the costs and benefits of potential PFAS rules.
46. Require pipeline owners/operators to submit federally required spill notifications to the DNR Remediation and Redevelopment program
When a discharge of a hazardous substance (or spill) to the environment occurs in Wisconsin, with few exceptions, the responsible party is required under state statute to report the spill through an initial notification to the DNR. Currently, after the initial notification, additional spill updates to the DNR are not required under state statute or rule even though the volume of the spill may have increased. An extensive network of pipelines carries various materials, including petroleum and other products, throughout the state. At times, spills may occur and only an initial notification is required. The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) requires reporting of spill incidents. PHMSA requires an initial notification and additional reporting related to a spill incident within 30-days of an incident and a written report within 1 year of the incident.
46. Do you support the legislature providing DNR statutory authority to require submittal of the same federal PHMSA reports to the Department for additional spill notifications?
OCCWA Position: Support. This change would lead to more complete reporting of pipeline spill information to the DNR.
47. Elimination of lead ammunition and fishing tackle (130624)
As a result of decades-long reliance on lead ammunition, susceptible wildlife falls to the debilitating and lethal effects of lead poisoning. Mammals, eagles, waterfowl, corvids, even songbirds as tiny as chickadees, routinely feed on the remains of harvested animals. Ingesting a small amount of animal tissue with lead can result in prolonged suffering and death for wildlife that feeds on the remains that are left behind. Today’s non-toxic bullets, shot and fishing weights are widely available and often comparable in price to lead. Lead poisoning is preventable and can be eliminated.
47. Would you support phasing out uses of lead so that it is not left behind on our lands and in our waters?
OCCWA Position: Support. Switching to non-toxic shot and sinkers would stop the unnecessary poisoning of wildlife.
48. Protection of lakes, streams, and their fish, and wildlife from pollution caused by animal manure and commercial fertilizer (560324)
Pollution of Wisconsin lakes and streams by phosphorous and nitrogen from surface run-off from agricultural fields fertilized with animal manure or commercial fertilizer is a widespread threat to their ecological health. Phosphorous and nitrogen are the dominant pollutants in impaired waters. Improvements to the present water quality protection programs could reverse the trend of declining water quality and restore ecological health to our lakes and streams. Protecting our waters from pollution caused by run-off from agricultural fields will require adequate funding for changes in the regulation of controlled animal feeding operations and the spreading of manure on agricultural fields. Current practices are promoting pollution which may be getting worse and be ecologically unsustainable. Current non-point source pollution control practices are not meeting the state’s public trust responsibilities to protect our water, lakes and streams. Surveys show that clean water has broad support and improvements will be popular.
48. Would you support increasing funding for nonpoint source pollution control and the establishment of an independent team of experts to recommend changes that protect our water, lakes and streams from pollution by spreading animal manure and commercial fertilizer?
OCCWA Position: Support. Control of non-point source pollution would improve water quality.
49. Resolution to clarify or create minimum dimensions for seasonal campsites within shorelands. (requires legislation) (660324)
Campgrounds with “seasonal campsites” as defined in Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Administrative Code Chapter 79 are increasing in number statewide. They contain large recreational vehicles (RVs) that remain stationary. These campsites may be occupied by the same people for up to eight continuous months. Their RV can remain stationary at the campsite year-round or longer. The newer seasonal campsites often use a private onsite wastewater treatment system to manage sewage and wastewater disposal within shoreland areas of lakes and rivers. Shorelands are lands within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond, or flowage, 300 feet from a river or stream, or to the landward side of the flood plain, whichever distance is greater.” The purpose of the DNR’s shoreland management rules are to “further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish 37 and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of structure and land uses and reserve shore cover and natural beauty.” Minimum lot size standards are not applied to seasonal campsites with treatment systems, even though occupants in an RV campsite may discharge as much sanitary waste as occupants in a residential home during the same time of occupancy.
49. Would you support the protection of Wisconsin's navigable waters by amending state regulations to require seasonal campsites with stationary RVs using wastewater treatment systems adhere to similar minimum lot sizes as required for residential homes?
