Welcome to Oneida County Clean Waters Action
Exploring the issues that affect our rivers, lakes and ground water.
The Impressive Snapping Turtle
JoAnne Lund's Oneida County Clean Water Minute
A few weeks ago, while paddling the Wisconsin River, I had an exciting experience—a large Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) swam alongside my kayak before gracefully diving beneath me! There’s something truly impressive about these ancient, mud-loving creatures.
What is it about Snapping Turtles that captures your imagination? Is it their impressive size (up to 45 pounds), their large heads and long tails, their powerful, clawed limbs, or perhaps their formidable jaws, which they use to ambush prey?
Despite their fearsome appearance, Snapping Turtles are actually unhurried and unassuming animals. They prefer shallow, slow-moving waters with muddy bottoms, where they can bury themselves and remain hidden. While they typically avoid humans when in the water, they can become defensive and aggressive on land, where they feel more vulnerable.
It’s fascinating to think that today’s Snapping Turtles have remained relatively unchanged for 215 million years. Like other turtles, they lay eggs, but the survival rate of their eggs and juveniles is quite low. Up to 90% of nests are destroyed by predators such as raccoons, skunks, foxes, and mink, often within the first night. However, once Snapping Turtles reach adulthood, they have few natural enemies.
Beyond their impressive appearance, Snapping Turtles play an important role in controlling and maintaining balance in populations of fish, waterfowl, invertebrates, and even some plants. By taking small steps to protect these ancient reptiles, we can ensure their survival for generations to come.
- Keep an eye out for Snapping Turtles and other turtles during June, as this is when they are on the move to find nesting sites.
- If you see a turtle crossing the road, assist it safely in the direction it’s heading. For Snapping Turtles, I recommend using a shovel to encourage them to cross, as handling them by their tails can seriously injure them.
JoAnne Lund is an ecologist and naturalist living in Oneida County. She thrives on kayaking, back-country skiing and nature photography.
Setting Knowles Nelson Record Straight
Gathering Waters, Wisconsin's Alliance for Land Trusts provides facts on Knowles Nelson Program.
Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Claims About the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program
Wisconsin's Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program has been a cornerstone of our state's conservation efforts for over three decades, protecting precious natural resources while providing outdoor recreation opportunities for all Wisconsinites. If you hunt, fish, hike, ride bikes, or just enjoy a picnic outside, Knowles-Nelson has worked for you. And that’s why more than nine out of ten voters support continuing the program. Recently, Senate President Mary Felzkowski, in a Facebook video, made several claims about the program that deserve a close look. Policy debates should always be grounded in accurate information.
The cost of Knowles-Nelson
Senator Felzkowski claims that Wisconsin spends "over 1.5 million per week" on the stewardship program, presenting this figure as cause for alarm. First, this exaggerates the actual cost by approximately 20%. The weekly debt service for Knowles-Nelson is actually about $1.23 million.
More importantly, this figure lacks context. When we break down the true cost, the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program costs each Wisconsin resident less than $11 per year—just 21 cents per person per week. This modest investment has yielded extraordinary returns in protected lands, clean water, and outdoor recreation opportunities.
Knowles-Nelson costs pale in comparison to other debts the state carries. For example, Wisconsin's debt service for transportation infrastructure costs $1.21 million per day—nearly six times more than our weekly investment in conservation.
Bonding is how governments finance long-term purchases, just like when one of us buys a house. If an investment has a high upfront cost but provides benefits for a long time (think paving roads, building schools, or purchasing land), then it makes sense to spread the cost out over the life of the investment. That’s what bonding does.
Most importantly, Wisconsin is in excellent financial condition, carrying less debt than at any time in the past 25 years. There are no legitimate concerns about our state's debt load that would justify scaling back this successful program.
Wisconsin's Public Land: Behind the Curve, Not Ahead
Senator Felzkowski suggests that Wisconsin already has plenty of public land, claiming that "approximately 20% of all land in Wisconsin is publicly owned." This figure is inflated. The actual percentage of public land in Wisconsin is just under 17% and includes federal land as well as conservation lands owned by the state, local governments, and nonprofits. The difference between 17 and 20 percent is bigger than it may seem at first. Three percent of Wisconsin’s land is more than one million acres. Less than that has been conserved in the entire 35 years of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.
Far from having "enough" public land, Wisconsin actually trails behind both the national average of 25% and our neighbors Michigan and Minnesota. Wisconsin's conservation efforts have been comparatively modest, making continued investment in the Knowles-Nelson program all the more important.
Restoring, Not Eroding, Checks and Balances
Perhaps most concerning is Senator Felzkowski's characterization of the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in the case Evers v. Marklein. She claims that Governor Evers' lawsuit "seriously damaged the relationship between the legislature and the stewardship program" and resulted in "an erosion of checks and balances."
This turns the court's ruling on its head. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision that crossed ideological lines, ruled that the legislature had grossly overstepped its constitutional authority. The court found that anonymous objections by individual legislators violated the separation of powers enshrined in our state constitution.
The court recognized that once the full legislature appropriates funds through the budget process, individual legislators cannot anonymously block those expenditures. This decision restored constitutional governance, not damaged it.
Oversight Remains Strong
Senator Felzkowski's claim that stewardship funds now constitute "a blank check for Governor Evers" is simply false. The Department of Natural Resources operates under extensive statutes and administrative rules that govern Knowles-Nelson. Rigorous applications, appraisals, and strict limits on the kinds of projects that can be funded all direct the DNR’s work. And the legislature retains full authority to modify these rules at any time through the normal legislative process.
Senator Pat Testin and Representative Tony Kurtz, recently introduced a bill to update the Knowles-Nelson statutes and provide new guidance for the program. The bill has not received a committee hearing in the senate. As Senate President, Senator Felzkowski is uniquely empowered to advance such legislation and restructure the program.
The Truth About "Vanishing" Acres
The claim that "120,000 acres of stewardship land has literally vanished from the DNR records" is misleading. No land nor records have vanished. What happened was a significant, but correctable, administrative error on the part of the Department of Natural Resources.
The Department of Natural Resources discovered that it had incorrectly attributed some land acquisitions to the Knowles-Nelson program when those purchases were actually funded through other sources. All public lands remain protected. The issue is how those purchases are coded in the DNR database.
It's worth noting that years of legislative budget cuts have forced the DNR to operate with antiquated computer systems, contributing to such record-keeping challenges. This doesn't excuse the error, but it highlights the importance of adequate funding for basic administrative functions.
Rhetoric vs Legislative Record
Senator Felzkowski states that she is "focused on maintaining the public land Wisconsin currently has." However, her actions suggest otherwise. During her tenure, the legislature has consistently underfunded state parks and land management accounts, creating an enormous backlog of maintenance needs. The very Knowles-Nelson program she criticizes would provide crucial funding for maintaining and improving our existing public lands under the bill introduced by Rep. Kurtz and Sen. Testin.
Legislators who prioritize maintaining our public lands should support robust funding for the programs that make such maintenance possible.
Moving Forward Together
Wisconsin's natural resources are indeed a critical asset, as Senator Felzkowski correctly notes. Our forests, lakes, trails, and parks support a thriving outdoor recreation economy worth more than $11 billion annually.. They provide hunting, fishing, hiking, and countless other opportunities that enrich the lives of Wisconsin families.
The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program has been remarkably successful for over 30 years, enjoying broad bipartisan support throughout its history. Rather than mischaracterizing its costs and operations, we should be working together to ensure this vital program continues to serve Wisconsin's conservation needs.
Charlie Carlin
Director of Strategic Initiatives
Gathering Waters: Wisconsin’s Alliance for Land Trusts
Team Knowles Nelson Update
Consider supporting Knowles Nelson Program, protector of Wisconsin’s land, water, and wildlife.
Team Knowles Nelson June 12, 2025-
You have all worked so hard to speak up for Knowles-Nelson and to tell legislators that we want to find a pragmatic path forward for the program. Now, we're facing a critical situation that requires immediate action.
Legislation Stalled
As part of the legislative process to renew Knowles-Nelson, Assembly Bill 315 was introduced last week. Legislators planned to pass this policy bill first and then fund Knowles-Nelson in the budget.
Hundreds of you spoke up in support.
But, almost as soon as it was introduced, the bill stalled. The Senate has not scheduled a public hearing and time is running short.
Here's the problem: Without the policy bill advancing, it's our understanding that legislators do NOT intend to fund Knowles-Nelson in the budget.
Funding Will Lapse
If Knowles-Nelson is not included in the state budget, funding for the program will lapse. While the program technically expires June 30, 2026, most Knowles-Nelson grant funds have already been awarded. Land trusts and local governments are planning applications for fiscal year 2027 and beyond. A lapse in funding means an uncertain future for conservation work across the state.
There is a Solution...
The Joint Finance Committee can extend funding for Knowles-Nelson -- even for a short time -- to create space to continue the policy discussions later this summer and into the fall.
Take Action RIGHT NOW
Please, contact your legislators and Joint Finance Committee members immediately. In just a few clicks you will deliver a strong message to your legislators and all members of the Joint Finance Committee.
Ask them to renew funding for Knowles-Nelson in the state budget.
The future of Knowles-Nelson will be decided in the coming days. Together, let's ensure that Knowles-Nelson continues to work for Wisconsin.
Charles Carlin
Director of Strategic Initiatives
Gathering Waters: Wisconsin's Alliance for Land Trusts
Share your support for Knowles Nelson Program at: Take Action – Knowles Nelson Stewardship
Concern for Federal Funding of Forests
Wisconsin Council on Forestry crafts letter in response to potential federal forestry actions.
By Eric Rempala June 2, 2025- In response to questions about federal budget threats, the Wisconsin Council on Forestry sent an advisory letter to Governor Tony Evers, Senator Romaine Quinn, Chair - Senate Committee on Rural Issues and Forestry and, Representative Jeff Mursau, Chair - Assembly Committee on Forestry, Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
In the letter which can be viewed here: COF_Federal Impacts Final.pdf the Council addressed many issues including their deep concerns about federal funding and staff cuts. The excerpt below highlights those concerns.
"The Wisconsin Council on Forestry continues its focus on recommending and promoting efforts to support healthy, resilient, and productive forests amid increasing threats. We recognize and appreciate the acknowledgement of the Council's work, and the essential budgetary considerations needed to support these endeavors in the 2025-’27 Executive Biennial Budget. While the federal policy and budget mechanisms are very much in flux, we are deeply concerned about how funding and staff cuts will impact Wisconsin’s ability to support our forests and the vast environmental, social, and economic benefits they provide."
A year ago, OCCWA had the honor of being invited by the Council to share our experiences promoting the Pelican River Forest Project. At that meeting we found the Council led by Chairman Tom Hittle and Vice-Chair Matt Dallman to be extremely focused and capable of managing the states forests in a sustainable manner. Hopefully federal funding will continue supporting their efforts.
