Oneida County Clean Waters Action

Red Ball Slime Mold, What?

JoAnne Lund's Oneida County Clean Water Minute

Red Ball Slime Mold – by JoAnne Lund

I like to spend time in the state forest near my house. It’s not taking a walk exactly, because I meander between things of interest with camera in hand. On a recent venture, a patch of red on a log caught my eye. Upon closer inspection, it appeared as rows of tiny red beads reflecting the dappled sunlight. The beads were on delicate white stalks. “What on earth?” I thought.

Research revealed it was Red Ball Slime Mold. Slime molds pose an enigma to scientists: they are not plants, animals, fungi, or bacteria. These living blobs are actually giant cells that can move about in search of nutrients somewhat like an amoeba. Studies have observed movement of about one inch per day.

When the food supply wanes, this organism produces spores through the sort of structure that caught my eye: shiny red balls on a stalk. They are natural decomposers and recyclers, and are a food source for roundworms, beetles, and other insects.

So, keep your eyes peeled during warm, wet weather because there are certainly slime molds moving about in your neighborhood, too!

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 12/5/2024- Epidemiologist solicits letters of support for a grant proposal to measure PFAS in Stella residents.

Amy Schultz an environmental epidemiologist & researcher at UW-Madison is seeking local letters of support for her submission of an NIH grant proposal to measure PFAS in Stella residents (serum samples). Ms. Schultz has been added to the meeting agendas of the Oneida County's Board of Health Committee and the Stella Town Board. Both meetings will be held on Monday December 10th, 9am for the Board of Health meeting and 5:15 pm for the Stella meeting.

Below is an excerpt from Ms. Schultz' Aim Statement.

"In late 2022, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources discovered some of the highest drinking water levels of PFAS in the country. In Stella, a town in the northern woods of Wisconsin, PFAS levels as high as 36,000ppt were measured in private wells, with overwhelmingly high PFOA - greatly exceeding the EPA’s health advisory of 4ppt in drinking water for PFOA. Sludge from the local paper mill, a suspected source, showed low levels of PFAS. The source of the exposure has yet to be determined, and no human sampling has occurred. There is an urgent need to measure human exposure in the community and determine what ongoing exposures are still occurring from water and non-water sources. While many community members have switched to drinking bottled or filtered water since learning of the contamination, the long half-life of PFAS in humans allows for a limited but important window to measure historic exposure to PFAS. We hypothesize human exposure in the community is orders of magnitude higher than statewide levels for PFOA, and community members continue to be exposed to PFOA and other PFAS through water and non-water sources from historic and recent spreading of industrial sludge and the biotransformation of PFAS precursors.

We propose the following aims:

Aim 1: Implement a community-based participatory research approach. A community advisory board (CAB) will be formed of community members and meet bi-monthly to inform the research process, and advise on recruitment, return of results, and policy implications of findings. The community will be updated quarterly at town hall meetings and via mailed and online newsletters.

Aim 2: Quantify and characterize PFAS exposure. We will measure serum PFAS levels in a sample of Stella residents (n=160), compare existing statewide levels (n=605), and characterize by household proximity to historic sludge spreading, waterways, drinking water levels, dietary behaviors, etc.

Aim 3: Evaluate sources and routes of ongoing PFAS exposure. Among the highest quartile of PFAS exposure (n=40), we will (a) quantify PFAS in household drinking water, dust, and outdoor soil, (b) examine associations between environmental PFAS and human serum PFAS levels, and (c) what PFAS precursors (i.e. PAPs) in the environment are a source of human PFAS exposure.

Impact: This study will inform residents of their PFAS exposure, ongoing sources, and how to reduce exposure. It will also inform local and state officials of ongoing sources of human exposure in the environment, and whether future monitoring or regulations should consider unique PFAS precursors."

We At OCCWA would recommend that anyone interested in learning more should consider attending one of these meetings. Also, please share with others you feel may have interest or might be affected.

Please note that the Board of Health meeting room capacity is severely limited. We recommend attending via the Zoom option. Zoom Call in Option # 312-626-6799

Meeting ID: 893 1383 4122 Password: 239901

We commend the Oneida County Board of Health Committee and the Town of Stella for being proactive on this public health issue. Which is more than we can say for our legislature who for over a year and a half and counting has blocked $125 million dollars in designated PFAS relief funds.

As of our posting the meeting agenda has yet to be posted by the County. We recommend monitoring the County Board of Health webpage Board of Health – Oneida County, WI

You can view the Town of Stella agenda below- Agenda_Monthly_Town_Board_Meeting_12.10.24.pdf

Posted 12/5/24- OCCWA signs on to letter calling for legislature to protect public health with actions on safe drinking water.

With all our county's problems related to PFAS contamination, OCCWA is proud to join multiple groups across the state in signing a letter calling for action. It is clear that our water issues reach far beyond our county borders. Here's hoping that this coordinated statewide plea is answered. Below is the Wisconsin Conservation Voters press release associated with this action.

More than 30 groups call on State Legislature to take action on safe drinking water for Safe Drinking Water Act 50th anniversary

Dec 05, 2024

WISCONSIN – More than 30 groups signed onto a letter calling on the State Legislature to protect public health by taking action on safe drinking water. Fifty years ago on Dec. 16, Republican Pres. Gerald Ford signed the Safe Drinking Water Act into law. Fast forward to today, and it is clear: Wisconsin has not used the Safe Drinking Water Act to fully protect our communities.

Too many Wisconsinites are still suffering from contaminated drinking water. PFAS are linked to increased cholesterol levels, thyroid disease, certain cancers, and pregnancy complications. Elevated blood lead levels in children are associated with hearing loss, lower IQs, developmental delays, behavioral challenges, and emotional impacts like anxiety and depression. Contaminants from manure and fertilizers, such as nitrate, are linked to cancer, birth defects, and even infant death.

Across the state, communities are facing costly medical bills associated with exposure to these contaminants. Proactively tackling these issues with statewide investments would better protect public health. It could also save the state up to $2.04 billion annually by helping families avoid the healthcare expenses associated with these contaminants.

Our legislators must take substantive actions to protect Wisconsin communities by:

Supporting $953 million for our public water infrastructure;
Supporting policy changes that protect private well owners; and
Supporting preventative action.

“My son will live with the consequences of lead poisoning for the rest of his life,” said Shyquetta McElroy, Executive Director for the COLE Lead Safe and Healthy Homes Project. “Our state legislators can and must do more to prevent others from going through the same thing. It’s time to meaningfully invest in our water infrastructure and pass preventative policies that protect our families.”

“For more than seven years, my neighbors and I have been fighting for safe drinking water,” said Cindy Boyle, Secretary for SOH20 and a Peshtigo resident dealing with the everyday impacts of PFAS contamination. “Since the Safe Drinking Water Act provides no protections for our groundwater, we are counting on the Wisconsin legislature to deliver.”

“PFAS, lead, and nitrate continue to contaminate the drinking water of tens of thousands of people across our state,” said Peter Burress, Government Affairs Manager for Wisconsin Conservation Voters. “We are proud to be working in coalition with environmental partners from across the state to ensure that our elected officials prioritize safe drinking water in the upcoming legislative session.”

See the full sign-on letter here.

For more information

Peter Burress, Government Affairs Manager, Wisconsin Conservation Voters, 920-421-3601 (mobile/text), or peter@conservationvoters.org

Ryan Billingham, Communications Director, Wisconsin Conservation Voters, 608-208-1129 (office), 608-213-6972 (mobile/text), or ryan@conservationvoters.org

Posted 11/27/24- Send a personal postcard to your legislator supporting Knowles Nelson Program (KNP).

For all the reasons given in our October 10th post, "Knowles Nelson Program in Jeopardy?" you might consider showing your personal support by sending a post card to your legislators.

Why? Well tangible, personal messages are some of the best ways to show legislators how Wisconsin’s beautiful places enrich our lives and why it’s crucial to support environmental conservation. Add a message and upload a photo of a special outdoor place in Wisconsin to create a personalized postcard. Knowles Nelson will print real postcards to mail them to state representatives and Governor Evers when they’ll have the most impact.

Create a postcard by visiting KnowlesNelson.org/Postcards.

Why not let those who control the purse strings know What KNP means to you?

Posted 11/27/24- New study brings musssel watching to a beach near you.

In a recent Star Journal article researchers have discovered that Invasive mussels in Minnesota lakes are causing elevated levels of mercury in fish. An excerpt from the article Study: Mercury levels in walleyes and perch spike in Minnesota lakes with zebra mussels states

"Walleyes and perch taken from Minnesota lakes infested with zebra mussels contain starkly higher levels of mercury than those taken from uninvaded lakes, according to new University of Minnesota research published this week."

Could you imagine what a combination of metallic sulfide mining and mussel infestation might look like?

We at OOCWA would like to reiterate the latest DNR information from our 10/14 Clean Water Update.

The DNR also has asked that dock owners examine submerged parts of their docks during the removal process, checking for zebra and quagga mussels. The mussels are highly invasive and quite detrimental to the normal lake ecosystem.

Information on how to report can be found in an excerpt from the DNR Facebook post below.

"Thanks to boaters regularly cleaning and draining water from their boats, most of Wisconsin's lakes and rivers are still free of invasive zebra and quagga mussels.