OCCWA Position: Support. Reasonable shoreland zoning protects waterbodies and aquatic life.
54. Allow DNR wardens to enforce local ordinances on all Wisconsin lakes (requires legislation) (360124)
The only enforcement of local ordinances on lakes comes from local law enforcement agencies. Ballast type boats are increasing in popularity, but town boards have been reluctant to create ordinances to deal with the situation. The DNR suggests that while there are negative impacts from these magnified wakes, until further studies, town boards should enact ordinances to deal with this situation on the lakes in their jurisdiction. It may be some years before statewide action is taken. In the meantime these boats may have a negative impact on our lakes. Town boards can address the following issues: shoreline erosion, scouring of the lake bottom, resuspension of nutrients, destruction of fish habitat and the eco system. There are town boards that have taken action to address these growing concerns. However, some town boards say they will wait until the DNR can enforce new laws.
54. Would you support legislation that would allow DNR wardens to enforce local ordinances on our lakes?
OCCWA Position: Support. Effective law enforcement of rules that protect lakes is necessary to prevent damage to water quality, shorelands, and wildlife.
Letter to County Voices Concern Over Shoreland Protections
Shared letter to county is a perfect example of how to participate in local "Clean Water" advocacy.
Dear Supervisor,
We are all aware of the national interest in government efficiency. In the interest of “doing our part,” I hope you will provide some clarity addressing efficiency at the county level. Can you explain why you have invested years in revising Chapter 9, Zoning & Shoreland Protection Ordinance and thousands of taxpayer dollars on related attorney fees?
Otherwise, it appears that your time and our money support little more than special interests. For example, how many people have lobbied you about exterior boathouse stairs and cement aprons for boat launching? Why didn’t you direct these people (presumably a privileged few) to the DNR, which has rules in place to address such concerns?
Instead, we have evidence throughout the county of shoreland degradation in the name of development, including clear cutting and bull dozing hillsides.
The County's P&D Committee seeks “coordination” with state and federal officials about land conservation, but why not survey your constituents before you make significant assumptions about our best interests? We might agree that Chapter 9 should be written to protect our precious resources instead of repeatedly paving the way for heedless development.
Thank you for your consideration, Stephanie Burrell Hazelhurst native, resident and third generation taxpayer
Find your County Board Supervisor contact info at County Board – Oneida County, WI
Comp Plan Power Grab More Than Environmentally Costly?
Bureaucratic expansion, and expensive litigation is possible with overreaching Comp Plan language.
By Tom Wiensch April 8, 2025- The Oneida County Planning and Development Committee has written a draft of a new Comprehensive Plan for the County. Comprehensive plans act as local governments’ guides to development. Although they do not directly serve as land use regulations, certain land use regulations, including zoning regulations, must be consistent with comprehensive plans. The plans, which address development, land use, agriculture and nature resources, relate to clean water issues and other environmental issues.
The Committee’s plan includes the requirement of “coordination.” This concept is sprinkled through the document. Examples of how it is used include:
“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 . . .”
“All state and federal agencies and lands utilizing federal money shall coordinate with Oneida County’s comprehensive plan for all land planning and management activities on state and federal lands within the jurisdiction of the county. . .”
“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.”
“Oneida County requires that all federal and state agencies and lands utilizing federal, or state funding coordinate any land use activities with the county and impacted towns, in compliance with applicable federal and state laws and purposes of those laws with the County.”
These are just a few examples of the use of “coordination” in the plan. The plan seems to attempt to give the County veto power over how the State and Federal Governments and private landowners use their lands.
This language raises number of serious questions, including at least the following:
Isn't this what zoning codes are for? Since the County already has a zoning code that addresses land use in detail, why would it want to superimpose on that a broad requirement to “coordinate” land use decisions? Will there be a clash between ordinary zoning and “coordination”?
Is there anything in the law that allows counties to dictate to the state and federal governments how they use their lands? If so, does the law grant the extensive kind of power to counties that this plan seems to require?
Is there anything in the law outside of the formal zoning process that allows counties to force landowners to coordinate with them about the use of their private lands?