We also found it interesting that the Council in their letter shared the Wisconsin's Green Fire paper, "Forests at Risk". In fact, they went so far as to include the link WGF_2024_OppsNow_Forests_final.pdf to the paper in their letter. This is not hard to understand though, as Green Fire has been and continues to be a leader in non-profit environmental resource analysis in our state.
What is the impetus for the state's and councils' concerns?
Well concerns of the Trump administration fast-tracking reviews of logging projects in Wisconsin seems to be at least one of the motivating factors. In an April 10th article from WPR Trump administration will fast-track reviews to ramp up logging in Wisconsin - WPR reports that the Trump Administration will be speeding up environmental reviews on projects in the Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest (CNNF). An excerpt from the article states:
"The Trump administration is speeding up environmental reviews of logging projects on more than half of the country’s national forests, including parts of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin."
There are questions if speeding up the process is even necessary considering that the current process seems to be working while protecting Northwoods values. A quote in the article from Ron Eckstein a Northwoods resident and forester states:
"Ron Eckstein is the co-chair of the public lands and forestry work group for Wisconsin’s Green Fire. He said he doesn’t think existing federal regulations are too burdensome for loggers. “We can produce the timber we need to produce. We can protect against wildfire using the (National Environmental Policy Act) process and Endangered Species Act and still produce forest products yet, protecting all the other values of the national forests, like wildlife, watershed, recreation, including timber,” he said. Eckstein noted the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is already one of the top timber-producing national forests in the country. The forest sold around 125 million board feet in fiscal year 2024. The Forest Service sells an average of 3 billion board feet each year nationwide."
This is a situation that bears monitoring. Hopefully current protections in place for woods, water, wildlife, and way of life will not be diminished. The CNNF is a source for many clean watersheds in Wisconsin. It is incumbent on Northern Wisconsin residents to continue to practice responsible stewardship.
PFAS, Wave Boats, and Moving Away from Northwoods Lifestyle
Legislators listening session has few answers other than supporting County's pro-development.
By Kathleen Cooper May 26, 2025- Wisconsin State Senator Mary Felzkowski and Assemblyman Rob Swearingen held a series of "listening sessions" during this past month. The sessions were well attended and covered many issues affecting the residents of Northern Wisconsin. At the Rhinelander session on May 6th, it became apparent that the Senator's vision for the future of the Northwoods, and what the people who live and work here want, may be two very different things.
The first topic discussed was the PFAS crisis in the Northwoods, particularly in Stella, but also in Rhinelander. $125 million was budgeted 2 years ago by the Wisconsin Legislature to aide in remediation, but that money has not yet been released by the Joint Finance Committee. A dispute between the Governor and the Republican Party about who is an innocent landowner and the DNR's ability to hold those not innocent accountable is the cause of the money not being distributed. When asked about this, Senator Felzkowski blamed Governor Evers for vetoing Republican authored bills that he thought would not allow the DNR to hold industry polluters responsible. The Senator also shifted blame to the DNR for continuing to allow sludge to be spread on fields in Oneida County.
In the listening session, it was brought to the legislator's attention that though she and State Representative Swearingen did attend the initial town of Stella/DNR PFAS meeting, they failed to attend either of the two following meetings. Since the discovery of PFAS in Stella, the Wisconsin DNR has provided folks with bottled water, helped pay for well-replacements, and filter installations to help people get clean drinking water, but there have been drawbacks. Newly elected Stella Town Chairperson Casey Crump told Felzkowski and Swearingen that some of the new wells are testing positive for PFAS and maintenance on the in-home PFAS filters can cost up to $600 every few months. In a quote from WXPR article Wake boats, housing, and PFAS among top concerns brought up in Northwoods listening session | WXPR Chaiman Crump stated:
“They can't sell their homes, obviously, because they don't have clean water, so nobody's going to buy it. They're living off the bottled water. How long will that last? Who knows. When you live your life around this, bottles for brushing my teeth, this bottles for this, this bottle for this, it's pretty tough. I've got quite a few citizens out there that have some real concerns,” said Crump.
Another hot topic was Wake Boats. Senator Felzkowski contends that if a bill is introduced with wake boat restrictions that protect the lakes in northern Wisconsin, it would cause an increase in traffic on the state's southern lakes. Therefore, any bill to protect our lakes, she stated, won't get the votes needed to pass from downstate legislators. It seemed like the interests of wake boaters and wake boat manufacturers were more important to her than the science behind the recommended restrictions to keep our northern lakes healthy.
It was during a discussion about the lack of public-school funding in Northern Wisconsin that we saw the Senator's true vision of the future of the Northwoods. She said that the problematic state formula for funding Wisconsin public schools was not the problem. Rather, declining enrollments were the cause of the funding crisis in Northwood schools. She dismissed placing any blame on the dilution of public-school funds by private school vouchers. Instead, she said that we need to "economically reinvest" in the Northwoods to bring in young families and increase enrollments in the schools. In a quote from the shared WXPR above Senator Felzkowski stated:
“That means you're going to have an influx of business. You're going to have an influx of people, and you're going to kind of lose the pristine Northwoods, to a certain extent. Your zoning cannot be one house every 40 acres. It cannot be one house every 10 acres. And those are harsh realities,” said Felzkowski."
One has to question the Senator's vision of a developed Northwoods, where the natural resources that we know, love, and enjoy are exploited and replaced with sulfide mines and urban sprawl with smaller lot sizes. Our water is clean, our air is clean, and our forests provide sources of income and well-being to our residents. A thriving economy depends on industry, but it should not come at the expense of our natural resources. If all our land is privatized and developed, we will be just like anywhere else, only colder, and we will lose what makes this place special. We will also lose our tourism dollars- the $291 million in yearly visitor spending, the $381 million in economic impact and the support of over 2,100 jobs, and the $1,459,500 in sales taxes from visitor direct spending (21% of the total sales tax collected by Oneida County).
Our forests and bodies of water provide so much more than income. Living in a natural setting like ours is a gift that people in urban areas don't have. The physical benefits of living here include improved cardiovascular health, increased physical activity, boosted immune systems, better sleep quality, and faster recovery from illness. The mental health benefits are reduced stress and anxiety, improved mood and emotional well-being, enhanced cognitive function, and reduced risk of psychiatric disorders. Maybe our "Wisconsin nice" is because we have so much access to nature here. I'd like to think it is.
What do you think? How would you like to see the Northwoods 20 years from now? Would you like to see mines razing our forestlands and polluting our water? Public lands sold off and developed, driving off wildlife? Budget problems solved by exploiting nature while holding back money already designated to help? Or do you want to continue to fish, hunt, hike, ATV, snowmobile, boat, and bike? When you look out your windows do you want to see forests and lakes, or see subdivisions, Cul de sacs, clear cuts, and barrenness? At night, do you want to see the stars or light pollution? Humans have a tendency not to appreciate what they have until after it's gone, and when our water and forests are destroyed, we will never get them back. Please step outside, take a breath, and look around. It doesn't get much better than this.
Knowles Nelson Programs Value to County
Oneida County property owner shares letter sent in support of Knowles Nelson Program funding.
May 19, 2025
Dear Oneida County Board Member,
The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program is a rare bipartisan success story in Wisconsin. For decades, it has protected our natural resources while boosting local economies across the state. Investments through the program have enhanced public lands and outdoor infrastructure, drawing tourists, increasing property values, and supporting local businesses like sport shops, hotels and restaurants.
Communities such as Rhinelander, Lake Tomahawk, Minocqua and Three Lakes benefit from amenities funded through Stewardship which has enhanced local parks raised the quality of life. It’s one of the reasons people want to visit and live here.
In recent years, the focus of Stewardship has shifted from land acquisition to upgrading and maintaining state land infrastructure—much of which is aging and underfunded. Wisconsin’s state parks face over $1 billion in deferred maintenance. Most Wisconsinites don’t realize that in 2015, taxpayer support for state park operations was eliminated, making Wisconsin one of the only self-funded state park systems in the country. Much of the infrastructure still in use today was built in the 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corps and is now in need of repair or replacement.
Outdoor recreation is a cornerstone of Wisconsin’s economy, contributing more than $10 billion annually to the state’s GDP—growing nearly twice as fast as the overall economy over the past decade. The sector supports nearly 10,000 manufacturing jobs and fuels our $25 billion tourism industry. Yet Wisconsin ranks dead last in state park funding per visit—trailing even Mississippi and Texas.
Despite the program’s proven success, the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program faces ongoing political and financial threats. Though many of its subprograms require a 50% local match—effectively doubling the state’s investment—funding remains inadequate. We need to consider sustainable alternatives to long-term debt funding, such as: Using part of the state’s surplus to retire debt and establish a permanent endowment; Adopting a State Parks Passport program, modeled after Michigan’s, which triple what the WI park sticker does, Allocating a small percentage of sales tax revenue to conservation efforts.
Wisconsin spends only $19.6 million annually on its state parks—far less than neighbors like Minnesota and Michigan, which invest $70–$90 million. And it shows. Visitors encounter crumbling bathrooms, outdated septic systems, unsafe trails, and closed facilities due to disrepair. Many families rely on public lands for affordable access to nature, recreation, and mental well-being—they can’t afford private cottages or land.
The Stewardship Program is essential to Wisconsin’s environment, economy, and quality of life. A recent 2025 New Bridge Survey found that 91% of voters support continued funding—including 80% of Republicans and MAGA-aligned voters. Voters also view legislators more favorably when they support Stewardship.
Please vote to support Stewardship on Resolution 28-2025 at the May 20 Board meeting. As the state legislature begins its budget deliberations, we urge Oneida County Board Members to recognize the enormous value of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program brings to our area. The Stewardship Program has invested in conservation and outdoor recreation projects throughout Oneida County including boat landings, park facilities, and recreational trail development, expanding public recreational opportunities for residents and visitors.
As the state legislature commences budget deliberations, we respectfully encourage Oneida County Board Members to acknowledge the significant benefits provided by the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program. This program has greatly enhanced the quality of life in our region.
Michael and Karen McFadzen
Public Land Liquidation Sale?
Congressional Republicans work to sell off thousands of acres of our lands.
By Tom Wiensch May 15, 2025- Where have you gone Teddy Roosevelt? Our nation turns its tired eyes to you. With apologies to Paul Simon, where has the spirit of President Theodore Roosevelt gone, and who in the Republican Party will step up and assume his role as American conservationist during a time when it seems like nearly everything is for sale?
I write these words a few days after returning from a visit to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The park, in Western North Dakota, is a fitting tribute to one of America’s greatest conservationists. The Little Missouri River runs through the park and past the site of Roosevelt’s ranch. All of this is set a beautiful landscape of hills, sagebrush, and cottonwood and juniper forests. The Park itself is set in the Little Missouri National Grassland, and together they contain immense opportunities for recreation.