As we wrap up dock removal season, help monitor your local waters for these mussels by carefully examining the parts of your dock that have been underwater. These invasive mussels can attach themselves to solid structures, providing a chance to identify and remove them.

If you believe you have found zebra or quagga mussels in a lake or river not yet known to have them, please collect samples, take photos and provide contact and location information to your local Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator: https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Invasives/contacts "

Posted 11/24/2024- Secret is out of the bag on source of questionable Comp Plan language that P&D Committee adopted.

Much of the P&D Committee language changes made in their November 11th meeting came from Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association (GLTPA). The adopted language mirroring Texas based American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) extraction and development on public lands concepts. GLTPA director Henry Schienebeck admitted as much when he stated that his 31 pages of Comp Plan recommendations came from a committee formed by his group and included participation by both U.S. Congressman Tom Tiffany and ASL's Executive Director Margaret Byfield. Finally, someone honest enough to admit to the ASL connection. Isn't that refreshing.

As you may recall from an earlier shared Wisconsin Examiner article Leader of anti-conservation group speaks at timber conference sponsored by UW-Madison center • Wisconsin Examiner

Ms. Byfield was quoted as saying

“Those who truly believe in the agenda, the environmental agenda, typically are atheists,”.

Also, from an excerpt from the article, Byfield revealed more

" In a part of her speech in which she attempted to explain the beliefs of environmentalists, Byfield claimed that half of them are only interested in money and power while the other half are “typically atheists” who worship “Mother Earth” and believe humans don’t have a right to live on the planet."

To be clear. the "A" in OCCWA stands for Action not Atheists, we accept no money donations and describe ourselves as clean water advocates not environmentalists. So, going forward we will continue to monitor the actions of the P&D Committee on this issue and pray for better judgement by them going forward.

We also have a new November 24th article on the Comprehensive Plan story posted below our Clean Water Update section.

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

For Wisconsin Examiner coverage see Timber industry group, right-wing nonprofit influence Oneida County comprehensive plan • Wisconsin Examiner

One does to begin to wonder where our local news coverage is at pertaining to this subject. We do want to commend Wisconsin Examiners Henry Redman for his vigilance covering this issue.

Posted 11/24/24- Midwest Environmental Advocates to defend Wisconsin's Spills Law in January.

Madison, WI—On Friday, November 15, Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA) filed an amicus, or ‘friend of the court’ brief with the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a case that could have far-reaching implications for the ability of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to address toxic PFAS contamination and other hazardous substances under Wisconsin’s Spills Law.

The case began in 2021 when Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) sued the DNR to limit the agency’s ability to hold polluters accountable if they fail to clean up contamination they cause. After the lawsuit worked its way up through Waukesha County Circuit Court and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, the State Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 14 at 9:45 a.m.

MEA submitted the amicus brief on behalf of a group of environmental and public health advocates, including Citizens for a Clean Wausau, Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin, River Alliance of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Environmental Health Network and Doug Oitzinger, a former mayor of Marinette and a current city alderperson.

“WMC’s lawsuit is a direct attack on Wisconsin’s Spills Law—a bedrock environmental and public health protection that has protected the people of Wisconsin for close to half a century,” said MEA Staff Attorney Rob Lee. “We are hopeful the Wisconsin Supreme Court will reject this reckless legal challenge and vindicate DNR’s decades-long implementation of the Spills Law.”

“The Spills Law is an essential tool for holding polluters accountable and providing assistance to communities grappling with contaminated soil and water,” said Tom Kilian of Citizens for a Clean Wausau. “My community is directly impacted by the DNR’s ability to regulate hazardous contamination under the Spills Law. Wausau’s diverse, working-class neighborhoods have been disproportionately impacted by industrial contamination and are particularly reliant on the DNR’s ability to require investigation and cleanup from responsible parties.”

Under the Spills Law, the DNR is currently providing critical assistance to communities around the state impacted by PFAS contamination, including Marinette, Peshtigo, the Town of Stella in Oneida County, and the Town of Campbell in La Crosse County.

PFAS are a class of synthetic compounds found in a wide variety of manufacturing processes and consumer products such as firefighting foam, nonstick cookware, water-repellent clothing, stain resistant carpets and cleaning products. PFAS are linked to serious health problems including cancer, reproductive issues, thyroid disease and immune system issues.

OCCWA Position: We at OCCWA are grateful for all services MEA provides to small groups such as ours, but more importantly the work they do for all Wisconsin Citizens. As you can see by the PFAS affected communities they are representing in this brief, that the Spills Law decision will have great impact on them and in turn locally to the town of Stella and Oneida County. Corporate polluters must pay their fair share of cleanup costs, sparing innocent landowner and taxpayer dollars. You can visit MEA's website at Midwest Environmental Advocates | Legal Services | Policy & Advocacy | Organizing | Wisconsin

Posted 10/22/24- OCCWA would like to recognize County and DNR efforts to protect our local watersheds.

What happens quietly behind the scenes usually only gets exposed when thing go wrong. In the case of the efforts by the Oneida County Land & Water Conservation Department (OCLW) and the DNR to protect our watersheds, we'd like to recognize what's going right.

In the October Oneida County Conservation and UW Extension Committee meeting we learned that OCLW using grant money is working with the DNR to identify and protect "already healthy" waterbodies. The goal of this work is best described by an excerpt from the DNR website Healthy Watersheds, High-Quality Waters | Protecting Wisconsin's Water Resources | Wisconsin DNR

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

The goal of this initiative is to keep 100% of the priority healthy watersheds and the high-quality waters within them at or better than their current conditions through 2030. The success of the initiative depends on meaningful partnerships."

The OCLW also shared a press release on the project below.

Watershed Moment in Oneida County, Wisconsin

First in a 4-part Series on Water Quality

The Oneida County Land and Water Conservation Department (OCLW) reminds the public that land health and water health are deeply connected. Oneida County has over 1100 lakes within 49 watersheds, defined as an area of land that drains or “sheds” water into a specific waterbody.

Every body of water has a watershed. Watersheds drain rainfall and snowmelt into streams and rivers. These smaller bodies of water flow into larger ones, including lakes, bays, and oceans. Gravity and the path of least resistance determines the water flow across the landscape. On its journey, water picks up sediments and pollutants from the land’s surface such as pesticides, PFAS (forever chemicals), fertilizers, road salt, and heavy metals from mining sites, and carries them into our waterways and groundwater. In other words, what happens on the land doesn’t stay on the land.

The DNR’s Healthy Watersheds, High Quality Waters Action Plan (HWHQW) identified that of the 49 watersheds in Oneida County, 42 (86%) are in the top 30% and 19 (39 %) are within the top 10% healthiest watersheds in the State. On top of that, our county hosts the #1 (Little Rice River Watershed) and #3 (Headwaters-Willow River Watershed) healthiest watersheds in the State of Wisconsin. However, many of our top ranked watersheds are highly vulnerable. High quality water is a valuable resource and merits efforts to protect it. In 2023, OCLW was awarded a grant from the Wisconsin DNR for a “High Quality Waters Protection Project” in support of the DNR’s (HWHQW) action plan. Both the plan and the project direct efforts to protecting our healthiest watersheds.

On a statewide scale, Oneida County is located within the upper basin of the Wisconsin River Watershed. Our predominantly forested watersheds are critical to protecting water quality not only within the county, but also for our downstream neighbors to the south. What happens in northern Wisconsin doesn’t necessarily stay in northern Wisconsin. How can each of us continue to keep our county watersheds “High Quality”?

· Avoid or minimize use of pesticides and fertilizers.
· Be mindful of storm water runoff and where it drains.
· Support natural shorelines with a native planting buffer zone.
· Remove railroad ties or other retaining wall type foreign objects from shorelines.
· Plant trees and preserve forested land.
· Join a local conservation group.
· Contact your local lawmakers about water flowing from highways directly into a water body.
· Take steps to address erosion.
· BE AWARE: It is far easier, and more cost effective, to keep our waterways healthy than to restore impaired waters.

Watch for the next installment in our 4-part series on water quality. Together we can keep our “high quality waters” healthy into the future.

For more information and to track the progress of this project you can visit the OCLW website at Healthy Lakes and Rivers Grant Program - Oneida County Land and Water Conservation

Posted 10/18- **Wisconsin Lakes Coalition Press Release**

Wisconsin Coalition Hails Local Efforts in Regulating Wake-Enhanced Boats

Over 200 Lakes and 32 Towns Have Taken Action Against Wake Boats, Numbers Growing Rapidly

Madison… A new, rapidly growing coalition focused on protecting Wisconsin’s lakes recently highlighted the growth of local communities and lakes rallying to protect our state’s waterways.

“Last year, just 14 lakes regulated wake-enhanced boating. Today, the number is over 200, and more are contacting us daily. Towns have also taken action, with 32 towns banning wake-enhanced boating. We’ve seen a tremendous increase in local communities recognizing the impacts of wake-enhanced boating and subsequently taking action to protect their natural resources through local ordinances,” remarked Jeff Meessmann, Executive Director of Last Wilderness Alliance.

The Last Wilderness Alliance, a coalition member, has developed a standard template that local governments and others can work from or replicate to avoid the implementation of ordinances with vastly different language. The template can be requested here: https://lastwildernessalliance.org/contact

The coalition represents Wisconsin fishing experts/enthusiasts, advocates for local control, lake property landowners, sailors, those concerned with spreading invasive species, and others. All are concerned about the devastating impacts of wake-enhanced boating on Wisconsin’s glacial lakes and other waterways.