Assuming that there is some basis in law to force landowners to coordinate their decisions with counties, does Oneida County really wish to impose such a burden on landowners?
Would Oneida County even want to force all landowners to coordinate their land use decisions with the County? Does the County have sufficient resources to handle such bureaucratic expansion and do so in an even-handed manner without creating troublesome precedent? Will this result in a need to add staff, hold more meetings, or become involved in expensive litigation?
Why would the county treat non-profit entities different from for-profit entities. Is there a legal basis to do that?
Given that county zoning ordinances (including shoreland and wetland zoning) must be consistent with comprehensive plans, how much will the existing ordinances have to be rewritten, and how will the rewrites affect County zoning as it now exists?
About fifteen years ago, the concept of coordination came to the County. In that iteration, instead of creating comprehensive plans, three towns sent “notices of coordination to the County.” Wisely, the County asked for an Attorney General’s opinion on the matter. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a formal opinion. In it he stated that the question he was answering 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 to that question was a resounding “No.”
Quite a lot of taxpayers funded resources were expended on “coordination” before that answer was obtained. Now, the County is attempting to require coordination by private landowners, the State of Wisconsin, and the United States Government.
Landowners and taxpayers should hope that the P&D Committee members have carefully considered the consequences of what they are suggesting. Hopefully the County will proceed in a conservative and cautious manner and rely on solid legal advice before attempting to create some kind of broad veto power over land use.
Beavers Synonymous with Clean Water
Benefits of beavers far outweigh an occasional dammed culvert.
Celebrate International Beaver Day – April 7,2025
By Wendy Kraly April 5, 2025 (Photo credit Len Hyke)- Beavers Wetlands & Wildlife (B.W.W.) created International Beaver Day in 2009. Why April 7th? It is a day of celebration in remembrance of Dorothy Richard’s birthday in 1894. Dorothy was given the nickname the ‘Beaver Woman’ for dedicating 50 years of her life to studying this fascinating keystone species.
This day is an opportunity to provide awareness about the importance beavers bring to our ecosystem, including keeping our water clean which allows our fish and wildlife to flourish across Oneida County. They create habitat for the 75% of Wisconsin’s wildlife species that spend time in wetlands during all, or part, of their life cycle. In areas where beavers engage in wetland building activity, plant biodiversity increases as much as 33%.
Some beaver benefits include:
- Acting as “Earth’s Kidneys,” cleaning and purifying stream water, removing silt and contaminants, including road salt and nitrates.
- Holding water on the landscape for slow, gradual release, decreasing damage from floods, reducing bank erosion, mitigating effects of drought and replenishing aquifers.
- Preventing the spread of wildfires through natural fuel breaks and providing a safe haven for wildlife.
- Absorbing and capturing greenhouse gases.
- Regulating and maintaining water levels in lakes, rivers and ponds.
The beaver symbolizes hard work, community, adaptability, perseverance, productivity and resourcefulness. The phrases “Busy as a Beaver” and “Eager Beaver” both started appearing around the 1300s based on observations of this unique animal in nature.
How can we celebrate beavers today?
- Email this to your network.
- Create a fun post on your social media. Make sure to include some facts using the below resources, and/or include a link to this one-page Beaver Fact Sheet
- Print or email these one-page non-lethal methods handouts and share with your neighbors, local businesses, resorts, tourist centers and libraries:
- Visit a lake, pond or river in your area and try to locate a beaver dam or lodge. You may even catch a glimpse of these fascinating animals doing their work. Although, most work is done at night.
- Share this amazing video of the largest beaver dam in the world: (59) This Beaver Dam is So Huge, You Can See It from Space | Climate Heroes - YouTube
- Share this Wisconsin story of how to successfully implement beaver non-lethal methods: How one Wisconsin landowner is using non-lethal methods to manage beavers
- Find an activity to engage with children that provides both education and fun: Activities for kids - Beaver Trust
With the environmental challenges we are facing today, the beaver is one great example of how we can restore biodiversity and provide resiliency to communities from the harsh effects of climate change.
Go Beavers Go!