In 1907, President Roosevelt (R) said
“The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others.”
He was right. If we don’t protect the air, water, and land that we depend on, nothing else will really matter.
During his presidency, Roosevelt played a major role in the creation of the U.S. Forest Service, and signed into law the creation of five national parks. He was also instrumental in establishing 150 national forests as well as bird and game reserves. Using executive orders he protected about 150 million acres of land.
The national parks may be the crown jewels of our national lands, but the National Forests and Bureau of Land Management lands make up a larger portion of our national treasure. Those lands provide recreational opportunities such as camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, and many others for millions of Americans. They also provide land for logging and grazing. Together, those recreational and other activities pump an untold amount of money into local and regional economies – FOREVER.
At least most of us thought it was forever. After all, who would want to rid us of the treasured lands that provide such recreational and economic benefit? Well, as it turns out, maybe a committee ruled by members of Teddy Roosevelt’s former party wish to do just that.
The Republican led House of Representatives has been working toward creating a budget bill. In the early morning hours of May 7th, one house committee stepped into the process, working to get approval to sell off many thousands of acres of our public land. That Committee is the House Committee on Natural Resources. It has 25 members from the Republican Party and 19 members from the Democratic Party. A member of that Committee is Wisconsin’s Representative Tom Tiffany. There are several subcommittees under that committee, including the subcommittee on Federal Lands. The website for the Committee describes the role of the subcommittee as:
“The Subcommittee on Federal Lands is responsible for all matters related to the National Park System, U.S. Forests, federal lands, and national monuments.”
There are 9 members of the subcommittee. Every one of them is a Republican. The chair of the subcommittee is Representative Tiffany. Early on May 7, members of the committee pushed forward a bill to sell nearly a half-million acres of our public lands. The Conservation Group Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) had these things to say about that move:
“(BHA) is condemning a late-night maneuver that sidestepped stakeholder engagement and ignored conservation impacts. Just before midnight, members of the House Natural Resources Committee advanced an amendment authorizing the sale of upwards of 500,000 acres of public lands in Utah and Nevada. The surprise provision was opposed by all Democratic members of the committee and Representative Jeff Hurd (R-CO).”
And
“The amendment, inserted into the reconciliation bill without adequate time for analysis or committee-wide consultation, would use the relatively minimal revenue generated from the land sales as negligible offset to a budget expected to reach almost $7 trillion – circumventing the intent of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), a bipartisan law BHA supports and worked to make permanent.”
The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) is a law that requires that proceeds from the sale of BLM lands be placed in a fund and used to purchase other lands which have been identified as having high conservation or recreational value. The amendment by the Committee seems to represent an attempt to dodge that bipartisan law and decrease the amount of land that belongs to all Americans.
BHA further reported that the amendment attempts to cause the following:
- -Changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that could limit environmental review and weaken safeguards for public access, wildlife habitat, and water quality
- -Rollbacks to land management plans affecting millions of acres across the West
- -Cuts to conservation funding for federal land management agencies
- -Amendments to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) that risk undermining protections for key landscapes like Alaska’s Brooks Range
- -Reversal of a 20-year mineral withdrawal from the Superior National Forest in Minnesota that threatens conservation of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness”
Outdoor Life Magazine reported that, during the night of May 6th and the morning of May 7th, House Democrats offered many amendments to the land sale provisions. The Republicans who control the house allowed there to be debate on none of them.
Outdoor Life further reported:
“The bill, one part of the House budget reconciliation package, would require nearly every acre of federal land to be available to mineral leasing, approves a controversial mine near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters, requires energy leasing in much of Alaska’s North Slope, and forbids lawsuits challenging public-land development. The bill claws back funding from land-management agencies while requiring them to approve logging, coal mining, and creation of a controversial water project in California that critics say would impair one of the state’s last free-flowing rivers.”
The magazine also reported that the ranking Democrat on the Committee, Representative Jared Huffman of California, called the bill “the most extreme, anti-environment bill in American history.”
If the House passes a budget bill with these provisions in it, many thousands of acres of our land will apparently be sold off, mining will likely be allowed to happen in many very environmentally sensitive areas such as the Superior National Forest in Minnesota, and protection of our lands and waters from polluters will be severely diminished.
Thinking of my visit to the national park named after President Theodore Roosevelt with its wild bison and magnificent landscapes, I wondered if it could be sold. I also thought about all the national parks, forests, and other public lands that I've visited and considered whether any of them might be sold. Then I asked myself, what would Teddy Roosevelt think?
Please consider contacting Representative Tiffany and letting him know that you don’t want the public lands that belong to all of us to be sold. After all, the proceeds from those sales will get quickly spent and then be gone. If we keep the land, it will provide recreation, forestry, grazing, and money for area economies – FOREVER
Congressman Tiffany contact link- Contact | Representative Tom Tiffany
Loon Watch's Final Year at Northland College
Waldo and Mercer Lake resident hope for program continuing at new venue next year.
By Wendy Kraly, May 11, 2025 - I wanted to share Waldo’s story as a part of Loon Appreciation Week. It all started around June 1st 2024, while watching our Mercer Lake resident loons Lucy and Ricky in our bay, I noticed a couple of black balls of feathers perched on Lucy’s back. I ran up to grab the binoculars, and upon zooming into a closer view, two little heads became visible. Lucy and Ricky were proud parents! It had been a few years since we had two chicks on our lake, so I decided that I was going to do all that I could to protect these little miracles on water.
I got out in my kayak almost every day during peak boating activity with my binoculars to keep eyes on the chicks at a safe distance. In mid-July, one of the chicks became a wanderer, so we started asking everyone, “Where’s Waldo?”. We named the other chick Wanda, who usually stuck with Mom or Dad, but Waldo loved to explore every inch of the lake.
At the end of the summer on a stormy August day, I spotted Waldo on his own, as per usual, and Mom with Wanda were across the lake. I paddled to viewing distance with my binoculars. Waldo swam parallel to me and glanced over. He started to run and tried to lift off, but didn’t make it, so he swam back to his starting point and began to run across the water…this time, taking off! He circled around and flew right over me, then went over Mom and Wanda, continued to circle one more time, finally ending with a smooth landing across the lake. A couple of minutes felt like a couple of hours. I was in AWE… I can’t explain it, but I felt a strong connection to Waldo, and it was as though he was giving me a beautiful message at that moment, ‘Thanks for watching over me. See I can fly! I will be okay!’
Please be on the lookout as loon chicks will hatch soon. As you venture out on the water, be watchful. Loon babies are so small that they may drown from the wake of any watercraft.
This year’s Loon Appreciation Week Poster illustrates one lucky loon’s survival from lead poisoning and fishing line entanglement. Please share his story in the hopes it will encourage more people to take a stand on protecting wildlife and cleaning up our waters. A few simple tips can be taken to prevent unnecessary and avoidable painful deaths:
- Avoid using lead fishing tackle.Switch to non-poisonous alternatives such as tungsten, steel, bismuth, pewter, ceramic or tin.
- Never leave fishing lines unattended and properly dispose of discarded lines.
Sadly, Northland College, the home of Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute’s Loon Watch, will be officially closing its doors at the end of this month.
However, Loon Watch is holding Loon Ranger training this weekend and will hopefully find another place soon to continue their very important work.
Enhanced Wakes Legislation on Horizon
Last chance for residents to weigh in on enhanced wave restrictions is here.
By Eric Rempala May 11, 2025- The latest Enhanced Wave rumor is indicating that an industry backed proposal is on the horizon. Senator Felzkowski has stated that she’s asked groups opposed to and in favor of wake boats to meet on May 28th to find a compromise that everyone can agree to.
As you may or may not know, over a year ago Senator Felzkowski and Representative Swearingen proposed a woefully inadequate Enhanced Wave Bill sponsored by the Boating Industry. Not only were the restrictions on how far from shore and what depth a Wave Boat could be operated ridiculously low, but there was also a ban on local ordinances being more protective than the state limits set by the legislature's bill.
Residents of Vilas and Oneida Counties at that time sniffed out the legislators rushed attempt to appease the industry and overwhelmingly opposed the bill. Hundreds of residents packed listening sessions in Eagle River, Minocqua, and Rhinelander to voice their concerns. The result was the bill being pulled for reconsideration.
Fast forward to one year later, and the newest information on wave boats from the latest Felzkowski/Swearingen listening session in Rhinelander on May 6th came back mixed.
In a quote below from WXPR's article Wake boats, housing, and PFAS among top concerns brought up in Northwoods listening session | WXPR it appears the legislators finally got the message on not blocking locals' ability to be more protective of their lakes.
“The legislation will ensure local control with no limitations on it. We are looking at the spreading of invasives. We are looking at public safety, and we are looking at distance from shore,” Felzkowski said."
Less promising is Senator Felzkowski's convoluted explanation on why legislators in the southern part of the state should influence our Northwoods Glacial Lake protections. a second quote from WXPR's article stated:
"Senator Felzkowski told those at the listening session, one of the biggest problems with getting lawmakers to agree to legislation is the distribution of lakes in the state.She says if they put too big of restrictions on it that wake boaters are limited to the larger lakes in the southern half of the state, then the lawmakers that represent those districts likely won’t vote in favor of it."
It sounds like legislators down south with bigger lakes able to host wave boats with minimal impacts want lower state restrictions to lessen the number of boats on their lakes regardless of the damage smaller lakes may incur.
Though the details and timeline for the new bill are not decided, the time to reaffirm support of a more protective bill is now. If you were not able to attend any of the recent local listening sessions, and have not weighed in yet, you may still send your legislators a gentle reminder not to bring back a bill straight from the boating industry again.
Call or send your emails to:
Senator Felzkowski Contacts
Email Sen.Felzkowski@legis.wisconsin.gov
Phone # (608) 266-2509
Representative Swearingen Contacts
rep.swearingen@legis.wisconsin.gov
Phone # (608) 266-7141
As of 4/28/2025, OCCWA is one of a 76 organization coalition throughout the state with widely varying political ideologies that support the creation of minimum state standards for water sports activities employing enhanced wake creation techniques such as ballast, fins or other wave-shaping devices, and bow-up artificial wake creation. The coalitions agreed upon recommended standards are below.
Recommended Minimum State Standards Due to the large number of lakes and rivers in Wisconsin and the diversity of municipalities in which they reside, State-wide minimum standards will provide a modicum of protection for one of our State’s greatest assets while providing recreational opportunities for all users. The minimum standards that this diverse coalition recommend are as follows:
1) Enhanced wake creation activities shall only occur 700 feet or more from a lake and river shoreline or island shoreline.
2) Enhanced wake creation activities shall only occur at water depths in excess of 30 feet.