Members of the coalition include: First Chapter Muskies, Inc., Walleyes for Tomorrow, Headwater Chapter Muskies, Inc., Diamond Lakers, Inc., Trout Unlimited Inc., Yahara Fishing Club, Vilas County Lakes and Rivers Association, Lakes at Stake Wisconsin, Last Wilderness Alliance, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, Wisconsin Lakes Association, Wisconsin’s Green Fire, Sawyer County Lakes Forum, Buffalo County Conservation Alliance, Mondovi Conservation Club, Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association, Burnett County Lakes and Rivers Association, Oneida County Clean Waters Action, Izaak Walton League of America - Wisconsin Division, Wisconsin Trappers Association, Washburn County Lakes and Rivers Association, Winnebagoland Conservation Alliance, Musky Fool Fly Fishing Company, and the Lake George Lakes Association.

“Until elected and appointed state officials take action against the damage to Wisconsin lakes and waterways by these boats, we will need to continue to fight in every town and for every lake. Locals are demanding something be done – and that is why this coalition is growing so rapidly,” stated Joe Garstecki of Lakes at Stake Wisconsin.

Wisconsin citizens clearly spoke this past Spring at the Wisconsin Conservation Congress where over 75% of voters expressing an opinion, supported a resolution restricting the “generation of intentionally magnified wakes for wake surfing” to lakes at least 1,500 acres in size, at depths of at least 20 ft, while operating at least 700 ft from shore or other lake users. The WCC vote on this question was 10,274 in favor and only 3,363 opposed. Link https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/About/WCC/2024/SpringHearing/2024_StatewideResults_FINAL.pdf

“Wake-enhanced boating is pitting neighbor against neighbor. It is incredibly sad. I cannot understand why someone would want to purchase a $250,000 boat and use it when their neighbors are all giving them dirty looks. It seems like a purchase you wouldn’t want to make if you wanted peace with your neighbors and fellow lake users,” said, Cody Kamrowski, Executive Director of Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.

The growth in local ordinances addressing wake-enhance boating is reflected in the organic growth of this coalition as more Wisconsinites are realizing the damage this type of boating can do to our waterways. For a list of towns that have taken action against the destruction of wake-enhanced boating, click here https://lastwildernessalliance.org/s/WISCONSIN-TOWNS-WITH-ORDINANCES-SPECIFIC-TO-WAKE-SURFING-AUG-27J-2024-pdf-1.pdf

However, there are still thousands of Wisconsin lakes (and some rivers) that are not protected by a local ordinance, hence the need for these State minimum standards to protect all our water bodies.

OCCWA Comment- You may have noticed this particular coalition's snowball gaining downhill momentum. You also may have noticed in the press release both Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association and OCCWA have joined this coalition. The decision to join for us was a no-brainer considering the public outcry against Senator Felzkowski and Rep. Swearingen's industry friendly proposed legislation this past summer.

MEA Protecting Communities Since 1999

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timber Group Gets Big Seat at P&D Meeting

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

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

P&D Committee Member Contacts:

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

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

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

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

“Our Mission Enhancing Multiple Use Forests for Future Generations”

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The questions now are:

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

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

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

Commercial Pathways bring Invasive Species

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exploring Bogs – Walking on Water, Literally

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forest Protectors Honored With Award

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neonics in the Northwoods

Lake Tom first in county to consider effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on Northwood ecosystem.

By Kathleen Cooper October 15, 2024- I know we are all worried about the upcoming election, the huge storms and wildfires ravaging our country, and wars around the globe, so I will give you something different to worry about neonicotinoids in our groundwater, otherwise known as neonics. You’re welcome, but don’t thank me, thank the EPA and our legislators for looking out for the interests of corporations and big agriculture rather than the health and well-being of the people, ecosystems, and our most precious resource, water.

Neonicotinoids are a class of water-soluble chemicals used to target insects by being absorbed through a plant’s roots, leaves, and fruit. These chemicals cause extensive environmental damage and pose a risk to human health. They are linked to birth defects and hormonal dysregulation, as well as food and water contamination. Children are at the greatest risk, mostly from eating nonorganic food. As a result, children are three times more likely to develop cancer than adults when exposed to these pesticides.

Aside from poisoning our children and ourselves, neonics are killing our pollinating insects, such as bees and butterflies. Birds and aquatic life are also affected. These chemicals are highly persistent and remain present in plant tissues long after applied. Research also shows neonicotinoids can persist in the soil several years after the last application, affecting plants that were not the original targets, and leaching through the soil into our groundwater and private wells. Since neonics remain active in the soil for years, rain or irrigation water can easily carry them long distances to contaminate new soil, plant life, and water supplies. Given neonic’s widespread use, the result has been vast ecosystem contamination, which we notice most often in water. A 2015 study by the US Geological Survey found neonic pollution in more than half of the streams it sampled nationwide. The state of Wisconsin estimates around 43% of 800,000 private wells tested positive for pesticides, and more than half of the pesticides detected aren’t regulated by the state or federal governments. Unfortunately, traditional chlorination treatment typically fails to remove them from tap water, and chlorination actually has the potential to combine with neonics to form even more toxic compounds in tap water.

Despite the threat to our environment, nothing has slowed the widespread application of these insecticides. Neonics are most often used “prophylactically,” or in other words, whether they are needed or not. So, the vast majority of neonic applications- covering hundreds of millions of acres- are treating pest problems that don’t exist. When they do, neonics can actually make those pest problems worse for farmers by killing off beneficial bugs and soil microbes that improve crop health, resiliency, and output. There is some good news regarding the problem of neonic contamination in our water and our food, however. The European Union has completely banned outdoor neonic use in an effort to protect pollinators, water, and the European people, and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec require a prescription before neonics can be used to coat crop seeds, which has drastically reduced their use. The bad news is that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which assesses the human health risks of pesticide ingredients and sets corresponding limits, is failing us. Industry influence has led to underregulating and even deregulation of many pesticides, including those that are banned in other countries. It is virtually left up to the states and civic minded individuals. There are now 11 states that have banned neonics for residential use. These states are California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, and Vermont. This is a good first step for regulation of these poisons.

There is also good news locally. Lake Tomahawk is considering crafting an ordinance that would prohibit the use of commercial mosquito spray on lawns in Lake Tomahawk, and possibly other insecticides that contain neonics. Commercial mosquito sprays generally do not contain neonics but do contain pyrethroids and pyrethrins. These chemicals not only kill mosquitoes, but also kill insects beneficial to our survival and our ecosystem, such as pollinators and food sources for our birds, wildlife, and aquatic life. They are toxic to pets and humans as well, with our children being the most vulnerable. With so many households locally spraying their yards, the cumulative effect of these chemicals will lead to major contamination in our private wells and waterways. Lake Tomahawk is setting an excellent example of a town that is truly concerned about its citizens and its natural environment. We at OCCWA commend Lake Tom for their insight and encourage other towns and counties to explore this issue.

How to identify neonics? Here is a helpful link from Environment America How to avoid bee-killing pesticides (environmentamerica.org)

How can you create a perfect pollinator garden? Well, the Oneida County Land and Water Conservation Department (OCLW) has a guide here THE PERFECT POLLINATOR GARDEN - Oneida County Land and Water Conservation (oclw.org) Just one example of your county tax dollars devoted to conservation.

Knowles Nelson Program in Jeopardy?

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

By Tom Wiensch October 10, 2024-

Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program Facts and History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of recent blocked projects include:

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

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

The Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down JFC Members Veto Power

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

DNR Budget Request

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

The Reaction of Born and Felzkowsi

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ever's Response

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

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

The Future of Public Lands, Parks, and Recreational Facilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting to Protect Clean Water

Northwood Environmental issues should be considered when voting this November 5th.

By Kathleen Cooper September 27, 2024- Unless you have been living in a cave in the Himalayas, I am sure you are tired of hearing about polls, political ads, and especially the divisive vitriol from the candidates running for election. OCCWA is a nonpartisan organization, and does not support any party or political candidate. We do, however, care about clean water in Oneida County, and a healthy environment that supports our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater. We also believe that preserving clean water begins locally. With that in mind we ask that you consider clean waters issues when considering candidates on the November ballot.

U.S. Congressman

Incumbent Republican Tom Tiffany began his political career as a Wisconsin State Assemblyman for two years, and then was a Wisconsin state senator for seven years. In 2020 and 2022, Tiffany was elected and re-elected to the US congress from Wisconsin’s 7th district. While Tiffany was a state senator, he introduced Act 134, which repealed Wisconsin’s popular “Prove it First” mining law. The “Prove it First” law required that any mining companies staking a claim in Wisconsin to show one example of a similar mine in the U.S. or Canada that operated for 10years and was closed for 10 years that did not pollute the environment. Since no mine has ever not polluted the environment, especially the water. The “Prove it First” law virtually prohibited mining in Wisconsin. After Act 134 repealed this law, there has been increased mining interests in our area, with one Canadian company, Green Light Metals, stating that they want to turn northern Wisconsin into a mining district on their website. Mining is unpopular with the people of Oneida County, so much so that in a referendum in 2018, a mine in Lynne was voted down by 62% of Oneida County voters. With Tiffany’s influence, however, some of our county leaders are still attempting to establish mining in our water rich environment.