Conservation an Afterthought in Comp Plan
P&D Committee's proposed Comprehensive Plan changes veer off Northwoods traditional path.
By Eric Rempala April 4, 2025- In a difficult to follow and disjointed 2-year process, the Oneida County P&D Committee has proposed extensive changes to the county's Comprehensive Plan, with the end result being less emphasis on conservation and a lot more on extraction and development. These changes could have impacts on not just private land, but also could affect county, state, and federal lands. Though there are many other examples of P&D proposed language changes to take issue with, I'll concentrate the American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) language and concepts that the Committee is proposing to add to the plan.
First of all, who are American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) and what is Coordination?
The American Stewards of Liberty are a Texas-based group that has opposed land and water conservation, and advocates for natural resource exploitation. They promote mineral mining, increased grazing, timber cutting, for-profit commercial and industrial development, and oil and gas drilling on Federal lands. They spin their message as being about freedom and personal choice, about confronting the “radical environmental movement". Despite that messaging, they have opposed the rights of landowners in Nebraska to place conservation easements on their land. One wonders if they realize that 80% of voters nationwide support land conservation.
If you want to understand how ASL has become involved in Oneida County, the Wisconsin Examiner article Anti-conservation group works to influence land use policy in three northern Wisconsin counties • Wisconsin Examiner is a must read. A quote from the article shares ASL's ideology of "coordination".
"At the center of ASL’s ideology is the idea of “coordination,” a discredited legal theory which holds that any conservation efforts that use federal or state dollars require the approval and “coordination” of local governments. Similar to constitutional sheriffs who believe they’re the ultimate arbiter of which laws to enforce within their jurisdictions, ASL promotes the idea to county officials aiming to prevent conservation projects."
Does Oneida County want to control how Federal Land is managed?
In an article by High Country News, Counties use a ‘coordination’ clause to fight the feds - High Country News . It explains how placing this "coordination" language in a Comprehensive Plan might lead to a county believing they can control what happens on federal land. A quote from the article likens the coordination efforts to a Sagebrush Rebellion.
"Many groups, including environmentalists, try to influence land management with scientific research and alternative management proposals, but policy experts say that the coordination movement has a distinctly anti-federal government flavor — a Sagebrush Rebellion in bureaucratic clothing, with links to state efforts to take over federal lands. Coordination proponents are “essentially arguing a county would have veto authority on federal land decisions,” says Martin Nie, director of the Bolle Center for People and Forests at the University of Montana. And federal officials, who interpret “coordination” very differently, fear it’s stoking more conflicts than it resolves by misinforming locals."
Below is the P&D's newly proposed Goal 4 "Coordination" language that the Committee added to their proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The addition of Goal #4 was added to the plans Land Use Chapter 7. The Goal 4 language came directly from Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director of Great Lakes Timber Professionals. At a recent P&D meeting that he attended, Mr. Schienebeck 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.
"Goal 4:
Coordinate all state and federal agencies with a presence in Oneida County regarding all state and federally owned land planning activities.
Objective:
• All state and federal agencies and lands utilizing federal money shall coordinate with Oneida County’s comprehensive plan for all land planning and management activities on state and federal lands within the jurisdiction of the county, to ensure consistent and harmonized policies across the three levels of government.
• 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.
Policy:
• Oneida County requires that all federal and state agencies and lands utilizing federal, or state funding coordinate any land use activities with the county and impacted towns, in compliance with applicable federal and state laws and purposes of those laws with the County."
Is this how the County would attempt to control projects or activities on both state and federal land? Would it mean mining and vast unsustainable forestry projects? The County, and in particular the P&D Committee, has been a poor judge of public opinion when it comes to mining. Could we expect them to consider public opinion in controlling public land?
Is P&D Committee considering taking away property owners' rights to place easements on their land?
Is the P&D Committee using ASL language to restrict property rights? Well, with newly proposed P&D Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 Natural Resources policy language (below), again, one has to wonder.
"Chapter 2: Natural, Agricultural, and Cultural Resources
Policy:
Discourage the conversion of existing privately owned lands to public lands using federal, state, and local tax dollars to purchase existing MFL lands or purchase easements over them. Reducing the tax base in perpetuity is antithetical to the interests of county residents and gives up local control."