3) Ballast systems must comply with DNR regulations NR19.055 and NR40. All ballast systems are subject to the “Home Lake Rule”, requiring thermal decontamination by a certified individual before launching and owner certification paperwork for single-lake use. Boats must be professionally decontaminated when relocating to a different lake or river and receive accompanying paperwork. Furthermore, any anti-freeze in ballast tanks must be fully purged before a boat enters a Wisconsin lake or river. These regulations take effect one year after enactment.
4) Local units of government shall continue to have the right to enact ordinances more restrictive than these State minimum standards when necessary to fully protect the waters under their jurisdiction. Any currently existing local ordinances that are stricter than these state minimums shall be allowed to continue to be in effect.
Local Legislators Ignoring PFAS Problem?
By listening session, email, or phone, it's time to hold local legislators accountable on PFAS.
By Eric Rempala April 24, 2025- It's time for Oneida County residents to speak up for themselves and their neighbors affected by PFAS. It's time to find out who carries more weight, constituents or lobbyists. With Wisconsin's current budget process ongoing, there's no better time to join the discussion. Most importantly, with multiple upcoming listening sessions scheduled by local legislators there's no reason not to participate in the process.
Perhaps you might like to ask Senator Felzkowski and Representative Swearingen why they have failed to attend the last two DNR/Town of Stella PFAS meetings?
Both the Senator and the Representative did attend the original DNR/Stella meeting on January 19th, 2023, but passed on the two subsequent meetings in August of 2023 and May of 2024. Maybe nothing of consequence has happened in the 2 years and 2 months since the first meeting on contaminated water in their districts?
Maybe you just want them to share with you all they have done on PFAS so far and what are their plans for the future?
Senator Felzkowski and Representative Swearingen will be hosting listening sessions across the 34th Assembly District, which covers Vilas and Oneida Counties.
All are welcome to attend listening sessions, and pre-registration is not needed. Listening sessions are a time for respectful discussion of state government and the budget process, to express concerns, and to ask questions. Individuals who are not respectful and attend with the intent to cause a disturbance will be asked to leave.
Listening sessions will be held at the following times:
Manitowish Waters
May 5th, 10:00am-11:00am
Town Hall - 5733 Airport Rd, Manitowish Waters, WI 54545
Minocqua
May 5th, 3:00pm-4:00pm
Town Hall - 415 Menominee Street, Minocqua, WI 54548
Eagle River
May 6th, 11:00am-12:00pm
City Hall - 525 E. Maple St, Eagle River, WI 54521
Rhinelander
May 6th, 2:30pm-3:30pm
City Hall - 135 S. Stevens St, Rhinelander, WI 54501
Consider the State of Wisconsin's PFAS Failures
The State of Wisconsin has done a poor job addressing PFAS financial relief, investigation, and remediation for affected communities. It is appalling that more than 7 years ago the town of Marinette was discovered to have PFAS contamination, and the legislature has yet to secure an effective financial commitment to address the problem.
It is equally appalling that the legislature has failed to hold corporate polluters financially responsible for their mess. It's high time Legislators stop pandering to corporate lobbyists such as Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) and come up with a plan with their constituents as the priority. WMC who by the way, according to PBS Wisconsin, reported spending more than $700,000 on lobbying in 2024. Who spent the most money in 2024 to lobby Wisconsin lawmakers?
Recommendations to Legislators for your consideration.
Oppose Senate Bills SB 127 and SB 128 as written.
Senator Wimberger’s proposed Senate bills, SB 127 and SB 128, are the latest PFAS-related proposals before our state legislature.
There are two reasons for opposing SB 127 & SB 128, the first being the bills don’t appropriate the funds the legislature set aside two years ago for PFAS clean up. In other words, "yes, we have the money and no you can't have it".
The second reason is that these bills have too broad of a definition of “innocent” landowners that could extend exemptions to corporate entities. One would think that most people do not consider corporate PFAS polluters as innocent. Surely, there is a commonsense definition of an innocent landowner that the Legislature and the Governor can agree on rather than force taxpayers to pay for clean-up of corporate PFAS pollution.
Support the two current Governors budget proposals below, pertaining to PFAS.
1) Budget proposal.
Support $725.9 million in revenue bonds that will fund state match requirements and expand loan opportunities through the Drinking Water Loan Program and the Clean Water Fund Program. This critical investment will support much-needed drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure across Wisconsin.
2) Budget Proposal.
$143.6 million for the DNR to support PFAS monitoring and remediation across Wisconsin. This will provide support for sampling, research, public health interventions, emergency response, and disposal activities.
Considering the PFAS contamination in the town of Stella as well as the yet to be discovered contamination elsewhere in our county, one can't imagine how a legislator could oppose these proposals.
Support suspending the REINS Act from the DNR process of promulgating PFAS standards for groundwater.
For more than seven years the state of Wisconsin has fumbled the ball on setting health-based PFAS standards for groundwater which is a main source of drinking water for all of Oneida County.
It is a fact that the REINS Act, a 2017 law prevents agencies from working on regulations without legislative approval if compliance costs go beyond $10 million in any two-year period. For years now, the Wisconsin REINS Act has prevented the DNR from setting groundwater PFAS standards which directly apply to Oneida County and Town of Stella residents who get their water via wells. There have been past overtures to the legislature to waive the REINS ACT for PFAS standards to no avail.
The legislature must remove the enforcement of the REINS Act from the process of the DNR promulgating PFAS Standards. Unless of course, the Legislature would instead choose to approve compliance costs above $10 million in two years related to PFAS groundwater standards promulgation. It is not acceptable for the state of Wisconsin with its significant PFAS problems to not have a PFAS standard for groundwater.
Can't attend any of the listening sessions? No problem!
Call or Email with your concerns to:
Senator Felzkowski Contacts
Email Sen.Felzkowski@legis.wisconsin.gov
Phone # (608) 266-2509
Representative Swearingen Contacts
rep.swearingen@legis.wisconsin.gov
Phone # (608) 266-7141
To sign on to a petition requesting legislators set PFAS standards on groundwater visit https://conservationvoters.org/action-alerts/take-action-groundwater-standards
Concern for Climate Change in Northwoods?
Climate Action and the Quiet Majority: What Northern Wisconsin Lakes Need Us to Know.
By Beckie Gaskill April 22, 2025 (Photo Credit Len Hyke) - Here’s something you might not expect, especially in today’s political climate: most people worldwide—a whopping 80 to 89 percent—want their governments to do more to tackle climate change. That’s not fringe. That’s not even 50/50. That’s nearly 9 out of every 10 people. If 9 of 10 people recommended a certain pub for a fish fry, would you take that recommendation? For sure!
But here’s the kicker: most of those people believe they’re in the minority when it comes to concerns over climate change.
It’s a phenomenon called the “false consensus effect”—and it’s the driving force behind the 89 Percent Project, a global initiative that shines a spotlight on this silent supermajority and encourages folks to speak up, act out, and push policy forward.
And up here in Northern Wisconsin, where the health of our lakes defines so much of our lifestyle, economy, and identity, we cannot afford to stay quiet.
What’s at Stake: Climate Change and Northern Wisconsin’s Lakes
Our lakes are more than just pretty postcards. They’re complex ecosystems, economic engines, and places where families make memories—whether it’s early-morning paddles, late-night loon calls, or a kid’s first bluegill on the line. We all have special memories on and around the lakes we love.
But climate change is threatening all of that, and in very specific, very local ways.
Warming Waters and Fish Stress
Cold-water species like walleye and cisco are under pressure. As lakes warm, their preferred habitat shrinks—and sometimes disappears altogether in the hottest months. This affects not just the fish, but the entire food chain around them.
More Algal Blooms
Warmer temperatures and more frequent intense rainfall events increase nutrient runoff from shorelines and roads. This fuels algal blooms, including harmful blue-green algae that can shut down beaches and make water unsafe for people and pets.
Disrupted Ice Cover
We’re seeing shorter ice seasons and thinner ice, which throws off everything from lake stratification (the way water layers) to safe ice fishing. Those changes ripple through aquatic ecosystems—and through communities that rely on winter tourism. Most of us in the Northwoods have seen some strange ice conditions, or lack thereof, in the past few years. We are starting to truly see the effects of the variability in ice- on and ice-off dates on our lakes.
Invasive Species Love the Chaos
Many invasive aquatic species thrive in warmer, more disturbed systems. As native species struggle to adapt, invasives like Eurasian watermilfoil or zebra mussels find more room to spread—and do damage. Species that have been knocking on our proverbial door could easily find that door opening wider with climate change looming.
The Real Majority Is Us
Here’s the wild part: most people care. Most people want their government to take stronger action to protect places like these. But because we’re all quietly thinking, “Am I the only one who feels this way?” we don’t speak up. We don’t push for bold policies. We don’t demand protection for the lakes we love.
That’s what the 89 Percent Project is trying to fix. It’s a reminder that you are not alone, and that change is more possible than we think—especially when we realize we’ve already got the numbers on our side.
What You Can Do in Oneida County
- Talk about it. Let your neighbors know how much you care about clean water and climate action. Conversations change culture.
- Support lake associations and conservation efforts working on shoreline restoration, runoff prevention, and invasive species control.
- Encourage local leaders to adopt climate-resilient land use and zoning practices that protect lakes long-term.
- Vote with water in mind. Support candidates who back science-based climate policies and clean water protections.
---
Let’s make the silent majority the unstoppable majority. Our lakes are worth it. And the truth is, we don’t need to wait for someone else to speak first—we are the 89%.
Beckie Gaskill
Freelance journalist- FLaG Media
Midwest Conservation on Substack
Trout Lake Station Studying Northern Lakes
More than meets the eye at this Northwoods University of Wisconsin research center.
By Susan Knight April 16, 2025- In the 1920s, E.A. Birge, a zoology professor whose career focused on zooplankton, retired as president of the University of Wisconsin and refocused on founding the new discipline of Limnology, or the study of inland waters. Birge was drawn north to establish Trout Lake Station (TLS) on the shores of Trout Lake in Boulder Junction. He invited other professors, graduate students and assistants to this new facility to study the chemistry, physics, and biology of the Northern Highlands lakes.
Trout Lake Station moved from its original location to its current home on the south end of Trout Lake in the 1960’s but is still dedicated to studying our northern lakes and training the next generation of lake scientists. Trout Lake Station is the northern laboratory of the Center for Limnology and is the sister facility of the Hasler Lab, located on the shore of Lake Mendota on the UW-Madison campus. There are 9 full-time staff at TLS but that number swells to about 30-40 visiting researchers in summer, including faculty, graduate students and undergraduates from UW-Madison and other institutions across the US.
Over the years, there have been many research projects at Trout Lake Station. A key project has been the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program. Since the early 1980s, researchers have been sampling and studying seven nearby lakes, sampling every two weeks in the open water season and monthly during winter. This effort has provided over 40 years of consistent and publicly available data on water quality, plants and animals and other aspects of lake life. The data are helpful in finding patterns and detecting change over time and providing a robust platform for many other research projects.