Mr. Tiffany also has a close relationship with an anti-conservation organization called the American Stewards of Liberty, and has been a keynote speaker at an ASL conference. The ASL, at Tiffany’s behest, worked with local officials from Oneida, Langlade, and Forest Counties to block popular conservation efforts, including the Pelican River Forest, by sending a letter to the US Forest Service asking that the federal funds to purchase the Pelican River Forest easement be withheld. The ASL claims to stand for private property rights, but helped Nebraska pass a law forbidding private property owners from selling conservation easements on their own land. Taking a page from ASL, Oneida County officials have attempted to alter their Comprehensive Land Use Plan to make it easier for extraction in county forestland.

Challenger Kyle Kilbourne is running against Tom Tiffany for the 7th congressional district in Wisconsin. On his website, he advocates for preserving public land access for all, “prioritizing the unique needs of rural areas, focusing on environmental stewardship and enhancing the quality of life.” He also understands the challenge of addressing political divisions and environmental neglect. Unlike Tom Tiffany, Mr. Kilbourne is against mining in northern Wisconsin, and actually attended an Oneida County Board meeting to speak up against a resolution that was introduced that would have made the process much easier for mining companies to gain a foothold on our county land.

Senator 12th District

State Senator Mary Felzkowski was elected State Senator in 2020, after serving in the Wisconsin State Assembly since 2012. She is serving on the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee, and is best known by environmental groups as the dissenting voice on that committee that blocked the Knowles-Nelson funding for the Pelican River Forest. In spite of broad local bipartisan support from northern Wisconsin local governments, Native Nations, outdoor advocacy groups, local businesses (50 of which signed a joint letter in favor of the forest), thousands of people signing petitions in favor of the acquisition, and almost 15,000 messages to the Capitol calling on legislators to support the Pelican River Forest, she told our state legislators that the people of northern Wisconsin were opposed to the Pelican River Forest. She has misled the public by referring to the PRF as “public land that is not taxed,” when in reality, the Pelican River Forest is private land with conservation easements that are open to the public, and therefore is a part of the tax base, and underplayed the economic benefits of tourism and timber production that it would provide. She held several “listening sessions” with the public during this time. She would begin these “listening sessions” by stating that she didn’t care what the public wanted, she wasn’t going to change her mind (on blocking the Knowles-Nelson funding, which are earmarked for just such conservation acquisitions). The Wisconsin State Supreme Court later ruled that the Joint Finance Committee did not have the right to block funding from the Knowles Nelson Fund for conservation purchases.

Mrs. Felzkowski has also stated that she is in favor of mining in northern Wisconsin, which is in direct opposition to the Onieda County 2018 mining referendum.

She has opposed the releasing $125 million budgeted for PFAS remediation for over a year now in affected areas in Wisconsin, one of which is the Stella area in Oneida County, because she does not want manufacturers to be held responsible for the cleanup of these harmful chemicals that have been spread on fields on our county for decades, and have contaminated our private and municipal wells, lakes, wetlands, rivers, and streams.

Mrs. Felzkowski and Assemblyman Rob Swearingen also proposed state regulation of wake boating, introducing legislation that specified that a wake boat could operate on lakes 50 acres or larger and within 200 feet from shore with no depth restrictions (legislation that is identical to what the boat manufacturers wanted) when the science says that wake boating should only be allowed on lakes larger than 1500 acres, in depths of 30 feet, and 500-700 feet from shore. Her proposed Wave Boat bill would also take away local control of wake boating issues.

Andi Rich is the democratic candidate opposing State Senator Mary Felzkowski. She is a businesswoman from Marinette. She has been advocating for clean water in northern Wisconsin for nine years, and states that she intends to put “people over politics and find pragmatic solutions to the challenges we face,” especially protecting our natural resources and supporting our local economies. She states, “My background in environmental protection, combined with my experience as a small business owner, gives me a balanced perspective on how to protect our natural resources while supporting economic growth.” Ms. Rich has stated that the most pressing issue in northern Wisconsin is the need for safe, clean drinking water, and is pushing for stronger environmental regulations, increased funding for water testing and cleanup efforts, and holding polluters accountable. “Protecting our water isn’t just an environmental issue- it’s crucial for our health, economy, and future.” Her hometown, Marinette, also has extremely high PFAS concentrations in their waterways and wells, and she has been actively advocating for PFAS remediation.

Ms. Rich is also opposed to mining in northern Wisconsin, and actively worked to oppose the Back 40 Mine, that would have been situated 150 feet from the Menominee River, which supplies drinking water for both Menominee, MI and Marinette WI. The pollution from the mine would directly affect all the municipalities and rural areas along the Menominee River, and drain into Lake Michigan at Green Bay.

34th Assembly District

Rob Swearingen is a Rhinelander businessman who has served as a Republican in the Wisconsin State Assembly since 2013. During his time in office, he has supported Mary Felzkowski’s positions on water and environmental issues, and co-sponsored Mrs. Felzkowski’s Wave Boat bill.

Dennis Netzel is opposing Rob Swearingen for the 34th Wisconsin District. He states on his Facebook page, “I am a candidate for the 34th Assembly District. I am an American by birth, an agronomist by vocation, a potato grower by desire, and a research scientist by sheer good luck.”

Summation

We at OCCWA urge you to vote thoughtfully on November 5. The full extent of the PFAS problem in northern Wisconsin is just beginning to be known, and we cannot remediate this pollution without the support of our elected officials. The mining issue also weighs heavily on our minds, and even though so far, the people of northern Wisconsin have been able to keep mining interests at bay, sometimes it feels like a game of whack-a-mole. Voting is an important right and privilege, and this election seems to come at a critical time for our water resources. So please vote, not only for the political issues you care about, but also for the precious resource that we sometimes take for granted- our clean water. We never seem to appreciate the good things we have until they are gone. Let’s start appreciating our beautiful water resources now, before it is too late.

How can you ask Candidates their environmental positions? Well, WXPR radio has a solution.

Ahead of the November 5th Election, WXPR is interviewing candidates and reporting on issues important to voters. They want to hear from voters in Oneida, Vilas, Forest, Iron, Price, Lincoln, and Langlade Counties. Responses can be anonymous. Names will only be used with permission. Here is the link where you can ask those questions Election Questions (google.com)

Oneida County Conservation Congress Funding in Jeopardy?

County Board to vote on continuing funding to local Conservation Congress delegates.

By Beckie Gaskill September 20, 2024- Recently, Oneida County Conservation Congress chair Ed Choinski approached the county land and water committee to discuss a reimbursement for Wisconsin Conservation Congress (WCC) delegates from the county to attend the annual meeting of the Congress. This reimbursement, he said, had been ongoing for at least 40 years, but had stopped abruptly this year. There was some confusion regarding from where this expense reimbursement came out of the county, but, he said, the funding did come from the county somewhere. Both the department and the committee stated they understood the importance of the Conservation Congress and would look into how to get the reimbursement reinstated if possible.

But just what is the Wisconsin Conservation Congress and what does it do? The WCC is “the only statutory body in the state where citizens elect delegates to advise the Natural Resources Board (NRB) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on how to responsibly manage Wisconsin’s natural resources for present and future generations,” according to the DNR website. In recent years, many have become aware of the WCC spring hearings. These hearings are held in April every year and they give the public the opportunity to weigh in on proposed rule changes that have to do with a variety of different areas of the state’s natural resources.

This year there were questions regarding possible enhanced wake regulations, which drew a large number of lake lovers and healthy water supporters. The Congress is made up of volunteer citizens from each county who represent the interests of those in their home county, bringing those thoughts, opinions and ideas to the full Congress. The Congress, then, brings their recommendations to the Natural Resources Board on these matters.

The whole process of the spring hearings is unique to Wisconsin. It allows all of the stakeholders in the state weigh in on natural resources matters that are important to them. Much of the spring hearings content is directed at anglers, hunters and trappers, those people who pay license fees that allow the state to manage our natural resources for us all.

At the spring hearings, delegates to the Conservation Congress are elected by those in attendance in person in each county. While the spring hearings questionnaire can be filled out online, a measure that began during the pandemic, delegates, by statute, can only be elected by people attending the spring hearings in person. This not only gives the public a chance to weigh in on natural resources issues, but also to elect the people they believe will best represent the interests of citizens of the county.

Because all WCC delegates are strictly volunteers, they shoulder all of their own expenses of doing this important work, attending meetings, talking to NRB members and various other activities associated with their WCC work. As Choinski said, for the last 40 years, Oneida County has reimbursed WCC delegates from the county for their annual meeting expenses. That total amount per year comes to approximately $2,500. Other counties also reimburse their WCC delegates for their annual meeting expenses.

When Choinski approached the land and water committee earlier this year, county conservationist Michele Sadauskas said she fully understood the importance of the WCC and what the delegates did for the people of the county, but her department budget simply could not fund the reimbursement. The committee then voted to include those funds into the 2025 budget. Should that budget be approved by the full county board, delegates would once again be reimbursed for their expenses for that meeting, alleviating that financial burden from them. This will be an important move to keep the county’s delegates on the Conservation Congress and fighting for the wishes of citizens in the area of natural resources.