What type of easements is the P&D looking to discourage? Well, an example of such an easement might be like those The Conservation Fund placed on land they owned to create the Pelican River Forest. Those easements prioritized economically sustainable forestry and enhanced public access to 70,000 acres of forest just north and west of Rhinelander. Could the County actually be looking to take away a property owner's right to put an easement on their land? Is that even possible?
Apparently so, at least in Nebraska. An excerpt from the American Stewards of Liberty website Oklahoma Bill Gives Local Governments Authority to Deny Conservation Easements - American Stewards of Liberty states:
"Oklahoma State Senator Casey Murdock (R) has filed Senate Bill 980 that gives local governing authorities the ability to approve or deny a conservation easement placed on private land within their jurisdiction. The bill is similar to the Nebraska Statute 76-2,112(3), which gives counties this same authority. Many counties in Nebraska have recently used this provision to deny easements they find conflicts with their local comprehensive plan."
Time is running out for Towns and the public to give input on the proposed Comprehensive Plan language.
The 60-day Oneida County Towns Comprehensive Plan review period ends April 27th. That will be the last day towns can share concerns or recommended changes to the plan. It would also be a good idea for any resident input to be given before this deadline.
After the April 27th deadline, the County will post a Class 1, 30-day notice for the Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing to take place sometime in June. The Public Hearing in June would be the best time for in-person testimony. You may also share emailed or telephone input for the Public Hearing if you cannot attend in person.
After all public comment is considered and any changes made the final Comprehensive Plan language will go to the County Board for approval. Most likely at the August County Board meeting.
To supply public comment by email, simply send your comments to the Oneida County Clerk at occlerk@oneidacountywi.gov
Remember to include your name and the address where you live as well as any properties you own in Oneida County. Ask for your email to be forwarded to the County P&D Committee.
The complete draft of the proposed Comprehensive Plan can be found at Oneida-County-DRAFT-Comp-Plan.pdf
A summary of changes made throughout the Comprehensive Plan process can be found at Oneida-GOPs-Summary-of-Changes-1.22.2025.pdf
Climate Change to Increase Northwoods Population?
Climate Refugees and the Future of Rural Northern Wisconsin’s Glacial Lakes.
By Beckie Gaskill April 1, 2025- By 2050, climate change is expected to displace millions of people across the United States and beyond, forcing them to seek new homes in areas less affected by rising sea levels, extreme heat, and persistent droughts. While much of the discussion surrounding climate migration focuses on large urban centers and coastal regions, rural areas—especially those rich in natural resources—will also experience profound changes. Northern Wisconsin, with its abundant freshwater resources and cooler climate, may become a destination for climate refugees. While this influx of people may bring economic and social shifts, it also raises critical questions about the impact on the region’s glacial lakes and delicate ecosystems.
The Allure of Northern Wisconsin
Northern Wisconsin offers a relatively stable climate, access to freshwater, and a lower population density, making it an attractive option for those fleeing increasingly unlivable conditions in other parts of the country. The Northwoods region, dotted with thousands of glacial lakes, provides an ideal retreat for those seeking refuge from water shortages in the Southwest, hurricanes in the Gulf states, and rising sea levels along the coasts. However, as populations increase, so too does the pressure on these fragile freshwater ecosystems.
.
Increased Development and Water Demand
A growing population means more demand for housing, infrastructure, and water resources. Historically, Northern Wisconsin’s lakes have been used primarily for recreation, fishing, and tourism, with relatively little large-scale urban development. However, a surge in climate refugees could lead to increased shoreline development, more wells tapping into groundwater reserves, and greater strain on septic and wastewater systems. If not managed properly, these changes could degrade water quality through increased runoff, nutrient pollution, and sedimentation.
The Threat to Aquatic Ecosystems
Glacial lakes in Northern Wisconsin support a diverse range of aquatic life, including sensitive species such as cisco, walleye, and various amphibians that rely on clean, cold water. Increased human activity could disrupt these ecosystems in several ways:
- Eutrophication: More people means more phosphorus and nitrogen entering lakes through fertilizers, sewage, and stormwater runoff. These nutrients can cause harmful algal blooms, depleting oxygen levels and threatening fish populations.