For example, shortly after the program was started, rusty crayfish invaded Trout Lake and slowly made their way around the entire shoreline. From routine crayfish sampling and plant surveys, we could see how the progression of the crayfish decimated the plant population. But, in the last few years, there has been a reversal, as the crayfish succumbed to a parasitic disease (studied by one of our visiting researchers) and the plant populations have rebounded.
Ongoing and past projects include an investigation of why walleye are declining in area lakes, the effect of rainbow smelt on lake fisheries, how climate change might disrupt the timing of seasonal changes in the lake, why wild rice is declining in so many area lakes, how trees are affected by lake water levels and many others.
Trout Lake Station is committed to sharing our research through outreach efforts. We hold an annual Open House where we highlight the current research projects, have a display of common aquatic plants and invertebrates and offer pontoon rides to demonstrate some of our sampling gear. Our monthly science café, Science on Tap-Minocqua, held at Rocky Reef Brewery, brings in scientists from UW-Madison, and other organizations to talk about a variety of science topics, with plenty of time for audience questions. In winter, we host students from area schools to sample lakes through the ice and learn about limnology. We have an ongoing art and science program encouraging visiting artists to interact with scientists and bring new dimensions to our science.
Trout Lake Station is an exciting place to work or visit, and we hope to see you at our next Open House on August 1, 2025.
Trout Lake Station website: Trout Lake Station Welcomes Our New “Wisconsin Idea” Lakes Limnologist – Center for Limnology – UW–Madison
Comp Plan Power Grab More Than Environmentally Costly?
Bureaucratic expansion, and expensive litigation is possible with overreaching Comp Plan language.
By Tom Wiensch April 8, 2025- The Oneida County Planning and Development Committee has written a draft of a new Comprehensive Plan for the County. Comprehensive plans act as local governments’ guides to development. Although they do not directly serve as land use regulations, certain land use regulations, including zoning regulations, must be consistent with comprehensive plans. The plans, which address development, land use, agriculture and nature resources, relate to clean water issues and other environmental issues.
The Committee’s plan includes the requirement of “coordination.” This concept is sprinkled through the document. Examples of how it is used include:
“All land use planning processes, including on all federal and state land, and lands utilizing federal or state funding and including any and all guidance, executive, or other mandated actions, shall coordinate with the county and towns . . .”
“All state and federal agencies and lands utilizing federal money shall coordinate with Oneida County’s comprehensive plan for all land planning and management activities on state and federal lands within the jurisdiction of the county. . .”
“Notification, consultation, and coordination with the county is required at the earliest time possible for any land planning and/or proposed action by state and/or federal agencies, or nonprofit organizations, or for any change in existing activities, newly permitted activities, or changes in regulations that may affect the economic basis of the county.”
“Oneida County requires that all federal and state agencies and lands utilizing federal, or state funding coordinate any land use activities with the county and impacted towns, in compliance with applicable federal and state laws and purposes of those laws with the County.”
These are just a few examples of the use of “coordination” in the plan. The plan seems to attempt to give the County veto power over how the State and Federal Governments and private landowners use their lands.
This language raises number of serious questions, including at least the following:
Isn't this what zoning codes are for? Since the County already has a zoning code that addresses land use in detail, why would it want to superimpose on that a broad requirement to “coordinate” land use decisions? Will there be a clash between ordinary zoning and “coordination”?
Is there anything in the law that allows counties to dictate to the state and federal governments how they use their lands? If so, does the law grant the extensive kind of power to counties that this plan seems to require?
Is there anything in the law outside of the formal zoning process that allows counties to force landowners to coordinate with them about the use of their private lands?
Assuming that there is some basis in law to force landowners to coordinate their decisions with counties, does Oneida County really wish to impose such a burden on landowners?
Would Oneida County even want to force all landowners to coordinate their land use decisions with the County? Does the County have sufficient resources to handle such bureaucratic expansion and do so in an even-handed manner without creating troublesome precedent? Will this result in a need to add staff, hold more meetings, or become involved in expensive litigation?
Why would the county treat non-profit entities different from for-profit entities. Is there a legal basis to do that?
Given that county zoning ordinances (including shoreland and wetland zoning) must be consistent with comprehensive plans, how much will the existing ordinances have to be rewritten, and how will the rewrites affect County zoning as it now exists?
About fifteen years ago, the concept of coordination came to the County. In that iteration, instead of creating comprehensive plans, three towns sent “notices of coordination to the County.” Wisely, the County asked for an Attorney General’s opinion on the matter. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a formal opinion. In it he stated that the question he was answering was:
“Does the use of the word “coordination” in various Wisconsin statutes dealing with municipal planning by itself impose affirmative duties upon certain municipalities that are in addition to any other affirmative obligations that are imposed under those statutes?”
Attorney General Van Hollen’s answer to that question was a resounding “No.”
Quite a lot of taxpayers funded resources were expended on “coordination” before that answer was obtained. Now, the County is attempting to require coordination by private landowners, the State of Wisconsin, and the United States Government.
Landowners and taxpayers should hope that the P&D Committee members have carefully considered the consequences of what they are suggesting. Hopefully the County will proceed in a conservative and cautious manner and rely on solid legal advice before attempting to create some kind of broad veto power over land use.
Conservation an Afterthought in Comp Plan
P&D Committee's proposed Comprehensive Plan changes veer off Northwoods traditional path.
By Eric Rempala April 4, 2025- In a difficult to follow and disjointed 2-year process, the Oneida County P&D Committee has proposed extensive changes to the county's Comprehensive Plan, with the end result being less emphasis on conservation and a lot more on extraction and development. These changes could have impacts on not just private land, but also could affect county, state, and federal lands. Though there are many other examples of P&D proposed language changes to take issue with, I'll concentrate the American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) language and concepts that the Committee is proposing to add to the plan.
First of all, who are American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) and what is Coordination?
The American Stewards of Liberty are a Texas-based group that has opposed land and water conservation, and advocates for natural resource exploitation. They promote mineral mining, increased grazing, timber cutting, for-profit commercial and industrial development, and oil and gas drilling on Federal lands. They spin their message as being about freedom and personal choice, about confronting the “radical environmental movement". Despite that messaging, they have opposed the rights of landowners in Nebraska to place conservation easements on their land. One wonders if they realize that 80% of voters nationwide support land conservation.
If you want to understand how ASL has become involved in Oneida County, the Wisconsin Examiner article Anti-conservation group works to influence land use policy in three northern Wisconsin counties • Wisconsin Examiner is a must read. A quote from the article shares ASL's ideology of "coordination".
"At the center of ASL’s ideology is the idea of “coordination,” a discredited legal theory which holds that any conservation efforts that use federal or state dollars require the approval and “coordination” of local governments. Similar to constitutional sheriffs who believe they’re the ultimate arbiter of which laws to enforce within their jurisdictions, ASL promotes the idea to county officials aiming to prevent conservation projects."
Does Oneida County want to control how Federal Land is managed?
In an article by High Country News, Counties use a ‘coordination’ clause to fight the feds - High Country News . It explains how placing this "coordination" language in a Comprehensive Plan might lead to a county believing they can control what happens on federal land. A quote from the article likens the coordination efforts to a Sagebrush Rebellion.
"Many groups, including environmentalists, try to influence land management with scientific research and alternative management proposals, but policy experts say that the coordination movement has a distinctly anti-federal government flavor — a Sagebrush Rebellion in bureaucratic clothing, with links to state efforts to take over federal lands. Coordination proponents are “essentially arguing a county would have veto authority on federal land decisions,” says Martin Nie, director of the Bolle Center for People and Forests at the University of Montana. And federal officials, who interpret “coordination” very differently, fear it’s stoking more conflicts than it resolves by misinforming locals."
Below is the P&D's newly proposed Goal 4 "Coordination" language that the Committee added to their proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The addition of Goal #4 was added to the plans Land Use Chapter 7. The Goal 4 language came directly from Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director of Great Lakes Timber Professionals. At a recent P&D meeting that he attended, Mr. Schienebeck indicated that GLTPA has over 20 directors on its board, and that he worked with a committee to prepare these recommendations. He indicated that Senator Tom Tiffany, Lakeland Times writer Richard Moore, and Margaret Byfield of the Texas based group “American Stewards of Liberty” (ASL) were involved.
"Goal 4:
Coordinate all state and federal agencies with a presence in Oneida County regarding all state and federally owned land planning activities.
Objective:
• All state and federal agencies and lands utilizing federal money shall coordinate with Oneida County’s comprehensive plan for all land planning and management activities on state and federal lands within the jurisdiction of the county, to ensure consistent and harmonized policies across the three levels of government.
• Notification, consultation, and coordination with the county is required at the earliest time possible for any land planning and/or proposed action by state and/or federal agencies, or nonprofit organizations, or for any change in existing activities, newly permitted activities, or changes in regulations that may affect the economic basis of the county. Consultation and coordination with the county is necessary to determine the full scope of potential social and economic effects of proposed activities. The county considers that consultation and coordination must include all impacted towns on all forest management issues.
Policy:
• Oneida County requires that all federal and state agencies and lands utilizing federal, or state funding coordinate any land use activities with the county and impacted towns, in compliance with applicable federal and state laws and purposes of those laws with the County."
Is this how the County would attempt to control projects or activities on both state and federal land? Would it mean mining and vast unsustainable forestry projects? The County, and in particular the P&D Committee, has been a poor judge of public opinion when it comes to mining. Could we expect them to consider public opinion in controlling public land?
Is P&D Committee considering taking away property owners' rights to place easements on their land?
Is the P&D Committee using ASL language to restrict property rights? Well, with newly proposed P&D Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 Natural Resources policy language (below), again, one has to wonder.
"Chapter 2: Natural, Agricultural, and Cultural Resources
Policy:
Discourage the conversion of existing privately owned lands to public lands using federal, state, and local tax dollars to purchase existing MFL lands or purchase easements over them. Reducing the tax base in perpetuity is antithetical to the interests of county residents and gives up local control."
What type of easements is the P&D looking to discourage? Well, an example of such an easement might be like those The Conservation Fund placed on land they owned to create the Pelican River Forest. Those easements prioritized economically sustainable forestry and enhanced public access to 70,000 acres of forest just north and west of Rhinelander. Could the County actually be looking to take away a property owner's right to put an easement on their land? Is that even possible?
Apparently so, at least in Nebraska. An excerpt from the American Stewards of Liberty website Oklahoma Bill Gives Local Governments Authority to Deny Conservation Easements - American Stewards of Liberty states:
"Oklahoma State Senator Casey Murdock (R) has filed Senate Bill 980 that gives local governing authorities the ability to approve or deny a conservation easement placed on private land within their jurisdiction. The bill is similar to the Nebraska Statute 76-2,112(3), which gives counties this same authority. Many counties in Nebraska have recently used this provision to deny easements they find conflicts with their local comprehensive plan."