OCCWA Position

We at OCCWA support the funding of our local Conservation Congress delegates. This uniquely Wisconsin process where local residents can weigh in on environmental issues is part of the very fiber of our Northwood's lifestyle of Water, Woods, Wildlife, and Way of Life.

In 2024, 678 Oneida County Residents participated in the Conservation Congress with another 2749 online inputs from respondents that indicated they recreate in the county. To put these numbers into perspective, of all the counties in Wisconsin, only Dane County with a much higher population produced slightly higher participation numbers than Oneida County. No surprise to us at OCCWA.

See 2024 Statewide County results here 2024_StatewideResultsByCounty.pdf (wisconsin.gov)

Bayfield County Raises Ante on Wave Boats

Bayfield and Jefferson counties ask WCA to back 700ft/30ft restrictions on enhanced waves.

By Dan Butkus September 5, 2024-Two recent developments have happened back-to-back concerning enhanced wake regulations. First up we have Bayfield County proposing a resolution to be considered at the upcoming Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) Conference (September 22-24). Their resolution asks counties to back a state legislative standard of 700 ft from shore minimum and 30 ft depth minimum for operation of wake boats in wake mode, aka “bow-up”. In addition, Bayfield’s resolution supports local control for more restrictive local ordinances. Jefferson County’s Executive Committee, acting on behalf of the full Board, recently passed a motion in support of the Bayfield WCA Conference resolution, effectively casting a vote for the resolution.

Each member county of the WCA gets one vote on each resolution. The conference resolutions may be adopted, rejected, or frequently they are postponed indefinitely. Adopted resolutions from the Conference are used in WCA’s lobbying efforts in the coming year. Should Bayfield’s resolution succeed at the Conference later in September, it could be a huge boost for the effort to effectively regulate enhanced wakes.

The second bit of news came out on September 3rd. A press release announced the formation of a coalition of environmental groups that includes Wisconsin Lakes, Last Wilderness Alliance, Wisconsin Green Fire, Lakes at Stake, and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. Earlier in May, this author addressed the Natural Resources Board (See photo) on behalf of these five organizations concerning devoting DNR staff resources to help Towns with local wake ordinances. The expressed purpose of the coalition is to protect Wisconsin’s waters from the devastating impact of enhanced wakes. They have proposed a policy independent of, but mirroring Bayfield’s WCA Conference resolution. The coalition goes further by identifying residual water in the wake boat ballast as violating Wisconsin’s statutes and administrative code regarding transport of aquatic invasive species. Ballast tanks cannot be completely emptied or decontaminated.
Several other groups have signed on to the original members’ proposal. They include Wisconsin Trout Unlimited, Walleyes for Tomorrow, Vilas County Lakes and Rivers Association, and the Yahara Fishing Club. More groups are looking over the proposal made by the coalition and are considering signing on in support of the policies. This marks a rare occasion where a number of environmental groups have come together in an effort to pressure the Wisconsin Legislature into action.

OCCWA Note: As you may recall Oneida County passed an enhanced wave resolution back in March with limits of 500ft from shore and 20 ft depth. Now Bayfield County leapfrogs those numbers with 7000ft/30ft. No disrespect to our County Board's efforts, they were proactive and protective while being one of the first counties to act in protecting our lakes. Below is an excerpt of our March 21st coverage on Oneida County's resolution.

" It took multiple meetings by both the County Board and the Conservation and UW Extension Committee to finally produce a resolution that the majority of the County Board could get behind, 13 ayes and 6 no. The end result was a Resolution on Enhanced Wake Regulations.

In the resolution the county asks for restricting enhanced wake creation closer than 500ft from shore and in depths less than 20ft. These limits are compromise between the most extreme protections and the woefully minimum numbers offered by Senator Felzkowski and Representative Swearengen's proposal of 200ft from shore and no depth restrictions.

The resolution also calls for the state to allow local governments to set their own limits above state minimums. This has become a necessary ask since most of the state legislation lately prohibits local entities to be more protective of their resources than state limits. Local control?"

Silent Sport Magazine article on Wakeboarding. For the local paddlers and there's a lot of us, Silent Sports Magazine does a fantastic job covering the enhanced wave issue. https://silentsportsmagazine.com/2024/01/02/silent-alarm-proposed-wakeboarding-bill-bad-for-paddling-fishing-and-invasive-species/

DNR Shares Recent Summer PFAS Test Results

Test results for newly drilled wells and from expanded surface water testing shared.

By Eric Rempala August 28, 2024- In recent conversations with several local DNR agents OCCWA was updated on the results of this summer's DNR testing activity in Stella.

Results from expanded surface water testing and newly drilled well tests are provided below. Bear in mind the testing so far has concentrated on the Stella area and any expanded testing to other parts of our county continue to be delayed by the Joint Finance Committee's blocking of designated state PFAS funding. One wonders when large corporation dollars rather than our tax dollars will be spent to clean up contamination they are responsible for. That my friends, is a story for another day.

The Wisconsin DNR shared their expanded Stella area PFAS surface water test results with OCCWA in map form (See Photo at right) These most recent test results are public record but not yet posted on the DNR/Stella website page. The DNR expects the results will be posted on their Stella PFAS page PFAS Contamination in the Town of Stella | | Wisconsin DNR as soon as their IT department processes them, but no timeline was given. Expanding the photo provided on your device should make viewing easier. You can also visit the DNR/Stella website to access previous surface water tests Stella and Rhinelander Surface Water PFAS Testing - Maps and Tables (wisconsin.gov) , and start to put together a bigger view of the Stella area surface water PFAS picture.

Though the map accounts for only PFOA and PFOS, two of the most prolific and oldest forms of PFAS, the DNR actually tested for 34 forms of PFAS which they provided in chart form which is also public record. Since the town of Stella contamination is most likely legacy contamination from many years of land spreading, one would suspect that the highest numbers discovered would be PFOA/ PFOS.

Water bodies that tested below State Water Standards (GOOD) for PFAS are Jennie Webber Creek @ Cross County DR, Jennie Webber Creek @ Roosevelt RD, North Pine Lake Creek, Lily Bass Lake, Tom Doyle Creek, Jennie Webber Lake, Skunk Creek @ River Road, Pine Lake Creek @ Forest Lane, Shepard Creek @ Timber Lane, Gudagest Creek 50 ft above Moen, Del Stengl Lake, Lela Creek, Gutagest Creek @ Spafford Road, Starks Springs Outlet, Starks Creek Downstream of Starks Spring, Angelo Lake Creek @ Tenderfoot Road, and an unnamed water body south of Starks Springs Outlet.

Water bodies tested over State Water Standards for PFOS are Starks Creek Downstream of Starks Springs, Unnamed Spring Run south of Starks Springs, and Sunset Lake.

Water Bodies tested over State Water Standards for PFOA are Jewel Creek, and Sunset Lake.

One important point to consider is that these new test results are only from surface water testing. To assume groundwater in the areas tested are free of PFAS would be a mistake. Only groundwater testing and well water testing will determine the safety of those water sources.

Along with providing the results of this summer's tests the DNR offered an initial assessment of the results.

DNR initial assessment:

"The major finding so far, confirmed from last year, is that the PFAS contamination in surface water appears to be confined in the waterbodies directly surrounding the Stella area where the high PFOA and PFOS values were initially found in private wells. Those waterbodies are Starks Cr, Snowden Lake, the Moen Chain of Lakes, Twin Lakes Creek, North Branch of the Pelican River and downstream of where the North Brach of Pelican River into the Pelican River. As mentioned in the town hall meeting in early May, we know that the general groundwater flow in this area is in a south and west direction, towards the Wisconsin River. Our general thought at this point is that it appears to be reaching these surface waters but doesn’t appear to be reaching surface water beyond the Moen Chain. For example, notice the low PFAS concentrations in lakes Thompson and George from 2023.

The main effort of 2024 was to expand the area sampled to the North and West and get a few additional samples around Stella/Starks that we didn’t sample in 2023. The areas around Jennie Webber and Tom Doyle are low, which is good news. We had public comment and are aware of the old paper plant landfill south of Jennie Webber Lake, and don’t see indications of PFAS coming from the landfill into surface water. Sunset Lake had the highest concentrations of PFOA and PFOS, which is unfortunate, although not too surprising since it’s close to Snowden and directly connected to Starks Creek, which were shown have very high PFAS concentrations in 2023. The high PFOA value at Jewel Cr, slightly above the PFOA surface water standard of 95 ng/L, appears to be unique to the creek itself although the PFOA concentration is elevated in Jennie Weber Cr downstream of the Jewel Cr confluence."

The DNR recommends using the DNR PFAS Interactive Viewer at https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/PFAS/DataViewer where the latest test results have been entered. Simply click on the link and select " Launch PFAS Interactive Viewer".

WDNR shares latest results of expanded well testing in the town of Stella.

Below are the results provided by the DNR for the expanded PFAS testing in Stella. If you recall the DNR earlier expanded the free well testing zone in Stella by an extra half mile circumference. These results are for the expanded area only. We have not been informed of any more expansion of testing at this time. No details as to what these results indicate have been shared.

It bears repeating that the DNR has been extremely transparent with OCCWA on all inquiries made. Also remember the DNR resources (money) for PFAS remediation has been blocked for over a year by the legislature with no release in site.