- Invasive Species Spread: More boat traffic and movement between lakes could accelerate the introduction and spread of invasive species such as zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, and spiny water fleas, which compete with native species and alter food webs.
- Water Temperature Increases: Development and deforestation around lakeshores can lead to reduced shade and warmer water temperatures, negatively affecting cold-water fish species like trout and cisco.
Managing Growth While Protecting Resources
If Northern Wisconsin is to absorb an influx of climate migrants without compromising its lakes, proactive planning will be essential. This includes:
- Stronger Zoning and Shoreland Protection Laws: Enforcing limits on lakeshore development and ensuring riparian buffer zones remain intact can help reduce runoff and maintain water quality.
- Sustainable Water Management: Encouraging the use of rain gardens, permeable pavements, and responsible groundwater use can help maintain aquifer levels and prevent contamination.
- Enhanced Invasive Species Prevention: Expanding boat-cleaning stations, public education programs, and enforcement of existing laws can reduce the risk of invasive species spreading between lakes.
- Climate-Resilient Infrastructure: Ensuring that new housing developments incorporate energy-efficient and water-conscious designs can help mitigate the impact of population growth.
Looking Ahead
The arrival of climate refugees in Northern Wisconsin is not a question of if but when. While an influx of people could bring economic benefits and revitalize rural communities, it also presents significant environmental challenges. If the region’s glacial lakes are to remain pristine and ecologically vibrant, careful planning, regulation, and community engagement will be necessary. By taking action now, Wisconsin can ensure that its lakes remain a treasured resource for both long-time residents and those seeking refuge from an increasingly unstable climate.
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 https://beckiegaskill.substack.com/
Work Smarter to Protect Your Lakes & Rivers
Lake Associations and nonprofits should define needed skills to fill gaps in their organizations.
By Beckie Gaskill March 28, 2025 (Photo credit Len Hyke)- With the Lakes and Rivers Conference fresh in my mind, there are so many things to talk about. But one in particular that I thought would be super useful to lake organizations across the Northwoods, which could also be extrapolated out to other non-profits, I learned in a concurrent session about organizational capacity. That concept was called a skills gap analysis.
So easy at its heart, it seems to be able to answer a ton of questions for a nonprofit. Simply put, it is a matrix that looks at what types of things are in the work plan for the coming years - that may be the next year, or in a five-year strategic plan - From there, the board, or whoever is completing the matrix, can take an in depth look at what skills are needed to complete each of those pieces of the work plan.
With a list of the skills completed, it is “simply” a matter of filling those skills gaps with people who are strong in those areas. I realize this is an over-simplification, as filling those gaps is not always easy, and sometimes seems impossible. But at the same time, because it is such an uncomplicated means to an end, it may be one that many organizations miss.
We tend to look at an aging board with no “new blood” coming in and have some serious concerns about the long-term viability of a nonprofit such as lake association or any other conservation organization. We are desperate to fill those empty seats around the table with a body, rationalization that “someone is better than no one.” However, we often do not have clear objectives for filling that seat.
We also do not necessarily have a job description, if you will, for the position we need to fill.
“Just attend one board meeting a month,” we often say as we try to recruit a new board member, or whatever our meeting schedule may be. But is there all that there is to it? Or course not, and I feel that is widely understood. So, the apprehension of those we approach may come from that lack of clarity of what is expected.
“Hey, we really need a person who is good at writing press releases, and the board noticed that you….” This is a much more direct conversation starter, at least in my opinion. It sets a clear objective for that person and their role in the organization.
But in order to approach those who are the right people for the right job, we need to know what roles we need to fill. Maybe we do not just need a board member. Maybe we need someone with an investment background to handle our treasurer position. Maybe we need someone who specializes in education, or outreach. Maybe we need a project manager. But if we have yet to create that skills gap analysis, we may not know exactly what we want or where our organization is going.