Time is running out for Towns and the public to give input on the proposed Comprehensive Plan language.
The 60-day Oneida County Towns Comprehensive Plan review period ends April 27th. That will be the last day towns can share concerns or recommended changes to the plan. It would also be a good idea for any resident input to be given before this deadline.
After the April 27th deadline, the County will post a Class 1, 30-day notice for the Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing to take place sometime in June. The Public Hearing in June would be the best time for in-person testimony. You may also share emailed or telephone input for the Public Hearing if you cannot attend in person.
After all public comment is considered and any changes made the final Comprehensive Plan language will go to the County Board for approval. Most likely at the August County Board meeting.
To supply public comment by email, simply send your comments to the Oneida County Clerk at occlerk@oneidacountywi.gov
Remember to include your name and the address where you live as well as any properties you own in Oneida County. Ask for your email to be forwarded to the County P&D Committee.
The complete draft of the proposed Comprehensive Plan can be found at Oneida-County-DRAFT-Comp-Plan.pdf
A summary of changes made throughout the Comprehensive Plan process can be found at Oneida-GOPs-Summary-of-Changes-1.22.2025.pdf
The Future of National Forests in Wisconsin
Threat of privatizing public land for extraction coming to the Northwoods?
By Tom Wiensch March 18, 2025- The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest has played an outsized role in Wisconsin’s long history of forest products and recreation. After the early logging left much of Wisconsin a denuded landscape of stumps and sticks, great fires swept across the land. The most famous of these was the deadly Peshtigo Fire of October 8, 1871. It was far from the only fire in Wisconsin in that era though, and some of these fires burned so hot that they consumed the duff all the way down to mineral soil.
In the late 1910’s and 1920’s, land speculation companies purchased tracts of the former lumber company land. These companies tried to sell the land to families, advertising it as cleared farm land. Many families moved north, cleared huge amounts of rocks, and made a try at farming. Many found that the soil wasn’t amenable to much agriculture, the land was far from markets, and transportation was limited. Hosts of families lost their dreams and abandoned their land.
The question then became – What to do with these clearcut lands? The State and Federal Governments realized that something had to be done to protect and reforest these lands. The establishment of a National Forest was the answer. Counties had taken title to many abandoned lands by tax sales. They in turn sold the lands to our federal government. Starting in 1928, the Nicolet National Forest began to take shape in Oneida, Vilas and Forest Counties. Over succeeding years, more land was acquired. In 1933, the National Forest was separated into two- The Nicolet National Forest, and the Chequamegon National Forest (they were merged to become Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in 1998.)
The great cut of the early days was very different from the sustainable forestry that is practiced in the modern era. The great pineries were clear cut, leaving inadequate numbers of trees for seed sources. The huge swaths of hemlock were cut for bark to use in hide tanning, often with the wood being left to rot. Some species, such as aspen, could come back on their own. Others could not. Much planting had to be done. The Civilian Conservation Corp and others helped to replant the forests.
The result of the creation of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest was a miracle of multiple use land management. Generations of loggers have worked the Forest for wood products, while generations of the public have recreated in the Forest – hunting and hiking the lands, camping at National Forest Campgrounds, and fishing in the many public lakes and rivers in the forest.
Now, our National Government has changed in some fundamental ways, and many are asking what the future of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest will be. Meanwhile, certain special interest groups have opposed traditional conservation, fighting against easements that protect land, and in some cases calling for the sale of our federal lands. On March 10th, The Hill reported that President Trump pledged to use federal land for housing developments.
On February 26, 2025, Outdoor Life Magazine posted an article titled “How Seriously Should We Take the Sale of Federal Lands? Very Seriously, Experts Say.” The sub-headline reads “From the Trump Administration to Congress and even state legislatures, the movement to dispose of America’s public land is gaining traction.” The article notes that the newly appointed Secretary of the interior, Doug Bergum estimated the value of our federal land at one to two trillion dollars. He also noted that selling the land could be a way to pay down some of the national debt. The magazine also raised the question of whether federal lands will be sold to pay for the tax cuts that President Trump is proposing.
That Outdoor Life article also states:
“Meanwhile, one of the incoming Congress’s first acts was a rule change that relieves the House of Representatives of lost revenue if it gives federal land to states or other interests. That action “is intended to create the illusion that disposal of these lands does not come as a financial loss, streamlining misguided legislative proposals that benefit special interests over the American people,” observes Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.”
Outdoor Life also notes that there are efforts to get the courts to rule that it is unconstitutional for our national government to even own land, and that some state legislatures seem to be aiming to ask the federal government to turn over all or most federal lands to states. In fact, the Wyoming legislature recently took a vote on whether to ask the federal government to turn over to Wyoming all federal lands in the State, except Yellowstone National Park. That vote failed because the vote was tied.
In February of this year, U.S. Forest Service Chief Randy Moore resigned his position. The Wyofile website reports that his resignation came amid “resignations, layoffs, and turmoil” in the agency That article reports layoffs of huge numbers of Forest Service Employees in certain parts of the country. On March 5th, Wisconsin Public Radio reported that at least a dozen Forest Service employees in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest had already been fired.
Meanwhile, MSN recently posted an article from The Daily Yonder with a headline that read “Experts Warn Selling-Off Public Lands Could be the Goal Behind Dismantling of Public Agencies. Cited in that article is Michael Carrol, BLM Campaign Director of the Wilderness Society, who said that if federal land is turned over to states, “… it most likely would be sold off to developers.
In his memo to Forest Service Staff at the time of his resignation, chief Randy Moore wrote:
“Our agency’s work supports the nation’s wellbeing and its economy by providing community protection, jobs, goods and services and a place to retreat and enjoy nature’s beauty. Many small businesses generate their livelihoods through permits to operate on national forests and grasslands. We provide drinking water to over 80 million Americans. We also help provide energy independence to the nation, issuing nearly 3,000 oil and gas leases.”
The USFS website indicates that this memo was addressed to “All Staff.” Presumably that includes those who work in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.
What would it mean for Northern Wisconsin if the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest were sold for development and to fund tax cuts or debt service. It would mean a drastic decline in the forest industry in Wisconsin. Land that is fragmented and developed is not as available for logging as large tracts of land. This would also mean downstream effects on those who earn their living in the forest products industry, including paper mill workers, sawmill operators, truckers, and others.
Recreationally, this would change the face of Northern Wisconsin. If the land is sold, gone would be the systems of snowmobile and ATV trails. Gone would be the miles of public trout streams. Gone would be the wild, undeveloped lakes. Gone would be the vast lands where people can hike and hunt.
Certainly, those who could afford hunting parcels might still be able to deer hunt, but other kinds of hunting such as upland bird hunting, and some bear hunting require access to large amounts of land. Also, not everyone can afford recreational lands. Many people who hunt the national forests would simply be shut out. Gone would be the great egalitarian American tradition of access to wild land for hunting and outdoor recreation that vanished from Europe ages ago. Gone would be Northern Wisconsin as we know it.
All of the wonderful economic and cultural traditions of our National Forest would be destroyed, and for what? Housing developments? It’s not reasonable to believe that our housing needs can be satisfied out in the wilds of the Chequamegon-Nicolet Forest.
What about paying for tax cuts or debt service? The proceeds from selling off our public lands could be applied to those things. The thing is, once the money is gone, it is gone forever. On the other hand, if we keep our National Forests, money can be made from them by loggers, truckers and mills, resorts, restaurants, taverns, gas stations guides, and sporting good sellers forever. What prodigal son would use up our inheritance of the land for a quick pay off?
When it’s all gone, I suppose we could import more wood products from Canada. But what of our own Northern Wisconsin economy? Perhaps we could manufacture plastic “No Trespassing” signs.
Link to February 26th Outdoor Life article- How Seriously Should We Take the Sale of Federal Lands? Very Seriously, Experts Say | Outdoor Life
WPR March 19th coverage Timber expansion executive order could lead to more logging in the Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest | WXPR
OCCWA's Letter to County on Zoning of Mines
Opening mining up to over 70% of Oneida County while eliminating town input is unacceptable.
February 18, 2025- Below is OCCWA's letter to the Oneida County P&D Committee recommending zoning of mines should be returned to pre 2018 Mining Ordinance change.
Oneida County P&D Committee and County Board members,
Oneida County Clean Waters Action (OCCWA) would like to submit our concerns for the county's consideration pertaining to the additions of Metallic Sulfide Mining as a permitted use in zoning Districts 1A Forestry and General Use in Chapter 9 of the Oneida County Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance. Bear in mind that OCCWA has no resources to contract a lawyer and any opinions given are those of our group not that of a lawyer. We respectfully ask that that the P&D Committee and the county's legal counsel determine the validity of our presented concerns and consider reassessing the zoning changes mentioned above.
Initial Questions
Referencing Oneida County's Corporation Counsel's quote from 2018 article New mining ordinance, referendum passed - Northwoods Star Journal
"Some members of the public present at the meeting called for the old ordinance to be left alone, which would effectively leave an unenforceable ordinance on the books according to Fugle. He said that because state law had repealed the moratorium, the greatest danger would be a prohibition on mining in the event that the county was taken to court."
“Very clearly, the legislature spoke that mining is permitted in Wisconsin,” Fugle said.
Question #1) Exactly what reference is being cited by Mr. Fugle when he states the legislature spoke as far as what a prohibition on mining is?
Question #2) Since permitting mining in 1A Forestry and General Use allows mining as right in an estimated 70% of county land, how did the county decide that permitting mining on 70% of its lands somehow codifies the legislature's supposed requirements?
Question #3) Exactly what is the minimum percentage of land mining must be permitted on to not qualify as a prohibition according to the legislature?
Question #4) Does the legislature actually have a minimum requirement or was the 70% determined by the county?
Question #5) Does permitting mining as Conditional Use Permit rather than a permitted zone use fulfill the percentage requirement in determining a prohibition?
Question #6) Does allowing mining in any zone in the county by requiring the land owner to apply for a rezone in order to mine not fulfill the supposed percentage requirement in determining prohibition?
Less than on tenth of one percent inaccurate?
Referencing Oneida County's Corporation Counsel's quote from Northwoods Star Journal linked above.
"During the county board’s discussion of the ordinance, Assistant Corporation Counsel Michael Fugle said that to limit mining to districts zoned manufacturing and industrial would only account for less than one-tenth of one percent of the land in Oneida County. Based on that, mining companies could make an argument that mining was practically restricted, he explained."
Question #1) Why was it stated that mining was limited to only one tenth of one percent of Oneida County, when in fact mining was also permitted in all of the land in the towns of Sugar Camp, Enterprise, and Monico?
Question #2) Permitting mining in Sugar Camp, Enterprise, and Monico surely is a much greater percentage of Oneida County. Would this percentage not fulfill the supposed percentage requirement in determining prohibition?