DNR Results for expanded 2.5 to 3.0 miles area:

As of August 7, 2024:

116 Offer letters sent to part-time and full-time residents

35 Letters sent to residents that didn’t respond to the initial mailing, one more additional mailing will occur

17 letters sent to residents from 2.5 to 3.0 miles that paid for their testing and provided the results to the department. Offer of: resample or reimburse.

69 sampling kits picked-up

62 sampling kits received at the laboratory

57 private well sample results

7 Health Advisory Letters issued
11 wells with PFAS detected below DHS recommended health guidelines (20 ng/L for PFOA+PFOS)
39 wells with no PFAS detected

OCCWA questions on results from newly drilled wells.

1) How many wells have been drilled in Stella using DNR recommended drilling method? (Deep wells drilled into bedrock with cement plug)

ANSWER- To date we have analytical results for 15 ARPA well installations.

2)What percentage of new wells tested at zero PFAS detection?

ANSWER- 7 of 15 or roughly 47%

3)What Percentage of new wells tested at PFAS levels that can be filtered economically?

ANSWER- 8 of 15 or roughly 53%

4) Did any new wells result in PFAS levels that would still require high-cost filtration?

ANSWER- No wells or 0% The highest level treated to date is 2,500 ng/L with two units in series. The post treatment sample indicated 2.7 ng/L (PFOA).

One Point, OCCWA does not believe that 2,500 ng/l would fall under low-cost treatment options. Of course, one's interpretation of cost varies. We hope to have a better idea of the cost involved to filter 2,500 ng/l soon.

Again, we at OCCWA thank the DNR for their transparency responding to our questions. We have shared these results with the Oneida County Conservation and UW Extension Committee and expect discussion under their standing PFAS agenda item in the September meeting.

Opposition to Mining Stronger Than Ever

Protect the Willow sentiment still alive and well with old and new voices, "No still means No!"

By Kathleen Cooper August 22, 2024- I am so proud of my fellow citizens who, on very short notice, took the time from their busy lives to voice their opinions against mining in the Town of Lynne, and in Oneida County. 194 emails were sent to Tracy Hartman, the Oneida County Clerk, opposed to mining and the pro-mining resolution written by board chairman Scott Holewinski. During the August 20 County Board meeting, twenty-seven people spoke in person against mining. There were many more people in attendance who did not speak, but were there to show support against mining. We had only three days' notice to get the word out, and these concerned citizens, from all walks of life and all political persuasions, came together to oppose a threat to our way of life, our air, our land, and our water. I was so inspired by what I heard and what I saw. And our Oneida County Board did the right thing. In an unprecedented move, the board voted to defeat Holewinski’s resolution that would have begun to pave the way for mining in Lynne.

Every speaker had something unique to say. Kyle Kilbourn, a congressional candidate running against Tom Tiffany, took the time from his campaign to voice his opinion against mining in Oneida County, which is the opposite of Tiffany’s pro-mining stance. Eric Rempala spoke about what a sacrifice zone was, which seems like what the mining companies and Scott Holewinski want for our county. A man from Vilas County said sure, let's have mines in Oneida County, because the tourists will drive right through and spend their money in Vilas County. There were tribal citizens from the Lac du Flambeau tribe who reminded the board that this was ceded territory, and that the tribes would take any and all action, including legal action, against a mine in Oneida County. Another resident talked about the Flambeau Mine, which is said to be fully reclaimed, except for thirty-five acres that have been leaking toxic waste into the groundwater since 1997 (which means it is not reclaimed at all). An engineer spoke of the process of sulfide mining, and that there is no way to stop the leaching of sulfuric acid into the environment for perpetuity, with the taxpayers left to clean up the mess. Another woman said that it felt like deja vu to once again have to speak up against mining, especially after the 2018 referendum, that should have put the question to rest. Another mentioned that water-rich Oneida County is the fifth largest source of freshwater in the WORLD, so why are we talking about polluting it? Some people came with no intention to speak, but spoke anyway, without notes, their voices shaky with emotion, but their messages powerful, against mining.

Supervisor Steven Schrier spoke about the lack of transparency on the part of Scott Holewinski and Russ Fisher, who met with the junior mining company Green Light Metals at the Wisconsin Counties Association in Madison, without the consent of the county board, and said nothing about it until drawing up this resolution. Steven also mentioned that there are already ordinances in place for the procedures to follow for mining inquiries, so what is the purpose of this new resolution?

The basic message was “No means NO! We voted against mining in 2018, and we are telling you now! No mining in Oneida County!”

It was a victory for clean air, land, and water. The resolution was defeated by a vote of thirteen no and six ayes. However, it is not over. Certain county board members will stop at nothing, even going rogue, to impose their will on the people of Oneida County. Now that we know how powerful we are, and that we can assemble to fight the good fight at a moment’s notice, we need to be ready when the call comes to do it again. And again. For as long as it takes to finally put this issue to rest.

Many thanks to all of you who wrote emails, called their county board supervisors, showed up at the meeting, and spoke. We could never have defeated this resolution without you. We all came together for the common good, and I could not be prouder. Great job, Oneida County!

County Residents Reaffirm No Mining in Lynne

County Board agrees with public and rejects latest Mining Resolution proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you one and all.

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

County Chairman Puts Mining in Lynne Back on the Table!

Public urged to participate in hastily organized attempt to override 2018 referendum results.

By Dan Butkus August 17, 2024-

Sulfide mining in Lynne? Here we go again.

An Oneida County Resolution, #75-2024, was introduced to next week’s County Board meeting on August 20. It seeks to allow the Forestry, Land, and Outdoor Recreation Committee to “entertain unsolicited inquiries for exploration, prospecting, bulk sampling, and mining operation on County owned land…”. This would run counter to the County referendum which indicated over 62% of those voting opposed a metallic sulfide mine in the Town of Lynne. In 2012, the County Board failed to adopt previous resolutions that would have allowed the committee to proceed with leasing County Land for mining. This resolution being offered on Tuesday would open the doors of county land to mining exploration.

Why now? (you might ask) It seems the County has received two such unsolicited inquiries for exploration. The County has not yet responded. And it looks like Mr. Holewinski, who is sponsoring this resolution on his own, wants to be able to say “yes” to the mining companies. This resolution did not come up through committee, but spontaneously appeared out of Scott Holewinski’s desires to open the doors of Oneida County to metallic mining.

First, Valhalla Metals out of Fairbanks, Alaska, back in June wished to meet with the County to discuss leasing land from Oneida County, in the Town of Lynne. Obviously, it’s not to set up a campground and picnic tables. Then as recently as last week, Green Light Metals met with Chairman Holewinski and Supervisor Fisher in Madison. It was there that Mr. Holewinski indicated he’d need to pass a resolution at the County Board meeting the following week before they could discuss the opportunity.

Springing this on the constituents of Oneida County without proper vetting at the committee level is a pathetic attempt to ram this through. It falls in line with Mr. Holewinski’s desire to change the Comprehensive Land Use Plan relative to mining. From prior articles, you know this to be the handiwork of American Stewards of Liberty.

Thing is, it may work unless you act. I ask that you contact your County Supervisor and express your opposition to this resolution. Show up at the County Meeting on Tuesday, August 20. It’s at 9:30 am in the County Board Room. Register a public comment against this resolution. Tell them they cannot sneak this through.

**OCCWA Take Action**

OCCWA urges anyone who can attend the meeting on Tuesday at 9:30 to please attend. We look forward to seeing you! See Details County Board – Resolution packet is attached to the agenda – Oneida County, WI (oneidacountywi.gov)

Also, if you cannot attend, we ask that you take a few short minutes to send an email in opposition of mining on County Forest before 4pm Monday to County Clerk Tracy Hartman occlerk@oneidacountywi.gov In your email you should state your name and address as well a clear statement of your position. All emails received before 4 pm Monday will be acknowledged during the County Board Meeting on Tuesday.

As you know OCCWA does not accept money, rather we depend on the people of Oneida County to help in protecting our county's water and resources.

Thank you for your consideration.

Special thanks- to Dan Butkus for penning this article. Dan stepped in without hesitation to help with very tight timeline due to the county's hastiness on this issue. From all of us at OCCWA, thank you!

Supreme Court Chevron Ruling to Affect Resource Protection?

Initial concerns warranted but only time will reveal ruling's real impacts on Northwoods communities

By Tom Wiensch August 15, 2024-

Laws, Regulations and Court Rulings

In the United States, federal laws and rules are made in several ways. These include laws passed by Congress, case law made by courts, and regulations developed by federal agencies.

Traditionally, Congress has created broad laws to carry out public policy, with agencies then creating regulations to flesh out the details. Such regulation is, by necessity, often quite technical.

The Clean Water Act Example

The Clean Water Act establishes the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters. The Act also requires the Environmental Protection Agency to create regulations to implement the act.

Under that authority, the E.P.A has created regulations relating to such things as effluent limitations for various industries such as mineral and mine processing, petroleum refining, and waste combustion.

These regulations are science-based and include limits on the amounts of specific chemicals, amounts of suspended solids, and the pH level of effluent which may be discharged into water.