Creating this skills gap analysis seemed like a super worthwhile idea to me. It is one that I intend to pose to a number of boards on which I sit. The key, though, is to spread out those responsibilities, too. One person may have a large majority of the skills an organization needs to achieve their goals, but is it reasonable to ask that one person to take on all of those tasks, or is the organization better served to spread those tasks or responsibilities out among several people, perhaps even trading off duties from time to time?
Part of the reason this resonated so much with me is that, especially in today’s world, it is not enough for conservation organizations to be busy. We can all be busy doing all kinds of things that never give so much as a nod to our strategic plan or to our vision, values, and mission. The old adage “work smarter not harder" is certainly true in our cases. There may seem to be fewer of us doing the heavy lifting sometimes. But if we are effective and precise in who we choose to lead those charges, it may be enough. If it is not, with a skills gap analysis, as least we know where to focus our efforts to pull in the talent that we need to round out the organization.
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. Visit https://beckiegaskill.substack.com/ to subscribe and read Conservation and environmental topics important to stakeholders in Wisconsin by Beckie Gaskill, a Substack publication.
The Future of National Forests in Wisconsin
Threat of privatizing public land for extraction coming to the Northwoods?
By Tom Wiensch March 18, 2025- The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest has played an outsized role in Wisconsin’s long history of forest products and recreation. After the early logging left much of Wisconsin a denuded landscape of stumps and sticks, great fires swept across the land. The most famous of these was the deadly Peshtigo Fire of October 8, 1871. It was far from the only fire in Wisconsin in that era though, and some of these fires burned so hot that they consumed the duff all the way down to mineral soil.
In the late 1910’s and 1920’s, land speculation companies purchased tracts of the former lumber company land. These companies tried to sell the land to families, advertising it as cleared farm land. Many families moved north, cleared huge amounts of rocks, and made a try at farming. Many found that the soil wasn’t amenable to much agriculture, the land was far from markets, and transportation was limited. Hosts of families lost their dreams and abandoned their land.
The question then became – What to do with these clearcut lands? The State and Federal Governments realized that something had to be done to protect and reforest these lands. The establishment of a National Forest was the answer. Counties had taken title to many abandoned lands by tax sales. They in turn sold the lands to our federal government. Starting in 1928, the Nicolet National Forest began to take shape in Oneida, Vilas and Forest Counties. Over succeeding years, more land was acquired. In 1933, the National Forest was separated into two- The Nicolet National Forest, and the Chequamegon National Forest (they were merged to become Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in 1998.)
The great cut of the early days was very different from the sustainable forestry that is practiced in the modern era. The great pineries were clear cut, leaving inadequate numbers of trees for seed sources. The huge swaths of hemlock were cut for bark to use in hide tanning, often with the wood being left to rot. Some species, such as aspen, could come back on their own. Others could not. Much planting had to be done. The Civilian Conservation Corp and others helped to replant the forests.
The result of the creation of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest was a miracle of multiple use land management. Generations of loggers have worked the Forest for wood products, while generations of the public have recreated in the Forest – hunting and hiking the lands, camping at National Forest Campgrounds, and fishing in the many public lakes and rivers in the forest.
Now, our National Government has changed in some fundamental ways, and many are asking what the future of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest will be. Meanwhile, certain special interest groups have opposed traditional conservation, fighting against easements that protect land, and in some cases calling for the sale of our federal lands. On March 10th, The Hill reported that President Trump pledged to use federal land for housing developments.
On February 26, 2025, Outdoor Life Magazine posted an article titled “How Seriously Should We Take the Sale of Federal Lands? Very Seriously, Experts Say.” The sub-headline reads “From the Trump Administration to Congress and even state legislatures, the movement to dispose of America’s public land is gaining traction.” The article notes that the newly appointed Secretary of the interior, Doug Bergum estimated the value of our federal land at one to two trillion dollars. He also noted that selling the land could be a way to pay down some of the national debt. The magazine also raised the question of whether federal lands will be sold to pay for the tax cuts that President Trump is proposing.