Question #3) Though we clearly don't believe this inaccuracy was deliberate, would this fact not be a substantial reason to reconsider zoning changes that were made in 2018?
Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) language
Reference WCA website- 2018-final-mining-handbook.pdf
Excerpt from WCA mining handbook:
"1. Legal Standards for Zoning Ordinances. A zoning ordinance is an exercise of a county’s police power. Police power is defined as “the power to regulate for the advancement and protection of the health, morals, safety or general welfare of the community as a whole.”43 Zoning ordinances will be upheld when they are deemed a valid exercise of a county’s police power. As such, zoning ordinances must have a reasonable and rational relationship to the furtherance of a proper legislative purpose. Protecting the public from potential impacts of nonferrous metallic mining, particularly any environmental or health impacts, likely qualifies as a “proper legislative purpose.” Wisconsin Statute § 293.49(1)(a)6 anticipates a local zoning regulatory overlay and requires that a “proposed mining operation conforms with all applicable zoning ordinances.” Other sections of Chapter 293 reference local zoning considerations, thus contemplating and anticipating local zoning of nonferrous metallic mining. A zoning ordinance is unconstitutional when its provisions are clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, and have no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.44 Potential impacts of nonferrous metallic mining such as noise, dust, water quality and traffic usually have a substantial relationship to public health and welfare. As such, a comprehensive zoning ordinance that addresses public health concerns such as noise, dust, and water quality is more likely to withstand a constitutional challenge."
OCCWA Question: Doesn't the above language from WCA indicate that the county may use its Policing Powers to not allow an activity if it's doesn't protect the health, morals, safety and general welfare of the community as a whole?
OCCWA Question: Did the county settle on allowing mining in 1A Forestry and General Use in fear of an undetermined lawsuit, while dismissing a town's right of their rezone powers?
Also, an excerpt from WCA's mining handbook Q&A Page 10
WCA question: May a county explicitly prohibit nonferrous metallic mining in its zoning?
WCA answer: Perhaps. A county may explicitly prohibit nonferrous metallic mining in its zoning code, or it may effectively prohibit nonferrous metallic mining by not including it as a permitted use or a conditional use. Counties must also be mindful of equal protection issues. See Section VII/9 – Zoning Ordinances/Permitted Uses and Equal Protection below for more information.
OCCWA Question: Though we are not recommending an outright ban on mining, is it not interesting that WCA intimates that an outright ban may be possible?
Conditional Use Permit advantages
A conditional use permit (CUP) offers advantages over standard zoning by providing greater flexibility for landowners to use their property in ways not typically allowed by zoning regulations and enabling specific exceptions to zoning rules while still allowing local governments to control potential negative impacts through imposed conditions, often making it a simpler and more targeted alternative to rezoning the entire property. A conditional use permit (CUP) offers an advantage over standard zoning by providing flexibility to allow specific land uses that might not be permitted under typical zoning regulations, while still enabling the local government to set conditions to mitigate potential negative impacts on the surrounding area, making it suitable for projects like schools, hospitals, or religious institutions in residential zones that could be beneficial to the community when managed appropriately.
Key advantages of a CUP over standard zoning:
- Site-specific considerations: AA CUP allows for a case-by-case evaluation of a proposed land use, taking into account the unique characteristics of the property and its surroundings, rather than applying a blanket zoning rule.
- Mitigation of potential impacts:By attaching specific conditions to the permit, the local government can ensure that a potentially impactful development is managed in a way that minimizes negative effects on the neighborhood.
- Flexibility for beneficial uses:A CUP can enable necessary community facilities like schools or community centers to be permitted in areas where they might not be allowed under standard zoning, provided they meet certain criteria.
- Public input and review process:The application for a CUP usually involves a public hearing, allowing residents to voice concerns and providing an opportunity for the local government to consider community perspectives.
Important points to remember about CUPs:
- Not a guaranteed approval: While a CUP offers flexibility, it does not guarantee approval of a proposed land use; the applicant must still demonstrate that their project meets the established conditions.
- Potential for controversy: Due to the site-specific nature of a CUP, there might be concerns about favoritism or special treatment for certain developers.
- Administrative burden: The process of reviewing and approving a CUP can be more complex than a standard zoning permit, requiring additional staff time and resources.
OCCWA Question: Wouldn't permitting mining by way of Conditional Use Permit rather than permitted by zoning, reinstate a town's ability to give input by way of approving or denying a zoning change?
OCCWA Question: Why would the county want to take away a public hearing, allowing residents to voice concerns and providing an opportunity for the local government to consider community perspectives?
Wisconsin Supreme Court Eco-Site decision
The Fawn Lake Group who contested siting of a cell tower in the February 5th P&D meeting is worth paying attention to. The Fawn Lake Group cited the Eco-Site LLC v. Town of Cedarburg.
A quick google search revealed the information below.
In 2019, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the Town of Cedarburg's denial of a conditional use permit to build a cell tower. The case was Eco-Site, LLC v. Town of Cedarburg, 2019 WI App 42.
What happened?
- Eco-Site, a wireless infrastructure provider, applied to build a cell tower on private land
- The Town Board denied the application
- Eco-Site appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals
- The Court of Appeals upheld the Town's decision
Why was the decision upheld?
- The Board's decision was based on the tower's impact on the neighborhood's uses and lifestyle, as well as its economic impact on neighboring property values
- The decision was not based solely on aesthetic concerns
What does this decision mean?
This decision is important for municipalities that want to regulate cell tower siting. It shows that municipalities should consider non-aesthetic factors when granting cell tower permits.
OCCWA question: Is the allowed denial of a CUP siting of a cell tower not relative to the citing of a mine?
OCCWA question: Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a town may legally reject a CUP be it cell tower or mining, why wouldn't the county want to have that ability afforded to them?
Final recommendations
As the P&D Committee knows, Karl Fate and the OCCWA have for many years questioned the county's adding mining as a permitted use in Districts 1A Forestry and General Use during the 2018 rewrite of the County's Mining Ordinance. Our opinion has always been that limiting mining as originally allowed before the 2018 rewrite to only District 8 Manufacturing and Industrial would not be a practical ban/ prohibition on mining - as long as a company can petition for rezoning any land in question. By returning to original pre 2018 zoning the county will restore a town's ability be a part of the permitting process, thus ensuring local input once again.
Furthermore, we question the transparency of the County in waiting 6 years to reflect the changes made in 2018 to the Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance. Not making the changes to the Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance in 2018 when the Mining Ordinance was revised, made it very difficult for towns and residents alike to understand the power to approve rezone they lost.
The zoning changes the county made in the 2018 Mining Ordinance have opened up an estimated 70% of county land to mining. By using County Zoning Maps and guesstimating the percentage of towns' land that consists of 1A Forestry and General Use combined I came up with the estimated numbers below. In other words, what (estimated) percentage of town land is mining now permitted due to 2018 Mining Ordinance changes.
Estimated percentage of land mining is permitted for Oneida County towns: Cassian 25%, Crescent 90%, Hazelhurst 60%, Lake Tomahawk 15%, Little Rice 85%, Lynne 90%, Minocqua 75%, Newbold 80%, Nokomis 100%, Pelican 95%, Piehl 10%, Pine Lake 40%, Schoepke 98%, Stella 40%, Three Lakes 55%, Woodruff 70%, Woodboro 90%. Since the towns of Enterprise, Monico, and Sugar Camp are not zoned, it's understood that mining is allowed on 100% of their land.
Clearly some of these percentages are ridiculously high. Considering the results of the 2018 Oneida County Referendum where 62% of the county voted against a mine project in Lynne and measurable opposition to mining from the public in recent years, we believe that that zoning should be changed back to pre 2018 Mining Ordinance with mining being permitted only in District 8 Manufacturing and Industrial with the ability of landowners in all other zoning districts to apply for rezone for the ability to mine.
Additionally, we recommend the county enact changes to the proposed current Comprehensive Plan language related to mining, incorporating WCA's recommended language.
"As such, a comprehensive zoning ordinance that addresses public health concerns such as noise, dust, and water quality is more likely to withstand a constitutional challenge."
Adding this language to the Comprehensive Plan will reflect public opinion and only increase county's ability to withstand a constitutional challenge. Changing the current proposed language of
"Allow metallic mining through the County’s metallic mining exploration, bulk sampling, and mining ordinance while balancing natural resources, and the interest and safety of County residents and landowners to comply with state laws."
with
"Allow metallic mining through the County’s metallic mining exploration, bulk sampling, and mining ordinance while balancing natural resources, and the interest and safety of County residents including addressing public health concerns such as noise, dust, and water quality to comply with state laws."
We thank the Committee for soliciting our input.
Respectfully,
Eric Rempala
occwa.org
Take Action - public comments needed
If you are a resident or property owner in Oneida County and agree with OCCWA's position that mining should not be a permitted use in zoning districts 1A Forestry and General Use, please join us and respectfully voice your opinion.
Send your concerns to the Oneida County Clerk at occlerk@oneidacountywi.gov
In your message be sure to state your position, and that you'd like it forwarded to the P&D Committee. Don't forget to include your address of where you live as well as properties owned.
Will P&D See Forest for the Trees?
Pelican resident shares concern for P&D Committee's deviation from original values in Comp Plan.
By Ron Eckstein December 17, 2024-
To Members:
Oneida County Planning & Development Committee
Oneida County Conservation & UW-Extension Committee
Thank you for your service to Oneida County and for your important work updating the Oneida County Comprehensive Land Use Plan over the last year and a half.
The 2013 plan served the county well and in the past 12 years many new people and businesses moved into our area. What makes Oneida County an attractive place to live, and work is our way of life and our values. Those values include a commitment to our natural resources, clean water, abundant wildlife, recreation opportunities, and productive forests. We recommend Oneida County continue the 2013 policies that attracted those new people and businesses.
To be successful, the updated Comprehensive Plan must remain true to our values. Unfortunately, a comparison of the 2013 plan to the draft 2024 plan shows a dramatic move away from keeping our forests healthy, our wildlife abundant and our outdoor recreation diverse.
Of particular concern are recommendations from the Great Lakes Timber Professionals. We cannot understand why the timber professionals support fragmenting our forestland into small parcels. All research on forest management shows that forest management is not economically feasible on most small parcels in light of today’s large expensive logging equipment. In addition, landowners of small forest parcels are far less likely to conduct timber sales. Parcelization of larger blocks of forest result in fewer timber sales and the subsequent loss of forest productivity and wildlife habitat.
Another important concern is the recommendation to take away the property rights of private forest landowners. Some private landowners want to manage their land to promote sustainable forestry, wildlife habitat and maintain water quality. These landowners may choose to use private conservation easements or sell to a public agency.
The proposed changes are not in the public interest, do not represent our values and they degrade forest productivity, wildlife habitat, clean water, and our way of life. In addition, the recommendations appear to have been written by the American Stewards of Liberty, a Texas group.