Other Federal Agencies

In addition to the E.P.A. other federal agencies are required to enact regulations. Examples of such agencies, along with examples of the things they regulate include:

1. The Food and Drug Administration - The safety and efficacy of human medicines.

2. The Federal Aviation Administration - Airline safety.

3. The Securities and Exchange Commission – Protection of investors.

4. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission - The disposal of high-level radioactive waste.

The Need for Expertise

Obviously, neither Congress, the President, nor members of the judiciary are equipped with the skills and knowledge necessary to write all of the kinds of detailed, often scientifically based regulations necessary to carry out the aims of broadly written statutes.

For this reason, our government employs agencies and gives those agencies the authority to attend to the finer details of making laws effective. To enact regulations, federal agencies employ chemists, biologists, economists, engineers, physicians, statisticians, and other highly trained and specialized experts. Given the relatively broad nature of federal laws, and the manner in which they are made, it is common for there to be situations in which the laws require interpretation.

The Chevron Case

In 1984, The United States Supreme handed down a decision relating to federal agencies in the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

The Chevron case involved a challenge to the decision of President Ronald Reagan’s E.P.A. to narrow the definition of “source” as it applied to air pollution under the Clean Air Act. The change allowed some of those who discharged pollutants to avoid E.P.A. review in certain situations.

The Natural Resources Defense Council sued, challenging the legality of that narrow definition. The United States Supreme Court held against the NRDC. In doing so, the Court ruled that, when laws contain ambiguous terms, courts should broadly defer to the E.P.A. and other independent governmental agencies who interpret those terms, so long as the agencies interpret the terms in ways that are reasonable, and not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.

The legal doctrine of “stare decisis” requires that courts must generally adhere to prior appellate-level court decisions. In the wake of the Chevron decision, American courts did just that, treating Chevron as settled law. In the forty years after Cheron was decided, it was cited as law in thousands of decisions by American courts.

The End of Chevron Deference

On June 28th, 2024, the United States Supreme Court overturned Chevron in the cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo and Relentless v Department of Commerce.

In the majority opinion, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court ruled that stare decisis did not apply because the Chevron Doctrine was “unworkable” due to the difficulty in determining whether a statute is ambiguous.

The majority also ruled that Chevron had to be overturned because the Administrative Procedure Act required courts to apply their own judgment in cases involving ambiguities in the law. Interestingly, the relevant portion of the Administrative Procedure Act was enacted in 1966. So, that act was in effect at the time the Chevron case was decided, and the Chevron Court was aware of it.

The majority rejected the argument that agencies staffed with scientists and other experts are better suited than judges to decide how ambiguities in the law should be resolved. The Court also ruled though, that the overturning of Chevron did not require that other past cases that had been decided based on Chevron had to be overturned.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion. In her dissent, Kagan disputed both the majority’s reasoning in not following precedent and in determining that the 1966 statute required that courts give no deference to agencies.

In that dissent, Justice Kagan gave examples of several previous cases involving scientific/technical issues, which relied on the Chevron decision. The examples included cases which addressed such questions as:

1. Whether population segments under the endangered species act should be considered as separate based on geographical separation, genetic variance, or otherwise.

2. How “geographic areas” should be measured for the purpose of determining Medicare reimbursement to hospitals based on wage differences in different “geographic areas.”

3. What levels of noise would be consistent with “natural quiet” in the context of a law aimed at reducing aircraft noise over The Grand Canyon.

One of the cases that Justice Kagan cited involved the Public Health Service Act which requires the FDA to regulate biological products including proteins. The court handling that case had to address the question of when an alpha amino acid polymer qualifes as such a protein, and whether it must have a specific, defined sequence of amino acids.

In her opinion Justice Kagan wrote that agencies are in a better position to resolve ambiguities, stating:

“. . . because agencies often know things about a statute’s subject matter that courts could not hope to. The point is especially stark when the statute is of a “scientific or technical nature.”” “Agencies are staffed with “experts in the field” who can bring their training and knowledge to bear on open statutory questions. Consider, for example, the first bulleted case above. When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as a “protein”?” I don’t know many judges who would feel confident resolving that issue.”

The Future

It’s important to remember that the Chevron deference only applied in cases involving statutory ambiguities. Also, Congress can pass and amend laws so that it is clear how much deference it wishes to grant to administrative agencies. Doing so could make the role of agencies and their experts clearer. Of course, given the fact that gridlock seems to have become a near constant feature of our federal government, that may not be easy to do.

Additionally, The Court made it clear that courts still have the ability to “seek aid from those responsible for implementing particular statutes.” In that regard, the Court mentioned the “respect historically given to Executive Branch Interpretations” (Sometimes known as “Skidmore Deference.”) The frequency and degree to which such respect will be given in the future is unclear.

Some commentators expect that the Loper Bright case will mean enormous changes in environmental law, others disagree, while still others say it is too early to tell. Given the sheer number of cases which previously relied on the Chevron doctrine, it is easy to imagine the number and broad range of administrative laws that courts may have to address in the future without the deference required under Chevron.

When it comes to Wisconsin, it is worth noting that the Court’s opinion relates specifically to a federal law doctrine, and the Court, in overturning Chevron, relied on a federal statute. Thus, the decision would not seem to specifically apply to Wisconsin law.

That said, many federal environmental laws have applicability to situations arising in the various states. For example, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Pollution Prevention Act and many other federal laws apply in Wisconsin.

Although Loper Bright was only decided on June 28th of this year, there have already been reports (see link at bottom) that the United States Air Force is refusing to comply with an E.P.A. cleanup order concerning PFAS contamination in Tucson Arizona. Reports indicate that Air Force Attorneys are relying on the Loper Bright decision in taking that position. Reporting on that matter is somewhat scant, and it’s unclear how the Loper Bright decision is being argued to apply, and what, if any, statutory ambiguity is at issue.

Of course, PFAS cleanup has been an important topic in Oneida County, as two City of Rhinelander Wells, many private wells, and the Moen’s Chain of lakes have been found to contain PFAS.

Also, regulations under the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts govern mining and mineral processing. Mining has long been a hotly contested issue in Oneida County and other parts of Wisconsin.

In coming years, many questions are likely to arise concerning the Loper Bright Decision and its effects on Environmental Law, including:

1. How greatly will Loper Bright change environmental law?

2. How frequently will judges rely on administrative agency interpretations?

3. To what extent will the political philosophies of individual judges affect the ways in which they interpret legal ambiguities, and the extent to which they rely on administrative agency interpretations in doing so?

4. Will Congress amend some of our most fundamental environmental laws so that the situations in which it wants agencies to interpret law becomes clear?

5. How will Loper Bright affect the mining permit and remediation processes for potential mines?

6. How will Loper Bright affect PFAS regulation and cleanup?

7. How will Loper Bright affect other clean water and air and other environmental issues?

These questions will only be answered with time, litigation, and perhaps acts of Congress.

Note – This piece is not a legal opinion and should not be taken as one or be legally relied upon.

US air force avoids PFAS water cleanup, citing supreme court’s Chevron ruling | US military | The Guardian

More Than Our Climate is Changing

The effects of a warmer climate on our Northwood landscape and native species.

By Tom Wiensch July 30, 2024-

Photo credit Len Hyke

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF WISCONSIN AND THE GREAT LAKES REGION: The changing landscape and species of the Northwoods

Global warming and the climate change that it causes have been topics of serious discussion in America and around the world for over 20 years. In Wisconsin and other parts of the Upper Great Lakes Region, climate change seems to be reducing the range and abundance of a number of species of animals and reducing the clarity of lakes. Examples of affected species include walleye, brook trout, loons, flying squirrels, and snowshoe hares in Wisconsin and moose in neighboring Michigan and Minnesota. It also appears that, if climate change continues, the composition of our forests will change.

The remainder of this article will discuss the effects of climate change on these species and the habitat in which they live.

WALLEYE

Walleyes are one of the most popular fish among Wisconsinites. Sadly, a 2018 study published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Species has demonstrated that walleye numbers in Wisconsin waters are declining. i

There may be multiple factors affecting the number of walleyes in Wisconsin waters. For instance, a 2018 study published by the National Academy of Sciences showed that walleye were being overharvested.ii Importantly though, that study showed that the reason for overharvest was that bag limits were set based on walleye abundance, without properly considering walleye productivity.

Another study published in February 2024 in the Journal of Limnology and Oceanography Letters has shown that changing ice-out dates are affecting the ability of young walleye to survive.iii It used to be that ice left Wisconsin lakes at approximately the same time each year. Now, as air temperatures have increased, the ice-out dates are highly variable, often happening much earlier than they used to.Walleye are one of the most popular fish among Wisconsinites. Sadly, a 2018 study published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Species has demonstrated that walleye numbers in Wisconsin waters are declining.

The study has shown that walleye used to spawn shortly after ice-out, which meant that when the eggs hatched and young walleye began feeding, zooplankton were present as an abundant food source. Although walleye have begun spawning slightly earlier than they used to, they still spawn later than the new ice out times, often meaning that many young walleye starve to death due to the lack of zooplankton to eat.

BROOK TROUT

Although perhaps not as popular among anglers as walleye, brook trout are the only stream trout native to Wisconsin. Many anglers consider brook trout to be among the most beautiful of fish.