That Outdoor Life article also states:
“Meanwhile, one of the incoming Congress’s first acts was a rule change that relieves the House of Representatives of lost revenue if it gives federal land to states or other interests. That action “is intended to create the illusion that disposal of these lands does not come as a financial loss, streamlining misguided legislative proposals that benefit special interests over the American people,” observes Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.”
Outdoor Life also notes that there are efforts to get the courts to rule that it is unconstitutional for our national government to even own land, and that some state legislatures seem to be aiming to ask the federal government to turn over all or most federal lands to states. In fact, the Wyoming legislature recently took a vote on whether to ask the federal government to turn over to Wyoming all federal lands in the State, except Yellowstone National Park. That vote failed because the vote was tied.
In February of this year, U.S. Forest Service Chief Randy Moore resigned his position. The Wyofile website reports that his resignation came amid “resignations, layoffs, and turmoil” in the agency That article reports layoffs of huge numbers of Forest Service Employees in certain parts of the country. On March 5th, Wisconsin Public Radio reported that at least a dozen Forest Service employees in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest had already been fired.
Meanwhile, MSN recently posted an article from The Daily Yonder with a headline that read “Experts Warn Selling-Off Public Lands Could be the Goal Behind Dismantling of Public Agencies. Cited in that article is Michael Carrol, BLM Campaign Director of the Wilderness Society, who said that if federal land is turned over to states, “… it most likely would be sold off to developers.
In his memo to Forest Service Staff at the time of his resignation, chief Randy Moore wrote:
“Our agency’s work supports the nation’s wellbeing and its economy by providing community protection, jobs, goods and services and a place to retreat and enjoy nature’s beauty. Many small businesses generate their livelihoods through permits to operate on national forests and grasslands. We provide drinking water to over 80 million Americans. We also help provide energy independence to the nation, issuing nearly 3,000 oil and gas leases.”
The USFS website indicates that this memo was addressed to “All Staff.” Presumably that includes those who work in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.
What would it mean for Northern Wisconsin if the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest were sold for development and to fund tax cuts or debt service. It would mean a drastic decline in the forest industry in Wisconsin. Land that is fragmented and developed is not as available for logging as large tracts of land. This would also mean downstream effects on those who earn their living in the forest products industry, including paper mill workers, sawmill operators, truckers, and others.
Recreationally, this would change the face of Northern Wisconsin. If the land is sold, gone would be the systems of snowmobile and ATV trails. Gone would be the miles of public trout streams. Gone would be the wild, undeveloped lakes. Gone would be the vast lands where people can hike and hunt.
Certainly, those who could afford hunting parcels might still be able to deer hunt, but other kinds of hunting such as upland bird hunting, and some bear hunting require access to large amounts of land. Also, not everyone can afford recreational lands. Many people who hunt the national forests would simply be shut out. Gone would be the great egalitarian American tradition of access to wild land for hunting and outdoor recreation that vanished from Europe ages ago. Gone would be Northern Wisconsin as we know it.
All of the wonderful economic and cultural traditions of our National Forest would be destroyed, and for what? Housing developments? It’s not reasonable to believe that our housing needs can be satisfied out in the wilds of the Chequamegon-Nicolet Forest.
What about paying for tax cuts or debt service? The proceeds from selling off our public lands could be applied to those things. The thing is, once the money is gone, it is gone forever. On the other hand, if we keep our National Forests, money can be made from them by loggers, truckers and mills, resorts, restaurants, taverns, gas stations guides, and sporting good sellers forever. What prodigal son would use up our inheritance of the land for a quick pay off?
When it’s all gone, I suppose we could import more wood products from Canada. But what of our own Northern Wisconsin economy? Perhaps we could manufacture plastic “No Trespassing” signs.
Link to February 26th Outdoor Life article- How Seriously Should We Take the Sale of Federal Lands? Very Seriously, Experts Say | Outdoor Life
WPR March 19th coverage Timber expansion executive order could lead to more logging in the Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest | WXPR
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?
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
"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 including addressing public health concerns such as noise, dust, and water quality to comply with state laws."
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.
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.
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
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”
- “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.”
- “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. Schienebeck 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