Attached are research studies conducted by Wisconsin DNR’s Division of Forestry. Please read them to help understand the relationship between public land, private MFL land and the ability of towns and counties to provide vital services.
FR-833-Evaluating-the-Association-Between-Public-Access-Land-and-Local-Tax-Rates
FR-835-Timber-Sale-Impact-Estimate-for-the-Proposed-Pelican-River-Forest-Easement
FR-834-Economic-Impacts-of-Timberland-Conservation-Easement-Acquisition
Sincerely,
Ron & Jan Eckstein
Timber Group Gets Big Seat at P&D Meeting
Industry gets 4 hours to influence Comprehensive Plan while public gets 3 minutes.
By Eric Rempala October 24, 2024- The Oneida County Planning and Development (P&D) Committee continues to plow ahead with significant changes to the county's Comprehensive Plan, remember that the current actions are those of the P&D Committee only. The P&D Committee is comprised of five County Supervisors appointed by County Chairman Scott Holewinski.
P&D Committee Member Contacts:
When the P&D process is complete the public will have a chance to weigh in at a public hearing. After the Committe considers all public comment at the hearing, the finished product will be introduced to the County Board where a vote will be taken to approve or reject the newly proposed language. The public will get a final chance for comment before the vote at that County Board meeting. With all this in mind our staff at OCCWA has put together some things for our readers to consider.
The Oneida County Planning and Development Committee has been working on creating a new comprehensive plan for the County, a process which must be undertaken. Comprehensive plans are required under Wisconsin law, and must include a number of elements, among which are land use, agriculture and natural resources. Once a comprehensive plan is adopted, certain county ordinances, including general zoning and shoreland zoning must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Because of that, comprehensive plans have effects on such things as mining and shoreland and other development, which in turn affect water quality.
In the process of creating its plan, the Committee has received comments from the public. The Great Lakes Timber Producers Association (GLTPA) provided comments. A document titled “GLTPA Oneida County Land Use Plan Comments”, signed by Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director of the Great Lakes Timber Professionals (GLTPA) was provided to Oneida County Planning and Zoning Director Karl Jennrich. Mr. Schienebeck also spoke about the plan at a recent P&D Committee meeting.
GLTPA, which is headquartered in Oneida County, has a website which contains statements that read:
- “Our Mission Enhancing Multiple Use Forests for Future Generations”
- “Provides proven leadership in the Lake States Forest products industry for over 70 years. GLTPA is a non-profit organization proud to represent members in Michigan and Wisconsin and is committed to leading Forest Products Industry in sustainable forest management.”
GLTPA’s comments to the comprehensive plan include recommendations of language that GLTPA believes should be included in the plan. Some of the language that GLTPA recommends including is:
- 1. COORDINATION
- GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “All land use planning processes, including on all federal and state land, and lands utilizing federal or state funding and including any and all guidance, executive, or other mandated actions, shall coordinate with the county and towns and work to resolve all planning conflicts to the satisfaction of the county and towns prior to finalizing plans or other actions.”
- “Notification, consultation, and coordination with the county is required at the earliest time possible for any land planning and/or proposed action by state and/or federal agencies, or nonprofit organizations, or for any change in existing activities, newly permitted activities, or changes in regulations that may affect the economic basis of the county. Consultation and coordination with the county is necessary to determine the full scope of potential social and economic effects of proposed activities. The county considers that consultation and coordination must include all impacted towns on all forest management issues.”
- QUESTIONS – Does GLTPA believe that the County has the legal authority to control how the State of Wisconsin and the United States manage their lands?
- 2. PRIVATE LAND SALES
- GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Conversion of private property to public for nonprofit conservation purposes shall not be approved unless it is determined by the county that the long-term economic impact will be negligible.”
- QUESTIONS – Does GLTPA believe that the County has the legal authority to prevent private landowners from selling or gifting their land to the State or other governmental units? Shouldn’t private landowners have the right to sell their land to any willing buyer that they choose?
- 3. SHORELAND ZONING
- GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Shoreland restrictions can impair property rights and harm the local economy. All proposed shoreland policy shall be coordinated with the county and be consistent with the county comprehensive plan. County shoreland regulations cannot be more restrictive than state law and administrative code.”
- QUESTIONS – Does the County have the legal authority to require “coordination”? What does limiting shoreland protection have to do with timber production?
- 4. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
- GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Oneida County discourages the use of the MFL program in conservation easements. The two programs are inconsistent or at odds in their duration. The MFL program contracts are 25 or 50 years whereas conservation easements are established into perpetuity. The MFL program provides a mechanism for leaving the program. Reducing the tax base in perpetuity is antithetical to the interests of county residents and gives up local control.”
and
- “If there are new easements, require any new easements to sunset after 15 years. Allow renewal through an approved re-assessment of the easement’s compliance and compatibility with current conditions. Analyze all existing easements on public lands every 15 years for compliance and compatibility with current conditions, calling for extinguishment of the easement if it does not do so.”
and
- “All new conservation easements must contain a buyback provision in the contract, allowing the landowner to make the property whole if they have been negatively impacted by the agreement.”
- QUESTIONS – Why does GLTPA want the county to discourage all conservation easements on MFL land, when, in some cases, such as that of the Pelican River Forest Easement, conservation easements have been used to conserve land for forestry purposes? What authority does the County have to discourage or prohibit people from placing easements on their land? Shouldn’t private landowners have the right to place easements on their own land if they wish? Does the County have the legal authority to require private landowners to place length limits and buyback provisions in their private contracts? Why should county government intrude in private contracts in this way?
- 5. LAND LEASE LIMITATIONS
- GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Define forested lands as agricultural lands for legal purposes and impose the constitutional requirement for agricultural lands that all leases of such land should be 15 years or less.”
- QUESTIONS – Does the County have the legal authority to limit private landowner’s ability to lease their lands? Shouldn’t private landowners be allowed to choose the length of leases they enter into?
- 6. FLOODPLAIN MAPS
- GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Coordinate with FEMA to update floodplain maps with new technology.” and “All floodplain maps shall be updated in coordination with the county.”
- QUESTIONS - Does the County have the legal authority to control how a federal agency draws maps? What does this have to do with timber production?
- 7. MINING
- GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Pursue metallic mining through the county’s non-metallic mining and metallic mining exploration, bulk sampling, and mining ordinance while complying with state laws and balancing any projects with the interests of county residents.”
- QUESTIONS – What does this have to do with timber production? If anything, wouldn’t this have the potential to encourage land to be removed from timber production?
- 8. TRAILS
- GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Prohibit any further land acquisition or conservation easements for trail projects. Lease agreements must not run for more than 15 years.” NOTE – GLTPA recommends that this language be added to language which reads as follows: “Encourage the development of a comprehensive County-wide trail plan that includes facilities for hikers, bikers, ATVs, and disabled and elderly individuals and a system that ties together attractions and natural and cultural resources throughout the county.”
- QUESTIONS – Does the County have the legal authority to stop state or federal agencies, or private landowners from developing trails? What does preventing trail development have to do with timber production?
- 9. TRANSPORATION
- GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Evaluate the scope and existence of the Northwoods Transit System by subjecting the enterprise to a cost benefit analysis. At times, the system has been heavily underused, and an updated study should guide whether it is to be continued, and, if so, at what level of subsidy, if any.”
- QUESTIONS – What does this have to do with timber production?
- 10. ROAD PLANNING AND SAFETY, BIKE TRAILS, ETC.
- GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “ELIMINATE ALL OF THE ABOVE!”
- NOTE – The part that GLTPA recommends being removed reads:
- “Work with local governmental units to plan for a network of interconnected roads in planned development areas to control highway access, preserve rural character, and improve access to these areas. Space roadway access according to minimum standards to increase safety and preserve capacity. Support expanded bike accommodations on County Highways with resurfacing/reconstruction projects and additional off-road bike trails that use grant funding.”
- QUESTIONS - Is GLTPA against road planning and safety, and bike trails? Why? What do these things have to do with timber management?
- 11. LAND DEVELOPMENT
- GLTPA COMMENT – “defeats the goal to provide an adequate supply of developable land for the future. Such development may be desirable, depending on community needs, private landowner wishes, and the willingness and ability of developers to pay a fair share of infrastructure costs, which leads to the next policy: . . .”
- NOTE – This suggestion is in response to language that reads “Discourage sprawling, low-density development where there is no existing infrastructure and service capacity.”
- QUESTIONS - What does this have to do with timber production? Wouldn’t this type of development have the potential to remove timber lands from production?
Although not all of the examples above relate to water quality, they illustrate the breadth of GLTPA’s comments on the comprehensive plan.
At the recent P&D meeting that he attended, Mr. Schienebeck indicated that GLTPA has over 20 directors on its board, and that he worked with a committee to prepare these recommendations. He indicated that Senator Tom Tiffany, Lakeland Times writer Richard Moore, and Margaret Byfield of the Texas based group “American Stewards of Liberty” (ASL) were involved.
The ASL website speaks out against conservation easements and says that it trains local governments in a strategy called “coordination.” The ASL website also indicates that “ASL is the nation’s oldest property rights organization run by Americans steeped in the battle to protect this essential right.” The level of involvement of ASL in creating the GLTPA recommendations is unclear. It is clear, however, that by suggesting government restrictions on the sale, leasing, and other conveyance of private lands, GLTPA is suggesting that the County severely limit, rather than protect private property rights.
A bit over a decade ago, three towns in Oneida County sent “notices of coordination” to Oneida County instead of developing comprehensive plans. Ultimately, the Oneida County Corporation Counsel asked Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen to issue an attorney general’s opinion on the subject. One of the questions asked of Attorney General Van Hollen was:
- “Does the use of the word “coordination” in various Wisconsin statutes dealing with municipal planning by itself impose affirmative duties upon certain municipalities that are in addition to any other affirmative obligations that are imposed under those statutes?”
Attorney General Van Hollen’s answer was, ultimately “No.” Tax dollars and time had been expended putting forth these “notices of coordination”, which Attorney General Van Hollen ultimately said had no legal effect.
The questions now are:
- Why is GLTPA expending its resources advocating for governmental policies that, in some cases, have little or nothing to do with timber production?
- Will Oneida County have its legal counsel offer opinions on whether it has the right to adopt GLTPA’s suggestions, including suggestions to restrict the land use of the state and federal government, private organizations, and private individuals in the ways that GLTPA suggests?
- If Oneida County were to include “coordination in its comprehensive plan, would it have any more legal meaning than it did when the three towns sent notices of coordination in lieu of developing comprehensive plans?
Hopefully our elected county officials will adopt policies that are strongly grounded in the law, and that represent the wishes of the voters.
Note – The comments of GLTPA were too long (31 pages) to be included in this article in their entirety. Readers may be able to obtain copies of the written comments submitted by GLTPA from the Oneida County Planning and Zoning Department at Planning & Zoning – Oneida County, WI