Non-native brown trout from Europe and rainbow trout from the West Coast have been stocked in some Wisconsin streams and in some streams these trout, especially browns, have established breeding populations. A number of streams, especially in the driftless area of Wisconsin, contain large numbers of brown trout and in many cases, few if any brook trout.

Brook trout require colder water than do brown and rainbow trout. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has found that the number of brook trout in Wisconsin has been declining, especially since 2006.iv The DNR has also found that higher summer temperatures have benefited brown trout at the expense of brook trout.v So far, most of the impact on brook trout has occurred in Southern Wisconsin.

The Upper Wolf River, Wisconsin’s largest trout river offers an example of what warming temperatures do to trout. Until its character was changed by early logging, the Wolf was a brook trout stream.vi While it still contains some brook trout, the Upper Wolf now contains brown trout, many of which are stocked and many smallmouth bass.vii Increased warming is likely to further reduce the ability of the Wolf to support trout.

LOONS

Loons are one of the most beloved bird species in Northern Wisconsin and across the northern lakes of the United States. Their numbers have been substantially declining in recent years. A study has shown that the loon population in Wisconsin has decreased by 22% over the 27 years leading up to 2020.viii

The study found that loon chick body mass, and the number of loon chicks had fallen dramatically, such that the number of immature (not yet breeding) loons had declined by 46% in 27 years.

A study published in the journal “Ecology” has shown that loon populations in Northern Wisconsin are declining due to a decrease in water clarity caused by an increase in heavy summer rains, which in turn have been caused by climate change.ix The heavier summer rains cause more material to wash into lakes, making the water murkier. Loons are sight-predators, and decreased water quality makes it more difficult for them to catch fish for themselves and their young. This has led to underweight, unhealthy loon chicks, many of which die before reaching adulthood.

FLYING SQUIRRELS

There are two distinct species of flying squirrels in Wisconsin – Northern Flying Squirrels and Southern Flying Squirrels.

A 2020 study by the Natural Resources Institute of the University of Minnesota – Duluth has shown that the northern end of the range of southern flying squirrels is moving north by as much as 12 miles per year.x Meanwhile, the northern flying squirrels are being driven north, and are now listed as a “species of concern” by the states of Wisconsin and Michigan.xi

SNOWSHOE HARES

Snowshoe hares are also known as “northern varying hares.” These relatively large hares reside in Northern Wisconsin and other northern states. The Pauli Lab of the University of Wisconsin – Madison reports that the southern end of the range of the snowshoe hare in Wisconsin has receded north by over 18 miles since 1980 and that this range reduction has been caused by a lack of snow cover.xii Snowshoe hares are brown colored in the summer, and white in the winter. As the snow season decreases, they are increasingly left with

white coats at a time when they need to be brown to be camouflaged to avoid excess predation. This has led to a reduction in numbers in the southern part of their range.

MOOSE

Moose are present in Minnesota and Upper Michigan and are occasionally seen in Wisconsin. The reintroduction of 59 moose to the Upper Peninsula in the 1980’s spurred hope that the species might become plentiful in the U.P. again. Some hoped that moose would migrate south and redevelop a permanent herd in Wisconsin.

Unfortunately, the moose population in Michigan seems to have topped out in the range of 400-500 animals, with the population not having increased from 2019 to 2023.xiii It is not entirely clear why the Michigan moose population has plateaued and why not enough moose have migrated to Wisconsin to establish a stable population here. The situation involving moose in Minnesota, however, may be instructive regarding the moose in Michigan and Wisconsin.

The moose of Minnesota have been in serious decline, and that decline has been studied. Between 2006 and 2017, the moose population of Minnesota declined by 58%.xiv There are two distinct populations of moose in Minnesota, one in the northeast and one in the northwest. The population in the Northwest has declined from a one-time 4000 animals to 100 animals by the year 2000.xv Although there are multiple reasons for the decline of moose in Minnesota, one of the causes is an over-abundance of ticks, caused by warmer winters and longer summers.xvi Colder weather used to kill ticks. Warmer temperatures mean that many more survive the winter to become parasites on moose and other animals. A study in the State of New Hampshire found that 70% of moose calves there were dying, with most deaths being caused by ticks.xvii

PLANT POPULATIONS

The contiguous 48 United States is divided into 12 plant hardiness zones. The United States Department of Agriculture develops maps showing the zones.

These temperature-based maps allow gardeners and others to determine what plants they will be able to grow.

The 1990 pant hardiness map, based on data from 1974-1986, placed Rhinelander Wisconsin in hardiness zone 3.xviii In 2012, Rhinelander Wisconsin was in hardiness zone 4a, with average coldest winter temperatures of between -30 and -25 degrees Fahrenheit. By 2023, Rhinelander became part of hardiness zone 4b, with average coldest winter temperatures between -25and -20 Fahrenheit.xix

If this trend continues, the make-up of the plant communities of Northern Wisconsin will likely change. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a bulletin titled “What Climate Change Means for Wisconsin.”xx That bulletin indicates:

“Changing the climate is likely to shift the ranges of plants and

animals. For example, rising temperatures could change the

composition of Wisconsin’s forests. As the climate warms, the

populations of paper birch, quaking aspen, balsam fir, and black

spruce may decline in the North Woods, while oak, hickory, and

pine trees may become more numerous.”

Anticipating the disappearance of its northern boreal forests within 50 years, the State of Minnesota has been planting tree species that previously thrived 150 miles south of where they are now being planted.xxi

SUMMARY

Wisconsin was once home to moose, caribou, and lynx. Those animals were extirpated from our state long ago. Extirpated animals can be reintroduced, but only if the habitat is amenable to their existence. If the warming trend continues, will it ever be possible to reintroduce caribou, moose, or lynx to our state? The answer is quite likely “no.”

Worse, if temperatures keep increasing at the current rate, will we even be able to maintain populations of the plants and animals that now occupy Northern Wisconsin?

What will Northern Wisconsin look like in 50 or 100 years? Will there still be black spruce swamps or stands of birch and aspen? Or will we have forests similar to those that currently exist in Southern Wisconsin?

Will our streams still contain the beautiful brook trout? Or will they have been replaced by non-native brown trout or bass? And in the streams not amenable to brown trout spawning, will trout populations have to be maintained through the expensive stocking of inferior hatchery-raised trout?

Will we have lakes with abundant self-sustaining walleye populations where we can hear the cries of loons in the evening? Or will there be silence as the sun sets on lakes devoid of wild walleye? Will the walleye population even be able to be sustained by the use of expensive fish hatcheries?

Will there still be occasional moose sittings in Wisconsin? Will we still see northern flying squirrels? Will we still have snowshoe hares, or will the Northwoods be strictly cottontail rabbit country?

Hopefully it is not inevitable that Wisconsin’s north will change so that our forests will become unrecognizable, our lakes will become murky, and the iconic fish and other animals of the North will be only a fading memory. Time will tell.

i https://blog.limnology.wisc.edu/2018/04/12/study-confirms-walleye-populations-are-in-decline/

ii https://limnology.wisc.edu/news-events/newsletters/study-says-hidden-overharvest-from-fishing-plays-a-role-in-wisconsin-walleye-declines/#:~:text=Embke%20was%20the%20lead%20author,currently%20use%2C%E2%80%9D%20she%20says.

iii https://news.wisc.edu/walleye-struggle-with-changes-to-timing-of-spring-thaw/

iv https://www.wpr.org/animals/study-climate-change-boosting-some-wisconsin-trout-hurting-others#:~:text=Warmer%20summers%20hurt%20brook%20trout,for%20both%20species%20of%20trout.

vi https://wi101.wisc.edu/wolf-river/

vii https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Lands/FisheriesAreas/2740upperwolfriver.html

viii https://tomahawkleader.com/2024/05/09/northwoods-loon-population-in-decline/ ix https://abcnews.go.com/General/climate-change-threatens-loon-population-new-study-shows/story?id=109092273

x https://nrri.umn.edu/news/flying-squirrels

xi https://www.lccmr.mn.gov/projects/2023/approved_work_plans/2023-090_approved_workplan.pdf

xii https://pauli.russell.wisc.edu/climate-change-and-snowshoe-hares/

xiii https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2023/06/19/michigan-moose-population-down-dnr-does-not-recommend-hunting/70335766007/

xiv https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/new-research-u-m-sheds-light-decline-minnesotas-moose-population#:~:text=Minnesota's%20moose%20population-,New%20research%20from%20the%20U%20of%20M%20sheds%20light,decline%20of%20Minnesota's%20moose%20population&text=Minnesota%20saw%20a%2058%25%20decline,state%20between%202006%20and%202017.

xv https://www.sdstate.edu/news/2023/08/whats-behind-minnesotas-moose-population-decline

xviii https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/01/long-overdue-plant-hardiness-map-hothouse/

xix https://apps.npr.org/plant-hardiness-garden-map/

xx https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-wi.pdf

xxi https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minnesotas-northwoods-on-the-brink-heres-whats-being-done-about-it/

County Supervisors Promote Mining Despite Public Opinion

P&D Committee's pro-mining language in Comp Plan just part of County's history of ignoring public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OCCWA Reference:

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

Goal 6: Allow for necessary metallic mining through the County’s non-metallic mining and metallic mining exploration, bulk sampling, and mining ordinance while balancing the interest of County residents to comply with state laws.

Welcome to Oneida County Clean Waters Action